Best practice is to scale your images to 1280x720 before bringing them into Premiere.
When doing pan/zoom make them twice the editing size.
I was one of those, singing the praises of the Scaling algorithms in PS vs PrPro, but with CS5, Todd has convinced me that things have changed for the better with PrPro and Scaling.
For the overhead of extra-large images, I'd still Scale first, and this ARTICLE will give you some tips on automating that process. According to the word down from San Jose, if one has CS5, they can disregard the "better Scaling algorithms" part.
Thanks folks: Let me make sure I'm hearing this correctly. Ann is offering a suggestion based on CS4, whereby the the interpolation is inferior in PrP to Photoshop--and Ann, I think you're saying, upsize to (1280x2) by (720x2). --although that would make the image immense in PrP.
Bill: you're saying, I think, just bring the original image into PrP (3888 by 2592, in this case). Then just adjust size to taste in PrP using the handles or the Motion? Is that correct.But then, I'm not sure what you're saying about the extra large images, in your second paragraph. How and when exactly would you scale in photoshop? If you scale up, the image is much too large for 1920 or 1080; if you scale down, it's closer to the right size.
Also, when you scale in PrP, do you first Scale to Fit, then manually adjust; or do you simply grab the handles or Motion numbers and adjust?
I'm also thinking it would be better (though I shot this inadvertantly at 720p), to edit at 1920x1080, as that would give me a higher res to work with my yet higher res photos. Is that also correct?
Sorry typo: should be 720x1280.
I was not thinking about the scaling i was more thing of export. All the image have to be rendered. If they are allready the right size this will take u less time exporting.
If you use scale to fit, Premiere makes the image 100% if you scale the image up you will loose quality.
Here's what I found with a bit of experimentation. If I just take the image from Photoshop--without resizing--into PrP (perhaps after a bit of Smart Sharpening), it looks fine at that "100%"--it's, of course, markedly magnified on screen at that point. And it looks quite good if I then downsize it to 25%, which is the size it fits entirely on the screen (with some black space hanging off on each width, due to different frame aspect ratios. ). This approach does not use Scale to Frame Size. If I start with Scale to Frame Size and then upsize to get an image I can pan/zoom, it distorts the image.
Sorry that I did not state things clearly. Large still images require overhead to handle. I Scale to the Sequence's Frame Size, unless I will be doing Pans/Tiltson a Zoomed out image, and then will calculate how many pixels in which direction I need. That does take calculations, but will yield an image at the optimum size, with the smallest amount of processing overhead. Now, there WAS the benefit of better Scaling in PS, up to PrPro CS5. That benefit has been removed, as Scaling should be just as good, in PrPro CS5. Still, the overhead exists.
In your case, as you have not figured out the amount of Pan/Tilt on Zoomed out images yet, I'd go with a common size, that allows one some room to Pan/Tilt, when the image is Zoomed out. It will eliminate extraneous pixels and their overhead.
When you have animated the Pan/Tilts, if you find that you do not need all the pixels, you can Scale safely in PrPro, and I would use the fixed Effect>Motion>Scale. If you are going to want to Pan/Tilt on Zoomed out images, do not use Scale to Frame Size, as that will Scale your images TO the Sequence Frame Size, and you will then not have the necessary extra pixels to use, as the images will have been Scaled to the Frame Size.
If I had some images, that I knew would NOT involve Pans/Tilts, I would do a separate Scaling with Automation in PS. Often, I will end up with maybe three folders of stills: 1 where there will be zero Pans/Tilts, and these will be Scaled exactly to my Frame Size. Then, there will be another, where I will Scale less, leaving extra pixels for the Pans/Tilts, and possibly another folder, with images with even more pixels for a lot of Panning and/or Tilting.
Note: The term "Tilting" is used as it would be with a camera. In an NLE, the proper term would probably be "Vertical Pan," where the more traditional Pan would be "Horizontal Pan."
PS - as for that image overhead, remember that the image has not been actually acted upon, when it's in the Timeline. All pixels are still there. What we have done, when we Scale in PrPro is to have written a set of instructions, telling the program what to do with that image, when we go to Export. What we see is but a representation of that Scaling.
PPS - also remember that all pixels beyond the Frame Size of the Sequence are not seen, as they are effectively cropped by the Frame Size dimensions. It's like having a 16 x 20 photograph, and a 20 x 24 matte, but with an 11 x 14 aperture in it. With Panning, we basically slide that photograph behind the aperture in the matte. We can only see the segments of that photograph through that aperture.
One other thing: there's a bug in the program. At one moment in PrP an image at "100%" may look great, and the next moment, it looks awful, after changing the scaling a bit, then returning.