http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: resolution - Recent Posts en Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:26:05 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74165 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:53:43 +0000 birdcat 74165@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Earl brings up a very good point - If you're gonna do the "Ken Burns" effect, you want to be able to zoom in without losing resolution.  You just need to be careful because some NLE's are not very good at down-resing high-res files (like 16 mpx, considering HD is only 2mpx) and you can get some problems (like flicker).  If you are having problems with the high-res stills, you might want to use something like PhotoShop to down-res them to something like 3-4mpx first.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74162 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:29 +0000 Don 74162@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>another place where image size for stills matters is when cropping or panning or applying Ken Burns styled motion to a still image...</p> <p>I always prefer 6 to 16 mp stills off my d-slrs for adding into my video projects.</p> <p>This way I have endless options in post.</p> <p>one example, is using an ultra wide still of a static scene and panning across it in final cut as opposed to panning it with the video camera... much easier for say a wedding production where you need your video camera to remain framed and focused for the close up on the bride and groom, but want a pan of the whole church for a cutaway...</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74157 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:52:12 +0000 EarlC 74157@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Notwithstanding the print resolution of my stills, I always scan stills at 150-to-300 dpi, primarily because one or more of them WILL get printed as I use them for insert sheets and DVD/CD cover art. My other purpose for scanning at print resolution is to provide me with enough image information that I can zoom in on many of the images, starting from a full-frame or partially cropped area, getting close to and isolating a specific point of interest, or person in a group. Not too swift, trying to do that with a 72 dpi image. I used to setup my NTSC SD framing in Photoshop but now have a program that handles that for me so I don't have to worry about computer &amp; print square pixels vs TV rectangular pixels. Just some more stuff to think about in working with stills in a video project, or photo montages.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74145 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:57:10 +0000 Charles Schultz 74145@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Interesting facts Birdcat and I also work in print so I always shoot at 300 with my stills.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74144 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:38:00 +0000 birdcat 74144@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>DPI/PPI is irrelevant in video - It is used only in print work.  Video is based on pixels only, no per inch.  Images for video should be sized using 72 DPI - 72 DPI and 400 X 300 is the same as 144 DPI and 200 X 150 - both equate to 28800 X 21600.  NTSC SD is 720 X 480 and HD is 1920 X 1080 or 1280 X 720.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74139 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:51:45 +0000 Jaimie 74139@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I have fought the battle of putting stills in video a number of times and have come to the conclusion that dpi doesn't matter.</p> <p>In still printing, you know the size of your output format and would normally scale your final to 300 dpi which has become sort of a standard.  Of course, you're not stuck with 300 dpi, but let's use it for discussion's sake.  For example, if your output will be an 8x10" print, at 300 dpi your file would be 2400x3000 dots or about 7.2 megadots or megapixels whatever you like to call it.  Assuming your printer and paper can support that resolution, that will give a darn nice looking photo.</p> <p>But, in video, you don't know the viewer's screen size, or even it's resolution.  What you do know is your project's resolution.  Let's say it's 1920x1080, a common standard.  Notice that is only about 2 megapixels and that's as good as it gets!  To see what the displayed dpi is, calculate the screen dimensions for the desired screen size and divide the width by 1920.  That tells how "thinly" the pixels must be spread to fill the screen area.  These are: 32" diagonal screen is about 28" wide by 16" high which gives about 69 dpi; a 40" diagonal screen gives displays about 54dpi and the whopping 80 incher comes in at 35dpi.  What a shocker and that's HD!  The numbers are all approximate because TVs don't necessarily display all the pixels (hence the "safe areas" in Premiere).</p> <p>TVs uses various smoothing tricks to make the picture look better than these numbers might indicate.  But then, too, viewers don't usually sit a foot away from an 80" screen.  All that said, what's the bottom line?</p> <p>My personal experience is that a 3 to 5 megapixel photo scales nicely in Premiere.  If you give it a 50 megapixel photo, it sometimes coughs up a hairball. </p> <p>But wait, there's more.  Close-up photos with few details look better on screen than long views filled with fine details.  I have also noticed, especially when you edit in HDV, but reproduce on a standard DVD, that making the photo move slightly improves its appearance.  I often have the photo "swell" about 10% or move a small amount.  This seems to result in cleaner edges.</p> <p>That's it for now,</p> <p>Jaimie</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74137 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:19:32 +0000 WSanford 74137@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> When its higher I just scale down and never had adverse effects from that. I agree, upresing is a bad choice. Most of the time though, I don't pull out the still to get a high res RAW image and just pull a frame grab if I need a still to use. I shoot progressive and the 72dpi is usually enough. With that said, I agin have only seen a difference in close up high detail images and on my still cam a lower quality has been enough, 150-240dpi has been more than enough and I've never needed 300dpi. It just never made any improvement.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74129 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:27:59 +0000 Brad Shirakawa 74129@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>So if I understand this, the ppi could be a little on the high side, say 150 on an image that measures 2900x1200 or so, for use in HiDef video...but 72 is probably ok?  I have no intention of upconverting 72 to 300, but thanks for that advice.  Many thanks!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74128 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:27:24 +0000 signmax 74128@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hi,</p> <p>Consider that a photo or image has 2 factors: canvas size and picture size normally both factor are equal. In HD the picture and canvas are 1920 x 1080 pixels at 72 dpi.</p> <p>What is DPI (dots per inch) more dpi more quality in but the quality can cause problem as example computer screen can use 72, 96 or 120 dpi. but to print a high quality on common printer you need at least 150 dpi or 300 or 600.</p> <p>You cannot use a 300 dpi and reduce to 72 and after go to 300.</p> <p>What you can do?</p> <p>Your screen is 1920 x 1080 a full screen picture can be reduced or fit to 1920 at 120 dpi.</p> <p>A PIP picture may be 50% of the height 540 pixel can be reduced to 540 at 120 dpi.</p> <p>Use PhotoShop or any good drawing program to rescale your picture or photos.</p> <p>Regards,</p> <p>YR</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74126 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:24:02 +0000 Charles Schultz 74126@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>If you have it in 300 PPI go with it but don't try to take a 72 PPI and uprez it to 300 it will look like crap, for a lack of better terms. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74120 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:26:46 +0000 WSanford 74120@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Many of times I've taken frame grabs to work with that go back in the video and even HD is always 72dpi. Sometimes I can see a difference in quality going higher but not always. You don't always have to hit the print demands of 300 either, sometimes just a jump to 150 is all you need. Its something you have to play by ear/eye and how much you influence detail with it. I wouldn't mess with it on a close up with tons of detail.</p> <p>I shoot in RAW with my still cam, so everything I work with is usually 240 dpi to begin with.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/resolution-for-still-photos-in-hd-video#post-74119 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:07:04 +0000 Brad Shirakawa 74119@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I've seen recommends for pixel sizes for still photos imported into <strong>HD video</strong>, but not the PPI.  So if I import a still photo in Premiere at around 1980 x 1200 or so, <strong>what PPI</strong>?  72?  300?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/video-size-compared-to-quality#post-63478 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:25:03 +0000 linefly11 63478@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>@XTR-91: Thanks for the input. Not that it really matters, but all will be filmed in 1080p, not 1080i.</p> <p> </p> <p>I guess technically it would be like Re-sampling in Photoshop. I am really new to this whole HD filming thing. haha. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/video-size-compared-to-quality#post-63475 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:51:14 +0000 grinner 63475@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Actually, you will indeed see a crisper picture the smaller you go. It's the opposite of scaling video up and getting a softer result. I often shoot in 1080 and edit SD. Looks awesome.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/video-size-compared-to-quality#post-63473 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:46:06 +0000 XTR-91 63473@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Simply lowering the resolution of a given video file is not going to make it look better.  Once you've already filmed it, it is what it is, for the most part anyway.  Once it's done in 1080i, there's not much sense downconverting it, unless you're uploading it.  720p is not interlaced, and 1080i is.  720p60 will look smoother in motion than 1080i.</p> <p> </p> <p>Downconverting anything is not going to make it look better, though some computer players seem to have a "preference", and WILL playback certain resolutions better.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63471 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:33:23 +0000 XTR-91 63471@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i or 60p.</p> <p> </p> <p>24p is for convenient uploading online.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/video-size-compared-to-quality#post-63469 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:29:07 +0000 linefly11 63469@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hello. This question applies to all video editing software. I am looking to buy an HD Gopro Helmet camera, and I already have a Canon Vixia HF10. Coming up in this winter, I am going to be filming and editing a very big video in my community of Extreme Pogoers (sounds lame, I know, haha) and we are going to have an additional 2 HD cameras and another HD Gopro. Editing will be done in Vegas 8, with some additional shots composed in After Effects for things Vegas can't do.</p> <p>All of the HD Video cams look crisp and clean, while the Gopro shots are sort of blurry and softer. I decided to render in 720P, rather then 1080. Will rendering in a lower resolution make the Gopro footage look any better, or is there any way to make it look better, Rather then just having it as blurry as it is, but smaller? (If that makes any since)</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63459 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +0000 bbi bogdao 63459@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>30 fps is not too much? 24 is the usual no?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54378 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:37:45 +0000 XTR-91 54378@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right."</em></p> <p>Wasn't even quite sure myself, but I think my words are better stated as: 'interlaced video was intended to create a 60 frame-ish affect while only being able to broadcast only one field 60 times a second.'</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect."</em></p> <p>This part of your post struck me amusing at first, but I sort of get your point of making better motion realism (which in a lot of cases it's a good affect). For the most part, 60p was created to move forward in attempt to ditch the whole interlaced gag. 60p is really the only progressive mode that creates enough adequate fluid of motion. 30p is still a bit too jabbish - I'd still take 60i over it. If I had the option, I'd only use 24p for achieving a certain affect, not as my everyday story/movie/documentary shooting mode. I've heard some RED cams can shoot 120p for achieving some motion affects while retaining the good quality of 60p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54359 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:00:10 +0000 robGRAUERT 54359@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>"The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money"</p> <p>How does shooting 24fps save money?</p> <p>"interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames."</p> <p>I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right.</p> <p>Mocojez,</p> <p>I agree with you. I'm not down with 24p. The only time I find it acceptable is if you are transferring to film. The thing that bugs me most is people think 24p actually makes their video looks like film. It probably has the least impact. Composition, camera work, lighting...those all have a much bigger impact for creating a film look than the frame rate.</p> <p>In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54353 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:34:13 +0000 XTR-91 54353@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i (30 frames with 60 interlaced fields) has always been the standard broadcast quality since the early days of television. More recently with the introduction of digital video, video producers have been trying to acquire more of a film look in order to compete with india filmmakers by setting the rate which they record and reproduce to 24p. Film was always recorded and processed in 24p and sent to a 60i analog broadcast. Not the most ideal, but interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames. 24p was almost universal for video recording since people have tried to boost the quality of their productions, when in reality they took on one of film's disadvantages into acquiring something more 'filmic'. If I had more options I would honestly shoot only 60p (or 60i if there's no 60p option), except for those occasions when wanting to imitate something that happened in the past, or achieving a special affect. I'd check out this article:</p> <p><a href="http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/">http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54351 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:04:51 +0000 Mocojez 54351@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I just watched the tutorial on creating a 'film look' using 24P, and I felt there were some misleading statements. I'd also like to add a very big comment about PLAYBACK.</p> <p>If there's no way to display or present your material at 24fps, I challenge the whole concept of shooting at 24P. Most decent video editing software now has the option to work in 24P format, so the material can be encoded to 24P MPEG-2 and displayed using HD DVD and a 24P-capable LCD screen (at a multiple of 24hz, with 120hz and above being optimal). You can also play directly from many cameras in 24P direct to these screens.</p> <p>However, if you have to convert to an NTSC broadcast format to display the 24P, forget it. A lot of material is still produced on film for TV broadcast, and they generally shoot at 24fps. I've even seen digital video shot at 24P for television broadcast, which is perverse. The whole system for getting feature films onto North American TV is a horrible compromise. The 3:2 pulldown 'expansion' of film frames to interlaced video is not part of the 'film look', especially since that effect doesn't happen in places with 50hz systems, like the UK. They don't watch movies on TV with any 'mashing' of frames.</p> <p>The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money, particularly in post production. I've seen many TV commercials shot at 24fps where the advertising agency actually believed they were producing a 'film look', which is a testament to the disingenuous nature of advertising.</p> <p>A couple of other comments:</p> <p>Motion blur is not the same as strobe - it's the opposite. Strobe occurs when the brain cannot perceive continuous motion, and this happens when we use a slow display frame rate COMBINED with a fast shutter (or narrow shutter angle in a film camera). At 24fps we don't perceive the black phases between the projected images - that's what persistence of vision means. But a narrow shutter angle means that each frame only captures a small percentage of the motion, and we can't put that movement back together in a fluid way. The narrow (or fast) shutter also decreases the motion blur, making things crisper, and this INCREASES the strobe effect.</p> <p>I also totally challenge the idea that you should add film grain, unless you want a 'vintage' look. 35mm film has more than twice the detail resolution of HD video, and a modern feature film shot on film and transferred to digital video has no perceivable grain, unless it was intentional. Grain comes from degraded stored print, or from high speed stocks 'pushed' in exposure, printing or development.</p> <p>And lastly, I wanted to comment that the 24fps standard for film-making is not set in stone. I agree that it was introduced with costs in mind, and then became a standard which was difficult to alter for the same reason. But movies are increasingly shot on digital video, and displayed on digital projectors. There's no doubt that a higher frame rate would raise the quality, so I predict that 30fps might be introduced in the near future.</p> <p>Movies certainly produce the highest quality of image, being processed in post production and projected in theatres at about 4K resolution, but we can only display those images currently on a TV screen at 1920 x 1080, so I have to ask why we trying so hard for a 'film look' in video at 24P, when HD video at 30P arguably looks better on a TV screen?</p> <p>I look forward to getting some comments!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-hf-s10-lines-of-resolution#post-53790 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:31:10 +0000 dools 53790@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Oh yes I stand corrected, it is the Videomaker review that describes the camera resolution in terms of lines of resolution whereas Canon only mentions that it's full HD at 1920 X 1080.  It creates confusion to readers because we're talking apples and oranges.  </p> <p>  </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-hf-s10-lines-of-resolution#post-53786 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:45:19 +0000 roblewis56 53786@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi dools, You are the first to describe this correctly. However it is not Canon that is misleading but the Videomaker review</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-hf-s10-lines-of-resolution#post-53752 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:49:59 +0000 dools 53752@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hi,</p> <p>You are both confusing lines with pixels.  A HDTV does not have lines, instead it has pixels. It has 1920 X 1080 pixels.  720P is not referring to lines of resolution but pixels.   High definition is not measured by lines of resolution so Canon's claim is misleading because there aren't any lines of resolution on a high definition display.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/picture-mushy-edges-jagged-when-i-view-on-pc-monitor#post-48235 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:29:27 +0000 robGRAUERT 48235@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>The problem is that you are using a computer monitor to reference your video even though computer monitors are not made for viewing video. </p> <p>ONLY REFERENCE YOUR VIDEO WITH A BROADCAST MONITOR OR A TV</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/picture-mushy-edges-jagged-when-i-view-on-pc-monitor#post-48222 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:36:52 +0000 astrbac 48222@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>No , no, I dont need to correct you :-),. it ISNT a hi def camera.... yo, youre saying the problem is its "resolution" and it simply cannot play large videos? I mean, large in viewing size, not the file size?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/picture-mushy-edges-jagged-when-i-view-on-pc-monitor#post-48220 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:33:41 +0000 Johnboy 48220@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that is a "hi def" camera.  It's a standard DV camera, that resolution maxes out at 720x480</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/picture-mushy-edges-jagged-when-i-view-on-pc-monitor#post-48214 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:29:36 +0000 astrbac 48214@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hello everyone! :-)</p> <p> </p> <p>I am new to the forums and even newer to the world of moving pictures. I come from a still photography world, so I understand wuite a few things (like sharpness, tripods etc) but theres a lot more that I dont know.</p> <p>Let me explain the problem Im having. Today I shot some footage on a friends DV cam (Sony TRV950), in the local woods, during light rain. Trees, leaves, a bit of the wind sounds etc. Nothing too tricky I suppose.</p> <p>When I came home, I hooked this camcorder to my PC monitor (HP 2475w, excellent for photos, h-ips matrix) via A/V cable that has chinch connectors at the monitor end. Lo and behold, picture was not 16:9 even though recorded in that format and camera LCD showing it in that format, ...picture was all "mushy" (not out of focus but lacking detail, resolution?), edges were jagged (depending on the shot) sort of like a slight Moire  but not really it... I cant describe it, can it be that the resolution of this camera is not enough for 1900x1200?</p> <p>Thank you all and excuse my ignorance! ;-)</p> <p>P.S. Looking to buy a HD camcorder- what is the first lowest price range and model of camera that would allow for photo-like depth of field blurred shots? I have a dSLR photo camera so looking for something that would allow me to produce such a video that I can now do in my stills</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-hf-s10-lines-of-resolution#post-47716 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:35:07 +0000 zoobie 47716@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>HD has different resolutions...starting at 720 lines. Your best bet is to look up the definition of HD at <a href="http://www.wikipedia.com">http://www.wikipedia.com</a></p>