Skip navigation
FClintD
Currently Being Moderated

What is the best way to zoom in and out of pictures, documentary style?

Feb 23, 2013 3:59 PM

Tags: #adobe #premiere #documentary

I'm new to Adobe Premiere and I was looking to a make a mock documentary in which there would be slow zoom in's of photo's while the narrator is talking. If you could imagine what I'm talking about.

 

Could anyone tell me how you would accomplish that?

 

Thanks

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2013 4:03 PM   in reply to FClintD

    Select Clip: Effects Window> Motion

     

    Key frames.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2013 8:33 PM   in reply to FClintD

    google "premiere motion keyframe tutorial"

     

     

    * google is a search tool on the internet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2013 8:33 PM   in reply to FClintD

    My best guess is that they show up small because they ARE small.

     

    You can zoom in on them, but the quality will suffer. The more you zoom above 100%, the worse it will look.

     

    So, you have a choice, edit all of your video at the smallest frame size of all of your source material, or suffer with quality problems.

     

    Most photos nowadays are bigger than the 1920X1080 of full HD. If you images are much larger, then you can pan around the image by changing the position. There is position and scale. You zoom with scale and pan around with position.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2013 2:07 AM   in reply to wfmc staffer

    Best is to use the Achor Point (under Motion) it is more precise then panning grapfics on postiton.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSQQAhp3To

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2013 9:16 AM   in reply to Ann Bens

    Ann,

     

    Jeff is a good teacher, but he is even more dry than I am and that's saying something! While there are times that Anchor point comes in handy, like when you want the corner of a PiP to be in a specific place, or you want some fairly irregular rotation, it is generally easier to leave the anchor point alone. As you can see from the video, Jeff didn't touch it.

     

    I didn't remember exactly how I taught the same subject in my Lynda.com tutorials all those years ago, so I dug out the DVD to watch it. Long and drawn out with a complete description of everything I knew at the time, but I did hit on an important point that Jeff missed completely. It was rather funny watching him suffer through finding the end points and handles of his curves. There is a very simple way to deal with that, which indicates that Jeff never watched my tutorials, or he watched them so long ago that he has forgotten.

     

    If you select the Motion effect and then poke out the eyeball on the track (and maybe all of the tracks below it) then you will be left with the bounding box and the keyframes with their handles. Easy to see.

     

    Like this:

     

    Capture.JPG

    Once you have moved them around this way a bit, they are easier to see when you restore the visibility of all of the tracks.

     

    I have to tell you, that DVD had a little dust on it. I don't think I have watched them since I reviewed them for Lynda.com to make sure the editors didn't miss anything, or cut anything important. It ws funny watching myself move all of the individual little windows around. Be grateful for the vastly improved user interface we use today.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2013 10:16 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Well I disagree, I am sticking to Anchor Point and so do some proffesional editors out there.

    The reason I picked Jeff's tutorial is that I know that its good without watching it.

    If you do not have a Lynda subscription you cannot watch any tutorials. With all do respect it is version 1.5.

    If i am on CS6 i do not want to learn something from a tutorial that is a couple of versions old.

    I might miss something or learn something a certain way they has totaly changed over time.

    As a beginner you would have no idea what is still the way to go and what is obselete.

    Could not find any tutorials on keyframes on the Adobe TV.

    So I was left with YT.

     

    If you select the Motion effect and then poke out the eyeball on the track (and maybe all of the tracks below it) then you will be left with the bounding box and the keyframes with their handles. Easy to see.

    Or expand the monitor or hit ~

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 6:30 AM   in reply to Ann Bens

    It looks like my image has disappeared from my earlier post. I will link to it again at the end of this post. 

     

    Ann, I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. You posted a link to a tutorial. I watched it. I don't mean to be troublesome, but Jeff never touched the anchor point once. He pointed it out so people would know what the symbol was, but he never changed the value. If you prefer to use it, that's fine. I merely suggested that doing it the way Jeff did it in the tutorial was the easiest way for most people to begin. You are not a beginner. The fact that you have different ways to do things is not at all unusual. I would be shocked if professionals did everything the basic way that a beginner would do it.

     

    Yes, of course my tutorials are ancient. I don't disagree with that. However, I think I did a pretty decent job on keyframes way back then. I don't believe that anything has changed regarding keyframes between 1.5 and CS6. There are certainly more fixed effects, but the keyframes act the same way.

     

    Perhaps I should not have poked fun at Jeff since you seem to have taken it personally. I have never met him, and all I know is that he is a good teacher, as I said in my earlier post. I don't apologize for finding it funny that he missed something simple. We all miss things . It happens. I do apologize for poking fun at him. And if he felt offended, I am sorry. That wasn't the purpose.

     

    I never suggested that a new user should watch my tutorials, by the way. I know there are people who do watch them because I still get royalties even after all these years (Thank you Lynda for making that possible), and I assume that they have much earlier versions that they can't afford to upgrade. And if they are editing DV, perhaps there is no need to upgrade. I can certainly see why people would want to upgrade, but I have met some pretty poor people in my life who use some really old, donated computers, and who reuse DV tapes over and over again. Not everybody upgrades once they find something that works for them. A few years back I bought a box of new DV tapes to donate on one of my trips and you would have thought that they were made out of gold the way they were received.

     

    But Jeff is not a new user. I believe that as a fellow Lynda.com author, it would not be considered out of place for him to have watched all of the older Lynda.com tutorials in order to have a better grasp on what earlier authors did right, and what they did wrong. What made things easier to understand, and what just caused more confusion. I don't know that he did or didn't. I merely poked fun at his trouble finding the little white dots.

     

    I admit that I am not a professional videographer or photographer. In fact, I will say that I am merely a dilettante who has been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to make some money producing tutorials, helping revise books, and reviewing other people's books and tutorials for possible errors, and to make sure that the instructions can be followed to achieve the stated goal. I am a mere technician and a fairly decent researcher. I am not at all sure I have an artistic bone in my body. But I am a pretty good teacher and someone to whom an artist might turn for technical advise. So don't think that throwing the word "professional" around is going to hurt my feelings in any way, or make me think that someone must be technically more adept because they shoot weddings, or commercials, or even feature films. Well, maybe feature films I would hope that they are considerably more artistic and imaginative than I am, but possibly not that much more technically competant.

     

    Back to the little white dots. Most of the time, the image is such that the dots don't hide from you. Now and then, the image gets pretty busy and it is difficult to see. When that happens, looking at just the bounding box and the curves makes it easier. Once it a while it doesn't help to make the image bigger. So this is the workaround. Not the main way to do it. Just when the problem that Jeff was happening in the tutorial I watched comes about.

     

    Capture.JPG

    By the way, as a side note, Lynda Weinman is a delightful person. I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I was when I got to go to lunch with her once during the week I spent in the Lynda.com soundbooth working on my tutorials. She is just as pleasant as can be. I wish I might have gotten a chance to continue to do them over the years, but the other authors have all done an excellent job. And as I mentioned before, I am a bit dry.

     

    The subscription to Lynda.com is worth every penny when you consider the value that Lynda.com offers over YouTube and even Creative Cow tutorials.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 7:45 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    The subject of older tutorials comes up fairly often. Curt Wrigley had several, that were very useful, albeit from earlier versions of Pr & PrPro. I never had issues interpolating those to newer versions of the program, but some did. I suppose that it boils down to how people think and how they learn. I always treated the video tutorials, just like reading a book, and it was the main concept that I wanted to take away. If some of the mechanics, or naming conventions had changed a bit, it was never a big deal to me.

     

    I probably learned more about ediitng Audio for Video from an Audition 1.0 book, though I had Au 2.0 (quite a few changes by then), than all the other Au books, that I have. It was just well-written, and covered about everything that I needed, though some locations had changed.

     

    Just some personal observations,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 12:38 PM   in reply to FClintD

    No, it won't render at the normal size unless your smallest video is the normal size.

     

    Help us help you. What are the frame sizes of your source material. You have photographs, I got that much. What size are they?

     

    Do you have any pictures smaller than 1920X1080 and if so, how small?

     

    Are you mixing in any video, and if so, what is the frame size?

     

    With that information in hand, we can probably advise you as to what is and is not advisable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 1:06 PM   in reply to Ann Bens

    FClintD, you have to make the decision of your final frame size in YouTube. If it's HD, like 1920x1080, it's wise to resize your photos to be roughly twice that size (that is if they are at least twice the size of HD to begin with). This will allow you to scale them up with less chance of losing resolution.

     

    Down and dirty, I use position and scale keyframes for moving images simply around the screen. I like to animate the anchor point when zooming into or out of a specific location on the frame, though.

     

    Chris and Trish Meyer of After Effects motion graphics fame prefer to animate the anchor point, usually. That said, it's much less fiddly to animate the anchor point in After Effects than Premiere Pro. I don't know of a way you can click and drag the anchor point right on the Program Monitor as you can in After Effects. I don't like moving the anchor point, and then the entire image moves. I'd rather it stay fixed.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points