If you do not need to do a Pan on a Zoomed out still, then the Frame Size of the Project would be the ideal size.
For doing batch Scaling, Photoshop is as good as it gets, and with Actions, one can do an entire folder of images in moments.
The sticking point with still images, that have already been Imported and used in a Project, is the replacement of those stills. I would do a Save_As for the Project, just to protect the original Project file. Then, Move the stills from the location, where they were linked from, and replace them with the Scaled stills, using the same exact file names. Premiere should then just follow the links, which will now be the Scaled stills. Do NOT Delete the original stills, but just Move them to a new, safe location, in case something goes wrong, and you need to revert to that original Project file, and Move those original stills back to their original location. Also note: if you have done any Effects>Motion>Scale, etc., you will need to remove those Scaling Effects, with the new Scaled images.
Hello. I'm creating a project in Adobe Premier using still images only. All the images I scanned are 4" x 6" and are 200 dpi. In the Adobe Premier project, they are getting cut off. When I go back into Photoshop, and re-size them to 72 dpi, they aren't cut off as much, but still a little bit. Certainly I'm not supposed to use an even lower resolution than that! Given that the help menu says it can support 4096 by 4096 pixels, what is wrong? Even when I look at my project in full screen mode, the images are cut off. I also tried the "fit" drop down menu from the preview screen, and I've selected "fit." The only way my images fit is if I select 20% or some such. Surely this can't be correct - an image that's only 4" by 6", at only 72 dpi, and 20% of that? Please help. Thanks so much.
DPI & PPI are meaningless in Video. What are the pixel x pixel dimensions of the images?
What is the Project Preset, that you have chosen?
If you are not doing Pans on Zoomed out images, I would match those two sets of numbers.
When you go into Photoshop, use the CROP tool instead of scaling or IMAGE SIZE
Set the crop dimensions to match your sequence pixel dimensions. For example, If you are doing NTSC DV, set the crop to 720 px by 480 px. If you use pixels, the resolution textbox is ignore. Use the crop tool on your image and same the resized image under a new name (to preserve your original).
Simlarly, if you are creating stills in photoshop, when you click on NEW, select VIDEO, and then select the video preset that matches your timeline--this will set pixel dimensions and pixel aspect ratio for you.
I would only suggest doing a Crop, if there are pixels that need to be removed. Image Size offers the ability to use any of the algorithms, and will maintain all pixels in the Image. Note, however, if the Aspect Ratio of the original Image does not match the Frame Size of the Video, there will be effective Cropping, by that Frame Size.
Image size is problematic if the proportions of the original image (eg 5 x 7) don't match the proportions of the timeline (eg 1440 x 1081).
Although the image size dialog does directly given the user the option of choosing the scaling algorithm, the user can set the default scaling algorithm in the EDIT PREFERENCES GENERAL dialog. Its my understanding that this preference is used for all scaling unless overridden.
What I usually do is the adjust the pixel ratio of the original before I do the crop. I have the sequence recorded in a Photoshop action.
You are correct about the Scaling algorithm setting in Edit Preferences. It's global, but can be changed. If the Aspect Ratio is not changed (if it is, THEN the Crop will be needed), the Image Size Scaling allows one to easily adjust the algorithm used, and the actual Image, plus its use, can dictate whether Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother or Bicubic Sharper is used. This is not a global setting, and only takes affect for that particular Scale operation, so it's easy to test for the ultimate result.
If the Aspect Ratio IS off, then I agree, Crop will be necessary, in either the Image editing program, or to be done, effectively, by the Frame Size in the Video Porject. Unless there is a compelling reason for not doing it in the Image editing software, I recommend that it be done there, as one is just pushing unnecessary pixels, and this increases the processing overhead in the NLE program.
You are most welcome.
While PrPro CS5, and above, has improved the Scaling algorithms greatly, there is still the overhead required to push a lot of unused and unseen pixels around. Even with CS 5.5, I still recommend doing the Scaling via a Batched Action, or a Script, in PS, so that the Video Project does not suffer overhead overload.
Funny, each time I get new camera equipment or software upgrades, my workflow is always changing. However, I can honestly say that using PS to resize my vacation shots and using some in PP5.5 is better than ever.
I go way back with this thread and wanted to say thanks to Bill and all the others for such great info, I follow the thread and have applied many of the ideas and suggestions, Adobe should be proud of such a group as you folks, keep up the good work and thanks for your time!
I certainly agree with the thanks--Bill has been terrifically helpful with Elements and with Premiere Pro. I just want to point out a problem I have with the two part Scaling Video Tutorial above. Most of us are shooting 3:2 aspect ratio (and some at 4:3). If you're going to scale ahead of time, you're going to want to choose your crop--after all you've taken all that time composing the image! Then you can use image processor. So there will be another step if you want to eliminate the black edges. And in addition, I don't know exactly whether and how I'll zoom and pan until I have everything in the timeline, and until I see how one image will relate to another--for example, I don't want to zoom in, then out, then in, etc. in successive images. So by putting larger unscaled images into the timeline leaves maximum flexibility for creativity--assuming, of course, that your computer can handle the scaling--which many of the 64 bit, Mercury Playback, large RAM computers can.
The use of larger Images is less a problem, if one is using PrPro CS 5, or CS 5.5, as the Scaling algorithms are better with MPE & CUDA. However, there is still the matter of extra pixels, which will require overhead to process.
Coming from a still background, it's probably much easier for me treat each Image in PS, and know exactly how it will be used. I will Crop, and Scale, with any animation firmly in mind. I view each Image as unique, and while I might use some light automation for corrections, etc., say from ACR, I seldom do much in a batch, but with each Image open. It is the same for many of the Auto Filters/Corrections, or even Auto Effects in the NLE - they see little, if any use on my machines.
To allow for more leeway in the editing, as you describe, then Scaling to a slightly larger Image size would provide that, hence the recs. for 1000 x 750 and 2000 x 1500. One still has the matter of Scaling (except in CS 5 / 5.5), but the overhead is diminished significantly vs a 4000 x 3000 Image.
I appreciate all the info you (and the other forum users) put together.
However I have one question I couldn't find the answer to:
Can you tell me the maximum dimensions PrE is cabable of importing?
I cannot use my panoramic pictures, they fail to import to PrE 9.
I want to pan horizontally accross the image, e.g. across a picture that is 10000x3700.
Also, you mentioned earlier that you use After Effects for editing panoramic pictures, but I don't have that program.
Any suggestions what my workflow should be?
I do not have the exact dimensions for PrE 9, but for older versions of both PrE and PrPro, the limit was 4096 x 4096 pixels, or 16777216 pixels total.
PrPro CS5 (and CS5.5) upped things, as far as the program was concerned, but one is still faced with the overhead issue with large stills.
Adobe AfterEffects is much, much better for handling large stills, as it processes them differently than any version of Premiere. If you have very large stills, I strongly recommend using AE instead of any version of Premiere.
Thank you Bill, yes very interesting and helpful, I came here after seeing you in "scaling to frame" discussion and finding this post.
In my case which is really a slide show I like the full size pic. as I animate all the pics. (Perhaps overdoing it! But I hate the still position to the next pic.). I have used action to resize for the web and email and love it when I don't make any mistake with source, destination and so force. I have had accidents and learned to work on a duplicate folder!
One think I saw you mentioned was saving as .psd, I kind of understand it's a better quality than .jpg but I tried to avoid it probably for the wrong reason that is I seem to remember it can't be previewed in Widows photo viewer and I find this very frustrating. Is it a problem for you? Or you have already re labeled all your photos b4 using psd save.
I have never used Windows Photo Viewer, so cannot comment on it.
When I am working with Still Images, I want to keep as much compression out of the mix, as is possible. Most of my clients, and my Projects, still are SD, and go to DVD, so there WILL be compression to MPEG-2, and that is why I work with PSD's, and eschew JPEG's, with their inherent compression.
I use Adobe Bridge, which works very well as an organizer. IrfanView and ThumbsPlus are two other apps. that work well for me.
There have been issues viewing PSD's in Windows for some time. For a period in time, one could add the psicon.dll and see them in Windows Explorer, but the MS made some major changes, and that .dll ceased to work (about the release of Vista?). MS claimed that Adobe needed to change the structure of the PSD's, while Adobe countered that Windows USED to display PSD's, and that Adobe had changed nothing, so it was up to MS to change things back. As far as I know, they are still in a deadlock.
Oh I forgot about adobe bridge, I put up with the icon display in project it's not the best for a story board but my use in minimal and I try to keep it as simple as possible. (W7, PP, Photoshop and authoring with Encore!) I've avoided 3rd party pgr. I know that irfan view is very popular... I might start fund raising for an agreement between Adobe and MS! Thanks MM
Thanks for that info Hunt, re: not being able to preview PSD in Windows. That has annoyed me the past few years and I didn't know why I could see them.
I use the Bridge as well, and especially the MINI-BRIDGE right inside Photoshop CS55. That really helps.
Yes, the PSD thumbnail view has been a big bone of contention for many years. As I mentioned, there was a workaround, but it seems that MS has been busy closing all backdoors. Note the word, "seems." I do not know who is to blame, but as Adobe has not changed anything, but MS has, then I'd look to Redmond for a fix.
Just me, but then other orgaizational programs read and see PSD's, so I just go elsewhere, and let MS do what they choose to do.
Thanks for your original post and all your follow ups, it's very helpful.
I'm still confused about pixel aspect ratio. You say you resize in photoshop and use a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9. How can you do this without opening a new file with the NTSC preset and pasting the image in? I saw in another thread that someone resized their images from 720x540 to 720x480 - is this essentially the same thing as using a file with the different PAR?
In PS from the CS version, one has the ability to adjust PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio) from Image>Pixel Aspect Ratio.
Now, there are differences in the vertical pixel count between NTSC and PAL, with PAL being the taller of the two.
I just got referred once more to your awesome work after being shocked to find one of my timeline of stills was over 11gb. - I thought I needed to keep my jpg to their maximum size as I'm a little obsessed with animation zoom in out vertical and horizontal pan and rotation! I see you often mention 1000x720 for your format ( down under we've got PAL) for panning, doesn't this interfere with the proportion? With vertical panning I often zoom in seriously to fill the frame then perhaps triple the duration. But I seem to understand you don't think all this manipulation in PP (cs4) is very good for the quality and I know why as I do loose a lot of quality on the finer details!
I'm very much of an amateur and don't even have (mine or others) camera shooting raws!
The 1000 x 750 was a "suggestion" for NTSC SD Projects. With HD, the size would be larger, starting at the exact Frame Size of the Project, say 1920 x 1080. If one then needs a few more pixels for Panning on a Zoomed Out Still, then Scale to that larger size. I will calculate exactly how much I need, in the way of additional pixels, and Scale to that.
I like to keep the Scale of Stills to include no unused pixels, as that increases the processing overhead, even if one is using PrPro CS 5.5, with its better Scaling algorithms.
Let's say that I calculate that I need 2040 pixels in the horizontal, I will Scale to that, and so long as I do not also need any vertical Motion, basically a Tilt, will actually Crop to a vertical dimension of 1080.
Good luck, and hope that helps,
Bill, I have read some of these post and must say you have done a fantastic job. I am rather new at this so please bear with me. I am doing a project for my father-in-law that has 45 tapes that I have captured. I am creating a Blue-ray video of some of the events, namely of all the vacations and all the Christmas clips. For the Christmas video, I have pictures as well. They are JPEG files. 1260x1920. After importing all of them, I found that I had to shrink them down yo about 33% to properly view them. That was going to be a lot of work for over 100 pictures. So I found your post on this forum. I ran all the pictures through PS Image Processor at 720x480 as a PSD file. Only took less than a minute. Thanks, that was a big time saver. Imported them and now the pictures fit perfectly in the height, but the width is a bit shy. If I scale it to 103% they fit well. So now I have to scale over 100 pictures. Did I do something wrong? Should I have taken the ratio of 1260/1920 and multiplied that by 720 to get my new width?
Another question, if you will take two at one time. My father-in-law says my vacation video makes everyone look wide(fatter). He is watching my movie from a Blue-ray on a HD wide screen TV. I set the sequence to DV NTSC 729x480 with the PAR of ".91" The video looked fine on my output monitor from what I can tell. Used 4:3 as that was what I thought SD was all about. Since it is going to be viewed on a HD wide screen, should I have set the sequence to 16:9? I tried that and the video looked small on the output screen. What I am trying to figure out is how to take SD clips at 720x480 and make them look natural in a HD wide screen TV. My father-in-law says every time he watch the video, he changes the TV to normal width from wide screen. He says that works, however, it is a pain to always change the TV to watch my movies. Does this make sense?
PS, did I read that you were here in Phoenix recently?
This last post was emailed to me, since I was part of the discussion at some stages. I have not touched this kind of work for months now. but picked a couple of things out of that post that I like to comment on. I did not think SD means a particular format but rather as it usually stands for, "standard definition" that is with much less pixel information that would be in HD or High definition that owes its quality to increased number of picture information. But I though you could use SD or HD in 4:3 or wide screen as you wish but with regards to these settings (ie 4:3, 9:16) in the original filming. As adjusting the TV ratio to watch a particular dvd doesn't seem to require such an effort. I guess we are getting so spoilt these days that any little inconvenience tends to be an issue and any improvement through speed of progress tends to get us to take it all for granted. Yet we still enjoy watching programs like "Survivors" and the getting back to difficult times.
I don't know about PE but in PP you can actually decide what output you want, Standard (as in screen size 4:3) or wide screen.
I have tried to export original 4:3 format in 16:9 to fill my wide screen tv but the visual result was awful. So put it back to the original format.
Message was edited by: Michelmnr ( I tried to clean up my post!)
Here is an Adobe Help File for Preparing Still Images for Premiere. Much applies to PrPro CS6, which has the MPE (Mercury Playback Engine) with CUDA capable video cards, and some OpenCL ATI/AMD cards on the Mac only.
Would you be able to provide me with detailed steps on the resizing? I have experience with Photoshop but this is my first time making a DVD slide show. I had completed my Slide Show with Photoshop and Premiere Elements. Some of the images were pixilated.
I took all the images that I had in my slide show and put them in a separate folder with a sub-folder as per your instructions. I did not see an Automate button, but I did find a process multiple files option. Could you provide me steps on the resizing because I am not sure as to what you mean by 720 by 480 because there are several options under the image size section. Also I could not find the PAR of 0.9 in the process multiple files menu either.
Also, some of these photo's have been edited in Photoshop already, will that make a difference?
When I previewed the slide show, it was clear but once it was on the DVD was when I had the pixilated photo's. I have tried a few other options but nothing has corrected all of them.
Early in this article, there are steps to use Actions to batch Scale in PS, and then Neale provided steps on doing the same thing in Photoshop Elements. Those steps still work fine. In newer versions of Photoshop, there are also several Scripts, that can be adapted for Scaling.
I always work on original Images, and not on Images that have been altered, and especially if they are later Saved_As JPEG, because of the compression involved. I always start with my NEF's (Nikon Camera RAW), and then use Adobe Camera RAW to "process" the Images to PSD. I then Save those PSD's at full resolution, then use those with my Scaling Actions, to get the Image sizes, that I need, and Save_As a PSD again, never using JPEG compression.
For "pixelated" Images in DVD, I would post to the appropriate Premiere forum, with the full detail of you Scaling, the Image file formats used, your Project Preset and your output settings. Something is wrong somewhere, and this "How To" article is not the best place to address those problems, but the appropriate forum definitely is. Just please provide all useful info.
Hi Bill, nice to sit at the feet of the master again!
I'm back to resizing images and naturally I wanted to consult your superb approach to this workflow!
I had saved several of your comments on this topic but, apparently after a certain amount of time, Adobe deletes these.
I recall you stating that you tended to save this still image resizing part of the video editing workflow until the end, to minimize the impact it has on processing speed and the like.
Am I correct on that? If so, did you just insert placeholders into your PrPro timeline that would later be replaced by images where the pillarboxing had been removed?
Also, my PrPro project settings are currently set for 1920 x 1080, but I would like to use the Ken Burns effect on images larger than this.
Is there any advantage to changing the settings of my project to accommodate these larger still images, or do the negative tradeoffs counsel against it?
I recall you stating that you tended to save this still image resizing part of the video editing workflow until the end, to minimize the impact it has on processing speed and the like.
I am not sure that I completely understand this statment. Let me respond by giving you my workflow with Still Images, that are going to be used in Video. If this is not what you want, then let me know, and I will have another go at it.
I mostly shoot Camera RAW (Nikon RAW usually, in the form of an NEF). I process those RAW Images through ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) and Photoshop. I do not have Lightroom. At that point, I am just doing some general tweaking, and even have Sharpening turn OFF, as I do on my cameras. I will address that later. When the premilinary processing is complete, I Save_As a PSD, and file the Images by subject, date, whatever makes sense for me. These are Copied to my NAS for storage.
When I go to use those PSD's in a Video, I do several things. First, I try to "get into" each Image, and formulate a plan for how I wish to work with it. This might be by intensifying the color and density of a sky, or perhaps bringing out Autumnal foilage colors, or just getting rid of some element, that could not be easily cropped out, or avoided, when I shot the Image. After any manipulation is complete, I Save_As a PSD, with all Layers, Adjustment Layers, Paths, Channels, intact, should I need to come back. Depending on the next step, I might also Save_As PSD a Flattened version (if I will not be needing to manipulate the Layers in Premiere, so for animations), and into a working folder. It is just before one of those steps, that I will usually apply some Sharpening.
Next, I survey how the Image will be used in the Video. It might be a PiP (Picture in Picture), or full-frame, or maybe even larger (like you mention with the Ken Burns' Effect). Normally, I am going to be working with Image Sizes that match the Video's Frame Size. For those, I either use an existing Action, or create one, that will match, say my 1920 x 1080, knowing that I will also need to either do Cropping, or keep the 4:3 Aspect Ratio from my camera, and let the Video Frame effectively Crop. Since I like to keep excess pixels to a minimum, as they do require overhead to handle, I will usually manually Crop my Images, before running my Action, which Scales my Image down to 1920 x 1080 (in this example, but 720 x 480 for SD Projects), and then Saves those into a new foler, usually something like "Finished PSD 01." As I run my Action via Automate>Batch, I can select both the source and destination folders. These will be Imported into Premiere Pro.
When I DO need more pixels, say for Panning on a Zoomed out Image, I will calculate how much movement I will need for the Pan, and that will be my horizontal Scale dimensions for the Image. That will differ, by what I need to do. Then, if I do not also need to do any Tilts (vertical Panning), I will go ahead and Crop that Image to, say 1080, as I will not need the extra pixels in the vertical dimension. When Scaled, I will often use that Finished PSD 01 folder as my destination folder, or if I have many Image, might do Finished PSD 02, so that I know those are going to be my Panned Images. Again, those are Imported into PrPro, and perhaps to a separate Bin, to keep them straight. Along those lines, I have had several Images, where I had long, horizontal Pans, and used Images at about 4000 x 1080. I use a lot of Text Images for long Rolling Titles (usually for credits, but not always). Those have ended up being 720 x ~ 4000 (for SD Projects).
I do not work with proxies, of any sort, unless perhaps I need to do a quick mock-up to show a client, and do not want to process a lot of Images that might not get accepted and used. I usually have a pretty good idea of what I will be using, and though I might later add Images, or discard some, it's not often that many. The mock-up would come at a preliminary stage in the Project. They would be the closest thing that I would have to a "place holder," but that workflow is not that common with my Projects.
One often sees references to dimensions, such as 1000 x 750 (NTSC SD Projects), or 2000 x 1500 (HD Projects), and those are just "rules of thumb" - suggestions to sort of average things out, and give a little wiggle room with the Images. Since I am going to be looking at each Image as unique, I just Scale to exactly what I want, though much of the processing is automated from a single folder. As I might have thousands of Images in a Project, I feel that I benefit from performance improvements, if I Scale to just what I need. Others like the latitude of having the wiggle room, and are also likely to be working with fewer Images.
Something that often gets confused, as there are two answers, depending on what one is working with, and what they need, is the Project's Preset. If one is ONLY using Still Images, and will have NO Video to contend with, then they should construct that Project's Preset to match their intended delivery, say DVD-Video, BD, or some other delivery scheme. That way, they are working with just what they will ultimately need for the delivery, so no additional work will be involved. A slight variation on that comes with multiple delivery schemes, and then, I suggest going with whatever is larger, and outputting to a reduced size, for other deliveries of that Project.
If one DOES have Video, then the above goes out the window, as they SHOULD let the Video dictate the Project's Preset, and match their Still Images to that, accordingly. Video changes everything.
Depending on the NLE (Non Linear Editor) program being used, and also the version being used, one has a limit on the size of the Still Image, that can be Imported. For a along time, Premiere (both flavors) had a limit of 4096 x 4096 total pixels. Later versions allow for larger Imported Still Images, but there is still the overhead to process the pixels, so I suggest removing any, that will NOT be used, in say the Pan, or perhaps a Title Roll - use just what you need, and discard the rest.
If one has the need for very, very large Images, say a very long Pan on a horizontal panorama Image, or multiple large Images for a "photowall," then After Effects is the better program, as it handles the pixels differently, and also allows for extremely large Images to be used, without issue.
I hope that this helps answer your questions.
Thanks Bill, I've archived this!
I was also wondering, I recall you stating that one way you coped with the substantially increased overhead associated with very large photos by not inserting them into the timeline until as late as possible.
Instead, you simply put black video "placeholders" where the very large images would go and only replaced those placeholders on the timeline with the actual large fotos at the last possible moment.
Is my recollection about that correct?
thanks, as always, for your world class help and I hope your team does well in the Super Bowl.... matt
I recall you stating that one way you coped with the substantially increased overhead associated with very large photos by not inserting them into the timeline until as late as possible.
I don't recall any of my workflows, that accommodated that, but might be forgetting. I try to get my Still Images to the Timeline, as quickly, as I can, especially as I often have animation. For me, the Scaling is just an early part of my workflow, often even before I begin an actual Project in Premiere.
Maybe someone else had such a workflow with "place holders," but I do not recall that post - or, at my advanced age, maybe I am just "mis-remembering" things? Happens all too often nowadays.
Thanks Bill, as always!
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've simply been incorporating the large images into my workflows as you typically do and so far everything seems OK. I just now had a chance to circle back.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.