Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › Best photo specs for quality hdv
April 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM #49624
I am using Sony Vegas Pro 10 to edit a video (16.9 PAL HD 1280 x 720) and have been asked by the client what specs are required for the best still reproduction. (They want to supply some logo’s and stills)
I am thinking 1.5 Megapixels minimum, DPI 72, Bit rate 24. JPEG format as a suitable example.
Am I on the right track? Relatively new to this but have done some homework through Google and forums here.
Thanks in advance for any help.
April 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM #203045doublehammParticipant
the DPI won’t mean anything for video, that is mainly for print. Best thing to do is make sure the the image is higher resolution than your output video and you should be good to go!
April 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM #203046
Thanks for the reply. I am am a bit confused by it though. Would you be able to tell me a little more about why DPI is irrelevant please? I am also a bit unsure about bit ratel
April 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM #203047JackWolcottParticipant
The “conventional wisdom” seems to be that the resolution of the image should be about 1.5 times the resolution at which you are working. This allows you enough image quality to zoom in on the still picture without image breakup. If you think you’re going to need to zoom in more than 50% perhaps you’ll need a somewhat higher image resolution.
If you don’t think you’re going to be zooming in much, you probably don’t need still images whose resolution is greater than the resolution you have on your timeline.
If the still image resolution is too high, you’ll find that Vegas, like any other NLE, will bog down in performance. You’ll possibly get artifacts and “shimmer” as well.
April 22, 2012 at 3:35 AM #203048IanParticipant
The advice that Jack has given you is spot on but I thought I would answer your question as to why DPI is irrelevant.
DPI (dots per inch) fix the physical size of an image when it is printed. For instance if an image has a horizontal resolution of 1200 pixels, if it is printed at 600dpi the resultant image will be 2 inches wide. If printed at 300dpi it will be 4 inches wide 150dpi 8 inches and so on.
When put on a web page, the resolution in pixels will determine the image width as a percentage of the width of the web page. (not to be confused with monitor width) Web page widths are usually around 1000 pixels. (the standard used to be 800 pixels) The native resolution of the majority of new widescreen monitors is 1360 pixels, but there are a variety of sizes in use. On a monitor DPI is of no relevance because monitors can often have the same resolution for a variety of screen sizes therefore the image size in inches is not fixed.
When it comes to video editing (also in web sites which let you upload images) software gets into the act and allows, or creates image resizing. That is where Jack’s advice of at least 1.5 times the working resolution is important as the software can do a much better job of down scaling an image than up scaling.
April 22, 2012 at 3:39 AM #203049YvonParticipant
Since your screen size is 1920 x 1080 that is the maximum picture or image size, since new OS like Windows 7 operate at 120 dpi I made all picture or resize picture to a maximum height 1080 at 120 dpi and 24 bits if you need transparency better to go with 32 bits giving more vivid colors ( you can obtain transparency with 24 bits) Picture format is PNG for transparency or JPG. Use only one software to play with picture keep your original untouched that means you load your original in Adobe or Roxio or a good paint program resize and save using anothername. Start with the original and work on and save dont use a saved format to work on and resave.
April 22, 2012 at 4:12 AM #203050
Thanks so much to all of you for your advice. I am presuming that the client is seeing fuzzy edges on some of the pics and logos because the stills I used were low pixel. (approx 615 x 642 for example) I thought these would be ok on a website because of the small window that the video would be viewed on. However it appears the client has now decided to show the vid on a large TV screen and this has ledto the need to get better pics and logo’s. Also am I rightto say that if I am editing footage at 1280 x 720 that thisthen creates an image ofa bit under 1 megapixel? Still absorbing other info but thanks again,
April 22, 2012 at 4:15 AM #203051
By the way I have also noticed when viewing small parcels of rendered video that I have put together for testing with higher resoluion images that I see color changes and movement on the images that can’t be seen pre-render. Is this the ‘Shimmer’ that Jack was referring to?
- The forum ‘Video and Film Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.