10 replies to this topic

[ehedemann]

Is there any way (or add on) to pan and zoom still photos a la Ken Burns style?

Ed

[ehedemann]

Oops, I now see that there is a pan and zoom control for still photos under Edit/Motion Pictures. I didn't realize that "motion pictures" was a reference to still photos. I guess the key here for zooming is to have high enough resolution stills to begin with so that the photos don't over pixelate on the zoom. Sorry about asking then answering my own question.

Ed

[ehedemann]

After having done a high resolution scan of a photo that I am zooming in on, I see it looks fine during the preview part of the Motion Pictures edit. However, when I play it in the Production Preview window, it become severely pixelated during the zoom. Which is a more accurate reflection of how it will look after I output the production -- what I see during the Motion Pictures Preview (good) or the Production Preview (terrible)? If the latter, is there a way to fix this?

Ed

[T.O.T.G.]

ehedemann, on Jul 28 2006, 05:28 AM, said:

After having done a high resolution scan of a photo that I am zooming in on, I see it looks fine during the preview part of the Motion Pictures edit. However, when I play it in the Production Preview window, it become severely pixelated during the zoom. Which is a more accurate reflection of how it will look after I output the production -- what I see during the Motion Pictures Preview (good) or the Production Preview (terrible)? If the latter, is there a way to fix this?

Ed

It will depend on how you output the file.  If you output the file with a garbage quality, it will look like garbage.   If you output it as a great quality, it will look as it should.  The best way that I can think of to see how it will look after zooming in (assuming you use a high enough quality export) is to open the picture in "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer", and then just zoom in as much as you would in the movie.

Theres probably a better way to do it, but thats my 10 cents.

[ehedemann]

TOTG, on Jul 28 2006, 06:19 AM, said:

It will depend on how you output the file.  If you output the file with a garbage quality, it will look like garbage.   If you output it as a great quality, it will look as it should.  The best way that I can think of to see how it will look after zooming in (assuming you use a high enough quality export) is to open the picture in "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer", and then just zoom in as much as you would in the movie.

Theres probably a better way to do it, but thats my 10 cents.

I opened the photo in Photoshop and it clearly has very good quality when I zoom in, as does the preview during the Motion Pictures edit. What concerns me is that the Production Preview is "garbage" quality. The true test, of course, is doing the output. However, I'd rather not spend a lot of time doing high resolution scans of photos (followed by a lot of effort on zooms) if that's not going to help.

Ed

[T.O.T.G.]

ehedemann, on Jul 28 2006, 06:40 AM, said:

I opened the photo in Photoshop and it clearly has very good quality when I zoom in, as does the preview during the Motion Pictures edit. What concerns me is that the Production Preview is "garbage" quality. The true test, of course, is doing the output. However, I'd rather not spend a lot of time doing high resolution scans of photos (followed by a lot of effort on zooms) if that's not going to help.

Ed

Well, I'm not an expert on this stuff, but you could allways try creating a disk image of a single picture that has pan/zoom to test it.  

I believe the production preview is never a good indication of how good the movie is going to look because it renders on-the-fly, as opposed to beforehand.

[ehedemann]

Excellent idea. I created a new file with one test photo, which I zoomed in on. You were right: even though it looked terrible in the Production Preview, the actual rendered video was good. I wonder if this means that the preview in Motion Pictures edit can be considered a reliable reflection on quality, whereas the Production Preview cannot.

Thanks,
Ed

[T.O.T.G.]

ehedemann, on Jul 28 2006, 07:35 AM, said:

Excellent idea. I created a new file with one test photo, which I zoomed in on. You were right: even though it looked terrible in the Production Preview, the actual rendered video was good. I wonder if this means that the preview in Motion Pictures edit can be considered a reliable reflection on quality, whereas the Production Preview cannot.

Thanks,
Ed

No problem, thank you for letting me know that I was useful.

Yay, I was useful

[ml]

ehedemann, on Jul 28 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

. I wonder if this means that the preview in Motion Pictures edit can be considered a reliable reflection on quality, whereas the Production Preview cannot.

As TOTG said, production preview is NOT a reliable reflection on quality for any portion of the final movie.

Good call, totg!

[ehedemann]

mlpasley, on Jul 28 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

As TOTG said, production preview is NOT a reliable reflection on quality for any portion of the final movie.

Good call, totg!

Yes, that's clear but can the Motion Pictures preview be relied upon for quality? It would be nice to have some sort of reliable preview without having to render the video.

[myguggi]

ehedemann, on Jul 28 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

Yes, that's clear but can the Motion Pictures preview be relied upon for quality? It would be nice to have some sort of reliable preview without having to render the video.

Until you have rendered to the final video, all other previews are unreliable, unfortunately