9 Replies Latest reply on Nov 13, 2011 7:43 PM by the_wine_snob

    Still Images slideshow

    tgreen64dcn Level 1

      I have jpegs that are designed to play in succession and create the illusion of animation. However, when I "play" it, the photos are blurry and only the final photo comes into its full resolution.  Is the possible to do with PE 9?  I'm new to the program so I don't know what to adjust. 

        • 1. Re: Still Images slideshow
          the_wine_snob Level 9

          Welcome to the forum.

           

          What are the pixel x pixel dimensions of those Still Images? That can be very important to the resultant quality. This ARTICLE goes into more detail.

           

          Also, how/where are you monitoring the quality?

           

          Good luck,

           

          Hunt

          • 2. Re: Still Images slideshow
            tgreen64dcn Level 1

            Thank you!  The images were created in Photoshop.  They are 2400x1800px (12"x9" using a resolution of 200).  After quickly reading the article I think they need to be resized.  To see the quality, I rendered it, then exported it.  I also just looked at it full screen.  I'm very new, but ready to learn!

             

            Teri

            • 3. Re: Still Images slideshow
              Ted Smith Level 3

              The photos should havce their pixels reduced and/or cropped to match exactly the resolution and pixels of your final movie.

              Eg is using Standard def 640x480 wiht 3x4 aspect ration then the photo should be the same before adding to the timeline.

               

              I know this sounds brutal but that is what the photos are going to ber on the movie anyway so it is better to make them this bad as early as possible.

               

              They will always look blurry anyway when reduced so you usually have to use different camera techniques like shooting closer up and having more contrasting objects. Eg. A wide scene of rolling fields can look great in high definition but useless in low resolution.

               

              When creating animation is is usual for each 'frame change' to be up to movie 4 frames long and not change with every frame.

              This depends on how different each photo is in comparison to the previous frame and should be a long as possible before you see jitter.

              If too fast your monitor lag may be causing the blurring motion effect.

              Maybe there is a rendering or compression issue on fast changes as well because compression compares successive frames to eliminate unnecessary data duplication.

               

              If you are producing an interlaced movie, it takes 2 fields to make up one frame and in PAL it can take 4 fields to fully repeat all info.

              • 4. Re: Still Images slideshow
                Ted Smith Level 3

                Also I always slightly over sharpen any image or movie that has to be reduced in resolution.

                I add "sharpen" effect to all clips and set to between 10% and 20% so it looks slightly too edgy on full screen preview.

                 

                This edgyness gets removed by the reduction in resolution but still leaves a much sharper end result.

                In fact the right amount of sharpening is when you just only just see the extra edgyness on the TV on which the DVD is played when you look at it close up but the edgyness is not visible at the normal viewing distance. It of course depends on the sharpness of the original material too.

                 

                This works particularly well when shooting a HD movie and making a second release copy on standard DVD instead of BLue Ray for my unfortunate relatives who do not yet own a Blue Ray player and a full HD TV set.

                 

                It will also work by over-sharpening photos in photoshop before reducing the image pixels but it is harder to control the final result.

                • 5. Re: Still Images slideshow
                  the_wine_snob Level 9

                  Teri,

                   

                  Along with Ted's comments, I'll also point out that the only "resolution" that matters is the pixel x pixel Height/Width. The IPI, LPI, DPI, i.e. what one in Still Image manipulation normally refers to as "resolution," say 300 PPI, are meaningless in video. Usually with Video, one most often sees a "resolution" of 72 PPI, but that is just a convention. Now, and before I confuse things, with PRINTING and Still Images, then the PPI, DPI, LPI DO have meaning - it's just Video (and the Web), where they are ignored.

                   

                  Good luck,

                   

                  Hunt

                  • 6. Re: Still Images slideshow
                    tgreen64dcn Level 1

                    Thank you so much for this input and education.  I should add that my end result is going to be a video uploaded to YouTube and then embedded on a website.  So what resolution and pixels are needed for that?

                     

                    I'm trying to make these changes in Photoshop and I am using "resize image" to do them.  Not sure where I change the pixel aspect ratio in Photoshop.  I don't have the option in Premiere Elements to "interpret footage" (it isn't clickable...not sure why).  So I can't change the PAR there. 

                     

                    Interesting about frame elements not changing with every frame.

                     

                    Also, what is the best way to preview it?  I think there's something I'm missing there as well.

                     

                    THANK YOU!


                    Teri

                    • 7. Re: Still Images slideshow
                      the_wine_snob Level 9

                      Thank you so much for this input and education.  I should add that my end result is going to be a video uploaded to YouTube and then embedded on a website.  So what resolution and pixels are needed for that?

                       

                      If you wish to do HD (High Definition), and have no Video in the Project, I would set up an NTSC, or PAL HD Project, @ 1920 x 1080, and Scale the Still Images to match.

                       

                      With an HD Project, you will be using Square Pixels, and that is what your Still Images should be. There will be no need to adjust the PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio). For reference, should you ever need to work with non-square pixels, the Pixel Aspect Ratio can be changed in Photoshop via Image>Pixel Aspect Ratio.

                       

                      As for preview, you can output to the appropriate file format/CODEC, and then I like using either VLC Player, of MediaPlayer Classic HC (both free).

                       

                      Good luck,

                       

                      Hunt

                      • 8. Re: Still Images slideshow
                        tgreen64dcn Level 1

                        Success!!!!  I did 720x480 since we need a 4:3 ratio, because the art images were developed with that ratio already.  When I tried 1920x1080 they were too stretched out.  I exported it and watched it with VLC and the images moved quickly and in focus.  Some of the black lettering wasn't as opaque as the original, so there are still adjustments to make.

                         

                        For example:  In Photoshop when I resized my images I selected "Resample Image :  Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)".  Would another setting be better? 

                         

                        And when I "save as" jpeg there are also many options to possibly adjust.  I saved it at the maximum image quality.  Is that correct?  And there are Format Options:   (Baseline Standard, Baseline Optimized and Progressive).  I chose Baseline Optimized. 

                         

                        Thank you so much for your help! 

                         

                        Teri

                        • 9. Re: Still Images slideshow
                          the_wine_snob Level 9

                          I look at both Bucubic Sharper, and Bicubic Smoother, as the reults from the two algorithms can yield different results - some images look better to my eye with Bicubic Smoother, while some others, better with the Bicubic Sharper.

                           

                          Good luck, and let your eyes dictate which to use.

                           

                          Hunt