Yes, it does sound like this is mainly a resolution issue. DVDs are only 720x480 pixels in size.
This article from our FAQs goes into more details about DVD resolution.
I am with Steve, regarding the differences in resolution between your AVCHD 1920 x 1080 and your DVD-Video at 720 x 480. This image will give you an idea of the difference in resolution between those, plus other, formats/sizes:
That resolution difference is most likely what you are seeing.
Steve and Bill,
Thanks for your responses. I had read Steve's FAQ article (and book) prior to posting my question and understand the resolution implications, BUT I am sure that my poor DVD output quality can be improved.
I am trying to produce a Zion National Park (magnificant scenary) vacation DVD to view on our widescreen TV. The photos, when viewed directly from the camera, connected through the HDMI port, are magnficant.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me make progress in the steps required to go from poor DVD output to much better output by commenting and/or addressing each of the questions in my original post.
Thanks for your help.
Ed C Jake
There is always the possibility of expectations running into the classical difference of 1920 x 1080 16:9 versus 720 x 480 (with or without the 16:9 flag). But, it would seem to me that the expectations factor should be the focus after you have assured that you are running Premiere Elements optimally settings wise. From what you wrote, I do not see that you are.
1. You say that you have a Sony DSC HX-30V. What are you shooting AVCHD 1080p60 (1920 x 1080 @ 60 progressive frames per second) or something else? We need that information to set up the correct Premiere Elements project preset to match the properties of your source media.
- Project Settings: Fame Size = 1920 x 1080
There is no such project preset that would give you NTSC DV Standard 48 kHz with a frame size of 1920 x 1080.
Pending further details and assuming that you have 1080p60 video, your project preset should be:
NTSC AVCHD AVCHD 1080p60
2. Start a new project.
a. Edit Menu/Preferences/General. Work with "Default Scale to Frame Size" with a check mark.
b. Set the project preset yourself manually via File Menu/New/Project...that being NTSC AVCHD AVCHD 1080p60 if that is the video format that you have. If not, let us know. Before you close out of the new project dialog, be sure to put a check mark next to "Force Selected Settings on This Project".
c. Back in the Premiere Elements workspace, import your 1080p60 with the program's Add Media/Files and Folders/Project Assets from where you drag the 1080p60 to the Timeline.
3. What are the pixel dimensions of these 50 photos that are going into this project? From what I see of your camera's specs, these photos should all be 16:9. Is that correct? If the pixel dimensions are way over 2200 x 1238 pixels 16:9, we need to talk. But assuming that they are 1920 x 1080 16:9 to 2200 x 1238 16:9, then import them into the project via Add Media/Files and Folder/Project Assets and drag them to the Timeline.
4. When you get to Publish+Share, why are you pointing your end product to 4:3 when all along this has been a 16:9 project?
4. Used Publish and Share with settings:
- NTSC_Dolby DVD
Instead, please use Publish+Share/Disc/DVD disc with preset = NTSC_Widescreen Dolby DVD.
If after all is said and done according to appropriate project setup, then expectations about 1920 x 1080 vs 720 x 480 are best addressed.
Please review and consider and do not hesitate to ask if you need clarification on anything that I have written.
I completely understand the desire to get the best possible result with the DVD-Video format. Unfortunately, it is a very old specification now.
If one has produced a DVD-Video in Widescreen (as ATR instructs), that is "as good as it gets," given the very old MPEG-2 DVD CODEC.
Now, a DVD-Video, played on an older DVD player, regardless of the TV hooked to it, will max-out at the resolution of DVD-Video - However, if that same DVD-Video is played through an up-rezzing DVD player, or most newer BD (Blu-ray Disc) player, will benefit from the up-rezzing chips in those players. I have been amazed at how good a DVD-Video can look on an HD TV with those chips. They are dedicated for the purpose of up-rezzing, and do a very good job. The output is not, and never will be, as good as full HD BD, but they ARE better than straight DVD-Video from an older DVD player. Unfortunately, that is a pure hardware solution, and I have not found any software solution, that even comes close.
The details that Ed has presented leave room for doubt about whether he is working from the best possible setup for his project. As I have tried to point out, speculations on how to improve viewing of the end product are secondary to any shortcomings in the workflow (putting aside the classical 1920 x 1080 vs 720 x 480 factor).
Looking forward to his exploration of the suggestions.
A. T. Romano,
Thanks for your response.
I will address each of your items but have a key question in item 3, below, before I start the new project.
(I will use the same numbers, below, as in your post.)
1. The Sony DSC HX-30V is shooting at AVCHD 1080p60. Your assumption is correct.
2. Will do the new project after addressing the next item.
3. The photos used in the project are 16:9 with pixel dimensions way over 2200 x 1238. Typically they are in the 4000 x 3000 (+/- hundreds) range.
That is why I resized them to 1000 pixels wide (both landscape and portrait) using the "Process Multiple Files" in PE11 before importing to Pr11. What should I do for the new project in item 2, above?
4. Sorry, I made a typo in the Publish and Share settings. I did use NTSC_Widescreen Dolby DVD.
Please let me know what to do in item 3, above, to address the large pixel dimensions of the photos. Also, do I have to address landscape and portrait photos separately?
It is a small world! I have the HX9V which is nearly the same as your HX30V. I use the same settings. I have the same Version 11 software. I share the goal of showing on a 50" flat screen. I've also been to Zion recently, but screwed up my shooting by experimenting with 3D! I have much better footage from the Grand Canyon and Canyonlands this year.
What should I do for the new project in item 2, above?
You want 1920x1080 projects for both input and output for your 1920x1080 flat screen TV.
For my projects, I make sure I put at least one 1080p60 video file in with the photos. My first item on the timeline will be that video so that the project automatically sets for that. I could do it at the new project screen and check the "force" box. The results are the same. I may elect to delete the video file once the project is underway. Last week I did a video for wife's pictures taken on a trip to Europe. They were all stills. I made a computer file for her computer. Then I made a DVD and a Blu-Ray for a friend that was on the trip. DVD quality was disappointing.
I'm going to watch this thread carefully because I continue to confused about resizing. I've done mixed video and photo projects where I've done no resizing and now working on a big one where I am resizing. I'm seeing no difference in performance or picture quality on my computer. For me, resizing makes no difference and, based on what I read here, it is necessary.
In my most recent effort, I resized huge RAW files from a different Sony camera into 1920x1080. Files were smaller and I saw no picture quality difference. On some I wanted to use Pan&Zoom so I added 50% to both dimensions. There was NO visible or functional difference at all.
I do have a Blu-Ray burner. On a family history project I made both Blu-Ray and DVD disks as gifts for family members that were interested. There is no question that there is a significant difference. Even playing on my Blu-Ray players with up rezzing, the DVDs did not measure up to the Blu-Rays.
There are two alternatives to getting maximum quality on your TV that have not been mentioned yet. If you completed video is less than around 20 minutes you can burn a "AVCHD Disk" in Blu-Ray quality on a cheap DVD with a normal DVD burner. It will play on "most" Blu-Ray players.
The other is to output a high quality MP4 computer file of your video. Copy it to a "thumb drive" and plug it into your computer or Blu-Ray player. Most newer ones accept and play them, especally if you output at 30p. One of my Blu-Ray players will play the computer file when copied to a DVD as a data file. (No, that is not the same as "burning a DVD movie.)
If you want some workflow steps I can be more detailed. I can send you samples via Vimeo or Dropbox if it helps. Please post what you learn about resizing!
Ed C Jake
Thanks for the reply and consideration of the suggestions...
An important matter to make sure we are in sync on relates to the frame aspect ratio of your photos. You seem to have confirmed what I read about your camera images, that is, 16:9. But then when you reply about the actual pixel dimensions you say "typically they are in the 4000 x 3000 (+/- hundreds) range". That 4000 x 3000 is 4:3. Did you mean to imply that these photos were 4:3 not 16:9?
Moving forward I will assume that you have 50 stills 16:9 going into this project with pixel dimension in excess of 2200 x 1080 16:9. The outcome of the following is going to depend on the level of your computer resources + working with Premiere Elements 11 in Windows 7 or 8 64 bit system.
As you have read, the not to exceed suggestions are based on 1000 x 750 pixels SD and about 2200 x 1238 HD. These are pixel dimensions for still imports. I have gotten projects taken to completion successfully with pixel dimensions far in excess of those classical suggestions and with more than 50 stills. But, in all cases, I could see a better workflow when I had been guided with those recommendations. We each have to define our own limits and not depend on what anyone else has gotten in another computer environment. Keyword is guided, not ruled.
So, here is my take on round one....
1. Resize your 16:9 stills so that the pixel dimensions of each does not exceed 2200 x 1238 (16:9) pixels. This can be done quickly in Photoshop Elements Full Editor, File Menu/Process Multiple Files.
2. Use them in your 1080p60 project with Default Scale to Frame Size with check mark in preferences.
3. Gauge the performance of the workflow and the outcome of the burn to disc DVD-VIDEO on DVD disc.
(Also, before hitting the Burn button of the burn dialog, note the Space Required and Bitrate (work with Fit Content to Available Space with check mark).
So the same thing as round one...but do not resize the stills. See how far you get.
As background information, what is the duration of the video in this Timeline and what is the total duration of the Timeline content with photos and video?
Your results will be the answer that we guide the decision making.
Looking forward to your results. Thanks for the opportunity to help.
Thanks for the quick response.
I will try your suggestions but I have two KEY questions about resizing, plus I wanted to answer your questions.
The actual size of the photos are 4896 x 2752 or 2752 x 4896, so they are 16:9.
1. KEY question: Using the Process Multiple Files routine, don't I check mark the "Constrain Proportions" box and therefore only set the "W" to 2200 and leave the "H" blank, allowing the program to determine the second dimension? If so, do I have to size the landscape and portrait photos separately? Otherwise, won't the portrait heights come out to approx. 3894, which is outside your range?
2. KEY question: I am double checking: You want me to check mark the "Default Scale to Frame Size" box.
I am working with only 50 photos and a short 15 sec video in order to debug the process, but the actual DVD will be about 1 hour, including photos, pans, music and videos.
Thanks for the follow up.
That was great news that the photos are 16:9. Going from 4:3 to 16:9 typically involved cropping and resizing to get the right look. Here we will be dealing with just resizing.
Mini test run before the grand project is always the best way to go.
The way I would handle Process Multiple Files....remove the check mark next to Constrain Proportions and type in the 2200 width and 1238 height in pixels. Go with JPEG high quality. For now, stay with landscape. If you have a mix of landscape and portrait, then each orientation will be done in separate batch. Leave the Resolution as is. Whatever you put there is not applicable be it 72 or other. Think pixels, not inches for what we are doing.
For now I want you to go with "Default Scale to Frame Size" with check mark.
When we focus in on pans and zooms, we may deal with that differently. Right now, the focus of my suggestions is to get a baseline to see what can be done with the quality of the image and then build on that trying to maintain the quality of the images as we build on the baseline. We are interesting in video as well as photo quality and the comparison between the two.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
You posted a question about making DVDs display a more crisp and clear image similer to when your camera is plugged into the TV directly. You got precise answers from Steve Grissitti and Bill Hunt saying you can't. I have verified their advice as I have nearly the same equipment you have and have proved to myself many times that I can't make a DVD perform as well as I want. Once you get used to HD, they are ugly.
Steve Grisetti, Bill Hunt and ATR have no idea how brilliant the picture quality of a HX9V is when plugged directly into a HD TV. They may guide you to making the perfect DVD, but it will be flat, weak and fuzzy if you compare it to Sony's version of
ATR works very hard trying to help. I can't believe how much time it takes to test and write so much. In this case, his approach may help make marginal improvements, but you will not get around the limitations of a DVD. They are going to be "Standard Definition" when you "Burn a DVD".
ATR's is suggesting you "resize". It is a traditional workflow approach that gets large still photos down to a size the computer can work on with out getting overloaded and sluggish. It may be essential when working on weaker computers. It does not make images more crisp and clear. Your pictures are already 16:9 so, when converted to video format, it won't and can't get better than 1920x1080, or 1.77 ratio. I don't know why ATR uses 2200x1238. The ratio is the same, but PrE still has to make it 1920x1080 for a 1920x1080 project.
Some articles, especially one written by Bill Hunt, does suggest upping the dimensions if there will be some Pan&Zoom effects applied. I've tried it and in PrE it seems to make no difference. No matter what I try, the Pan&Zoom stays within the boundries of the photo, regardless of size. Bill's experience with PrPro may be different. You may be able to zoom around a larger "virtual image".
"Scale to Frame Size" is about filling the ultimate TV picture without bands on the side. On almost all of my projects, the box is checked. I can turn it off and on one photo at a time and watch the bands appear and go away. It does not effect picture clarity much, if at all. Because I don't like the bands on my TV, computer or Vimeo plays of my slideshows, I compose everything in the camera horizontal. Vertical composition, in my view, is for prints hung on the wall. On images I've resized to larger than 1920x1080, turning Scale to Frame on and off creates a magnifying effect.
In an earlier post in this thread, I gave three methods to get some picture poping slide shows. Make a Blu-Ray disk, make a AVCHD Disk or make a HD computer file for a thumb drive or DVD data disk.
A fourth way is to abandon Premier Elements and use Sony's PlayMemories Home software that came with your camera. It has the odd capability of lossless editing and rewriting the result to your camera or SD card. It is a little clunky, but Sony's idea seems to be to take advantage of the HDMI quality you've described by keeping your library of finished work on a collecton of SD cards. You insert them in the camera and use the camera as a playback device. Another odd capability is that if you have a Sony Bravia TV with a Sony camera plugged in via HDMI there is a magical marrage. The TV instantly recognizes the camera and you can use the TV's remote for full control of the playback on the camera.
The fifth way is with a media player.
Good luck with this! I know very well how wonderful the output of an HX30V is for both photos and videos. You will never get anywere close to that quality by trying to deliver output by burning DVDs in software. I've used all five of the methods I'm suggesting over the last three years with good results. And, every attempt at a DVD has been a failure.
I agree that either a direct feed from a full HD camera, or a production to BD will make, even the best, up-rezzed DVD-Video pale, in comparisson. It just cannot be done.
DVD-Video is a very old technology, and set of specifications now. Still, many clients/viewers do NOT have BD, so that is not an option.
If one has SD (Standard Definition) footage, there ARE some applications, that can up-rezz that to HD, BUT many do not feel that those are worthwhile.
If one must limit themselves to DVD-Video, there is only so much, that can be done. IMHO, the up-rezzing by a newer, high-end DVD player, or many BD players, is "as good as it gets." Still, compared to a well-produced BD, it will also pale.
Not sure where we will go from BD, but it will obviously be some form of streaming content functions.
I will not repeat what I have already written where I have clearly defined the goal of the suggestions for Ed. We are not out to re-invent DVD-VIDEO or wave any particular banner for photo sizing. We are trying to get the best possible for what Ed presently has. Although some may have expectations of marginal, we will not know until this is looked at by the user involved with the footage and equipment that he has, including correct project settings.
As an aside, have you looked at the new Premiere Elements 12 project presets and exports for video with frame size 3840 x 2160 pixels?
I fully agree on "reinventing the wheel," but only wish to stress the limits of the DVD-Video specs. Those are something that too many seem intent on overlooking.
I will be signing off for the day soon but I just wanted to thank you for staying with the troubleshooting. And I will be following your progress tomorrow, and I will stay with you on this until you want otherwise.
I emphasize that the goal is to get you the best possible DVD-VIDEO Widescreen with your specific Premiere Elements (correct project setup), source media, computer environment, and your intended audience. It is only in you looking at this yourself that we will know. The answers will be in your actual results and what works for you.
We all cannot go Blu-ray and beyond. And, often the DVD-VIDEO presentation can be enjoyed by all without sacrificing our integrity, enjoying what is rather than comparing to Blu-ray expectations.
My observations on your prior workflow, my goals to make improvements in that workflow, and other plans are spelled out in my prior posts in this thread. Again, please do not hesitate to ask if you need clarification on anything that I have written.
Add on: I have worked with Blu-ray and DVD-VIDEO and have gotten good results with either.
- T. Romano
Thanks for your help. We are making progress and I am learning a great deal.
- I started a new project with the following settings:
- NTSC AVCHD AVCHD 1080p60
- Default "Scale to Frame Size" has a check mark
- "Force Selected Settings" has a check mark
- - The photos were resized to 2200 W x 1238 H for landscapes and 1238 x 2200 for Portraits at Maximum JPG quality.
- "Default Scale to Frame Size" was checked
- I added something else which was a pain, but interesting. On the timeline, I placed photo 1 (original size) and then photo 1 (resized per above); then photo 2 (original size) and then photo 2 (resized per above), and so on with 30 photos. I wanted to compare Pr11's resizing during encoding for the large dimension-original photo vs. the encoding of the resized photos. At the end of the timeline was a 15 sec. video.
- The video was then burned to disc using Disc, NTSC_Widescreen Dolby DVD.
Per your request, Required Space = 125MB and the Bit Rate = 8.00MBPS
The result: A definite improvement over the poor TV image that prompted my original post but still not nearly as good as the image directly from the camera via HDMI. It was interesting that the original and Process Multiple Files photos looked virtually identical. I don't know if that would be true in a 1 hr. DVD video. The 15 sec. video looked OK but not outstanding. Both photos and video were somewhat "grainy" and without "depth". I understand the DVD will not match the camera's HDMI image but I would like to make my DVD video the best it can be. We are making good progress. I am starting to think about BluRay equipment and looking at the expense for Player, Burner, and Discs. In any event, I will still have to establish setup preferences and resize since my photos are so large (4896 x 2752). I understand the PR11 tools and features from reading Steve's book, but the help in understanding the setups, etc., has been very beneficial and educating.
What is our next step?
Also, I hope we can resize both landscape and portrait photos together. Then how will we handle the panning with respect to the "Default Scale to Frame Size"?
I appreciate your continuing help.
Bill, I will try some of your approaches as soon as I have my act together (thanks to A.T.) and maximize my DVD output. I hope one of your approaches will give me additional improved image quality as it did you.
By the way, since your Zion photos were messed up, would you be interested in copies of ours? Either way is OK as I know it is special when it is one's own photos.
Thanks for your input, too.
Bill Hunt wrote:
Not sure where we will go from BD, but it will obviously be some form of streaming content functions.
We've already gone there. TVs, BD players, Roku boxes, etc all have USB ports for large file presentation. There is also connectivity through WiFi or local networks. Current TVs are not monitors with tuners. They are complex, special purpose computers. As (or if!) consumers get moved from HD to 4K or "Ultra", the BD of today won't have the capacity needed.
Already, I send a 1920x1080p60 file to Vimeo where, on the right smart TV, it can be watched through an "ap". It can also be watched on an iPod, Android, iPad, Retna Pro and maybe even a Blackberry. A BD can only be watched on a TV with a player or a few computers. BD's have already become almost as limited as DVD's.
This thread would have been really short if Ed had asked how to play HD video on his HD TV. Instead, the question is how to force HD quality out of a DVD. It has become complicated with a lot of detail. And, as you've pointed out, Ed won't get there.
Yes, streaming is with us, and Adobe has even dropped Encore (the DVD/BD/Flash Video authoring program) from its portfolio - no more authoring to disc with Adobe products, without using an older copy of Encore.
However, out in the market, there are still many users with only DVD-Video players (many millions), and then many with BD players (100's of 1,000's), and not everyone has the capabilities for streaming, yet. Those users will be left in the cold, until they update their equipment. That will likely come, in time.
A.T. Romano wrote:
.... Although some may have expectations of marginal, we will not know until this is looked at by the user involved with the footage and equipment that he has, including correct project settings.
Three years ago, my granddaugters at age 9 and 11 wanted to learn a little about video creation. I bought a camcorder and Premier Elements 9. I'm "retired" due to my career evaporating in the economic crunch we've had, so I've had the time to spend on it.
Three years ago if you bought a camcorder from Sony or Panasonic it came with AVCHD 1080p60 capability. But, not with Canon camcorders. I bought a Panasonic camcorder and spend several hundred dollars on it. I was fascinated by stories that Sony put AVCHD 1080p60 into a tiny inexpensive P&S camera called the HX9V. Ed has the follow on HX30V. The current model in the line is the HX50V.
My point is that the ONLY THING I know is what I can get out of PrE 9, 10 and 11 when it comes to AVCHD footage and high quality .jpg and RAW photos.
Please don't dismiss me as one of the "some that may have expectations". I've not solved the problems of failing computers like you work on. I have only one for video and it works. I have worked through all my own HD expectations with three HD TVs, three BD players, family members with DVD players, a media player and three AVCHD 1080p60 capable cameras.
My granddaughters, now three years older, can make their HD video and high quality photos display on their HD TV now too!
Again, please don't dismiss my comments here. I got a lot figured out participating in this forum before you signed off at Elements Village and went to work here. I've learned enough in three years that I can now "pay some of it back" an help others solve what I have already solved.
If you want to dismiss me with a tone appropriate to "some that may have expectations", I'm done. I'll take what I've learned and go elsewhere. It is too much work and too time consumeing to offer ideas and support to a stranger like Ed when I have to "debate" you.
My name is Bill
Ed C Jake wrote:
Bill, I will try some of your approaches as soon as I have my act together (thanks to A.T.) and maximize my DVD output.
The simple one is to make your video/slideshow in Premier Elements and Publish&Share > Computer > AVCHD > Presets: "MP4 H.264 1920x1080p30" > pick a Save In folder and Save. Copy that file to a cheap thumbdrive and plug it into your TV or BD player.
Ed C Jake wrote:
By the way, since your Zion photos were messed up, would you be interested in copies of ours? Either way is OK as I know it is special when it is one's own photos.
Thanks for the offer. But I have plenty because my wife was busy taking wonderful photos while I was expermenting with 3D.
My AVCHD camcorder and TV (with glasses) can do that. The "mess up" was I had mistakenly truned of stabilization. That can be bad in a normal video but, in 3D, it becomes unwatchable.
3D can be very entertaining to make, so far, the only place I can play it is on my own gear. I've found nowhere to share it effectively.
Ed C Jake
Referencing back to Post 17 when we last communicated specifically on the matter of getting the best possible for a DVD-VIDEO presentation of your source media....
1. I know of no way to batch resize landscape and portrait oriented stills in one patch.
2. At the present time, I am suggesting that the "Default Scale to Frame Size" option in preferences be left active (with a check mark next to it in Edit Menu/Preferences/General). And, if you have problems with stills with original pixel dimensions, then resize according to the classical recommendations.
3. If you are using the Pan and Zoom Tool for your pans and zooms, work with the Default Scale to Frame Size in effect. Generalizing...that should not affect your results be the pixel dimensions of your still 1920 x 1080, 2200 x 1238, 4896 x 2752 pixels. Remember with the pan and zoom tool, each still duration will be increased after applying pan and zoom effect. (Remember if you use Motion Panel expanded for keyframing of Scale (Zoom) and Position (Pan), you will not see this increase in still duration after a pan and zoom effect is applied.) If for any reason, including exploration and experimentation, you want to look at the Pan and Zoom Tool with Default Scale to Frame Size OFF, then right click the specific still involved and uncheck "Scale to Frame Size". Also remember that the Pan and Zoom workspace works from the image as saved to the computer hard drive and not the one that you see now "close up" in the Edit Mode monitor. Just how many of these 50 stills do you plan on applying pan and zoom to?
4. About your workflow in general...you may recall my mention of resizing or not resizing and defining your own limits.
This afternoon, I set up Premiere Elements 11 Windows 7 64 bit (NTSC AVCHD AVCHD 1080p60 project) with the Expert workspace Timeline of:
one 1080p60 video clip (AVCHD.mp4, with duration of about 6.5 seconds.
fifty 4896 x 2752 pixels jpg photos
and burned that to DVD-VIDEO on DVD-RW disc (Publish+Share/Disc/DVD disc with the NTSC_Widescreen DVD Dolby preset). Burn time. About 2 minutes. No errors or crashes before, during, or at end of burn. The playback on computer and TV was good. I defined my limit in this specific instance.
5. Another consideration is related to still duration if you have not been there and know this already. When you drag your still image to the Timeline, its duration is set according to Edit Menu/Preferences/General "Still Image Default Duration" with the default of 150 frames. For a 30 frames per second system, that equates to 5 second duration for each still. But, when you are set for the 1080p60 project preset, that 150 frames set will then equate to 2.5 seconds for each still. At that point, you can use Time Stretch to alter still image duration if wanted.
I do not recall asking you previously, is there a difference in the quality of your DVD-VIDEO end product that you perceive in the comparison of the computer and TV playback of your end product DVD-VIDEO widescreen?
Please let us know if you need any further clarification on looking at the DVD-VIDEO Widescreen way whose details were presented to try to determine if you were working at optimum for that avenue.
Your last posting is good. I'll answer your questions, below, and I hope you don't mind another couple of questions.
1 & 2. How do most knowledgeable users such as yourself, Bill Hunt, Bill (whsprague), etc., handle the resizing when working with 800 - 1,000 photos (a mix of landscape & portraits) for a 1 Hr video? Do you
a. Separate the landscape and portrait photos and resize them independently
b. Just pick one dimension (width or height), check the "Constrain Proportions" box, and use the resultant resized photos
c. Is there another approach used by experts such as yourselves?
3. In my actual project, I'm not sure how many photos will have pan and zoom, but given the 800 - 1000 photos in my actual project, it may be a lot of them.
I have used Pan and Zoom before but is there a way in Pr11 to create a rectangular vertical-pan-box that goes from top to bottom of photo, with variable width, so I can pan left-to-right across some of the magnificent scenery in Zion; or vice versa from top to bottom with a full width horizontal-pan-box. I found the Pan and Zoom Tool in Pr11 keeps the vertical and horizontal dimensions in proportion to each other, preventing the creation of a full width box in one dimension and a variable width in the second dimension. Is there a way to achieve full-width vertical and/or horizontal pan boxes, with the second dimension variable?
4. Thank you for doing all that work. I assume your comment "The playback on computer and TV was good. I defined my limit in this specific instance." meant the images were good, given the limitations of DVDs.
5. I knew that 150 frames equated to 5 seconds photo duration with my "original", but wrong presets, but I was not aware the 1080p60 project preset would produce 2.5 seconds. While viewing the "new" project you suggested in post 11, I noticed the photos changed much quicker and wondered why. Now I know.
Per your question about quality: The DVD-VIDEO end product looks crisper and better on the computer's 20" monitor vs. the 50" TV. I assume the "DVD weaknesses" are more noticable on the larger 50" TV. However, as I mentioned previously, the TV image is significantly better than before we started these discussions.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the questions above and please add any comments, etc. about anything.....
Great news. It is after midnight where I am, and I have several additional comments to make.
So, first thing in the morning, I will be posting them.
Thanks for staying with the troubleshooting and understanding where I was going with the comments.
Is it possible to continue this evening with our discussion?
Ed C Jake
If using Photoshop Elements Full Editor Process Multiple Files, I would
a. remove the check mark next to Constrain Proportions and type in the pixel dimensions representing 16:9, that is, if 1920 x 1080 is the goal, type in 1920 for width and type in 1080 for height. Do not worry about Resolution, it is not applicable in this type of situation. You can leave it at 72. It is meaningless in this inch-less pixel situation. I would save to JPEG High Quality.
b. if you decide the 2.5 second duration is too short for your photos, you can select the them, right click the selection, select Time Stretch, and use the Time Stretch dialog to change the still image duration of those selected. 00;00;00;00 in the Time Stretch dialog represents hours; minutes;seconds; frames. But, do consider what those changes will do to the rest of the Timeline content, transitions and such. Plan your changes strategically. Remember, each of your stills that you will use the Pan and Zoom Tool will have increased duration after those pan and zoom effects are applied. Check out the before after still duration to see what I mean.
c. you wrote
I assume your comment "The playback on computer and TV was good. I defined my limit in this specific instance." meant the images were good, given the limitations of DVDs.
No, what I meant to re-enforce there was that each of us can go to different extremes in our workflow depending of computer resources, source media, and such. That will differ for each. So, each must determine his/her own limits in how far to stretch or not stretch the recommendations of others and come away with a video presentation that all can enjoy.
I would target my concerns for the intended viewer's situation, 20 in TV, computer, other.
d. As for the Pan and Zoom Tool, it is as it presents. If you have special needs with regard to panning and zooming, you might have to think about using keyframing of Scale (for Zoom) and Position (for Pan). Presets (Effects) for pan and zoom exist, but can be limiting in that only a pan or zoom effect per still is possible not a pan and zoom.
Please let me know if I have targeted your questions.
Thanks. And, please update us on your progress when you get a chance.
I understand your comments and I am significantly more knowledgeable about creating a video for DVDs. I appreciate all the time and effort you have given me and I will move on.
Based upon Bill, Bill H. and your comments I am also considering purchasing a BluRay Disk player with USB and/or SD connectors in order to take my results to the next step. Once I have reached that conclusion, I will double check back here.
Thank you and everyone else, again!
Ed C Jake
Thanks for the update.
Success in whatever decisions you make as you move forward with your video projects.
We will be looking forward to learning of your progress.