Jump to content
  • 0

Poor Quality of Images in VideoWave playback


frankmny

Question

I used video-wave to create a VideoCD containing many images, text slides, video files, and song clips. Everything worked great, and I successfully burned the production to a CD. However, the displayed images on the VideoCD are very blurry and the text is not fine. The original jpg's and bmp's used to make the production are high quality (2meg or better) files. Why are the images losing their quality in the production? In some cases, the text slides lack so much sharpness that the whole thing is hard to appreciate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Guest mlpasley
And I know not everyone might have a photo imaging program to do so, but if you do, and it allows you to change the pixel aspect ratio, please do it! If you still have a regular TV (not HDTV), your pixels are rectangular. Notice how the pics that look good on your digcam or computer monitor look 'fat' when shown on TV? Change the aspect ration to .9, and on TV your pic will look normal.

 

You're not nitpicking at all and I enjoy reading your point of view (especially since I usually agree with you :) )

 

However, I'm not a 'picture' person as much as a video person, so could you clarify something for me?

 

I thought aspect ratio was the relation of width to height ie 4:3 or 16:9.

 

So what exactly is the .9 and what does it do? I may be working with photos in the near future and I want to learn as much as I can in advance of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey vid2man97---I just went to school on what you had to say in that explanation of aspect ratio regarding TV's. Thanks for the contribution to the forum. Always in the past when I thought of "aspect Ratio", it was like ml suggested--If one has a photo that is 640 x 480 and change that to 740 x 300 say, then the photo will definitely be distorted. In order to keep the aspect ratio the same one would have to make it 740 x 555*-. Then it would look the same. (I think I got that right) :) .

 

So looking at the aspect ration as far as the old CRT TV goes (4:3) is, I guess ver similar except fpr the differences in the actual shape of the pixel, as you have pointed out.

 

BTW---Thanks for the help on the "Black Border" episode :huh: Jeeez---40 posts !!!

 

Frank....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right...640X480 translates to 740X555. For 'old' CRT you ought to keep that width:height of 4:3. That's proportion, what most people think of as aspect ratio.

 

Then there's 'pixel aspect ratio'. What most people don't care about as long as they can view their beautiful pictures. That's what life's about...sharing something nice.

 

BTW...hope I was of some help with the border thing. I noticed too that you might shop for a new scanner.

I have to admit I'm an Epson fan. The Canon FARE scratch removal system is nice but I just happen to prefer the Epson ICE for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the aspect ratio is 4:3 for regular TV. But how does your 640X480 pixel pic translate into 704X480 on the screen?

The answer is that old fashioned CRT TV pixels are rectangular. Your monitor, lcd tv, digcam display...have square pixels. So that is where the .9 aspect ratio comes into play. Your monitor pixel is .9 the width of a TV pixel. That's how a pic 640 wide fills the tv screen (that's 704 pixels wide) and why some people see their pics clipped when they don't preview with the 'show tv safe area' option turned on. I don't know if anyone else notices either, but that's why your picture can look 'fat' when shown on tv. I admit it's slight but it can also interfere with clarity and colours. It all depends on how picky you want/need to be...and how much time you have on your hands.

 

But...if you have a program that allows you to change the pixel aspect ratio, you can make your pic

704-ishX640 and not have it clipped (or 'fattened'). I say 'ish' because every tv is different and it depends on the casing the tube sits in, whether you get to see 704 pixels or 703 or whatever.

The altered picture will look 'skinny' on the monitor, but 'stretches out' on the tv. I use PhotoshopCS2, and in the image submenu, I can change the ratio to fit regular tv(.9), NTSCwidescreen(1.2), pal and so on. I can pick a slew of pics, and then do a batch aspect ratio change and save them to a new folder. Unfortunately I'm not that intimately familiar with any other photo programs but I would hope you'd see this on others except for the most basic ones.

 

One other thing that helps with the colour bleeding problem is the NTSC colour filter found in Photoshop. It helps to avoid the smushing that can happen with overly saturated colour and out of gamut colours.

 

This is all changing with the proliferation of LCD TV, plasmas and the like but for now, many of us still have the 'old fashioned' CRT TVs so like with anything else, you have to consider where your hard work will end up and how it'll be viewed.

 

Hope this helps...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used video-wave to create a VideoCD containing many images, text slides, video files, and song clips. Everything worked great, and I successfully burned the production to a CD. However, the displayed images on the VideoCD are very blurry and the text is not fine. The original jpg's and bmp's used to make the production are high quality (2meg or better) files. Why are the images losing their quality in the production? In some cases, the text slides lack so much sharpness that the whole thing is hard to appreciate.

 

Remember that you are making a video of your project. If you are burning a VCD, then it is mpg1 which is not very good. If you do not have a DVD burner, you can try making a SVCD which is better quality but limited time. If you want something better, burn to a DVD. The DVD is still a movie so it still will not be as sharp as the original images.

 

Take a look at this:

 

svcdvsvcd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used video-wave to create a VideoCD containing many images, text slides, video files, and song clips. Everything worked great, and I successfully burned the production to a CD. However, the displayed images on the VideoCD are very blurry and the text is not fine. The original jpg's and bmp's used to make the production are high quality (2meg or better) files. Why are the images losing their quality in the production? In some cases, the text slides lack so much sharpness that the whole thing is hard to appreciate.

 

For what it is worth . . . .

I also find the results of VideoWave making a video from photos to be very disappointing even when selecting the highest quality available and generating a huge file, regardless of what device they are played back on.

I generally use MS Office "Powerpoint" for that purpose now. It has many capabilities and options for including audio and video clips, and the quality of the photos displayed is not degraded by any rendering processes. Of course these are only playable on a computer, but they look terrific on my high resolution widescreen lcd monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I just like to add my take on things, so don't take me too seriously.

 

In my opinion, you shouldn't be displaying pictures unless you've adapted them to be shown on the crummy display medium of 'TV'. Crummy for stills that is.

 

You will help yourself if you size them in terms of pixels. Don't try to squeeze a 2000X4000 px pic into the frame. You can do it (and boy will I get flack for this), but in my opinion , you should always fit your image to your output. It's like sending a 1200 dpi image to a printer that prints 300dpi. It can work but if you can change it, you're probably better off to do so.

 

And I know not everyone might have a photo imaging program to do so, but if you do, and it allows you to change the pixel aspect ratio, please do it! If you still have a regular TV (not HDTV), your pixels are rectangular. Notice how the pics that look good on your digcam or computer monitor look 'fat' when shown on TV? Change the aspect ration to .9, and on TV your pic will look normal.

 

So I'm nitpicking here. Thousands of people everyday are looking at their pics and are happy. That's great. But someone asked and I thought I'd nitpick a bit.

 

Ps, after all that, don't forget that the RGB channels are all smushed into one 'video' channel. This lends itself to bluring and smearing of colours into each other. It doesn't matter much for moving images, but for stills...well, we're doing the best we can with what we have, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...