How to scan stills for video

Bobby

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
287
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I wish to scan some slides, photos, negatives (Epson 1640 SU) to use in a
video/DVD that I want to make. I'm unsure of the process and details eg dpi
(?96), PAL resolution (?768x576?, resizing? file type (JPEG?). Any pointers,
sugestions, help much appreciated.

Bobby
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bobby" <rbbryxxx@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:cOgvc.2240$rz4.1503@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I wish to scan some slides, photos, negatives (Epson 1640 SU) to use in a
> video/DVD that I want to make. I'm unsure of the process and details eg
dpi
> (?96), PAL resolution (?768x576?, resizing? file type (JPEG?). Any
pointers,
> sugestions, help much appreciated.
>
> Bobby

It depends on the NLE software that you're using. Premiere will handle up
to 4000 x 4000 pixels. I always resize so that the longest dimension is
4,000 pixels, using 16-bit TIFF.


>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

PTRAVEL wrote:

>
> I always resize so that the longest dimension is
> 4,000 pixels, using 16-bit TIFF.
>
>

Just out of curiosity - why?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bobby wrote:

> I wish to scan some slides, photos, negatives (Epson 1640 SU) to
> use in a video/DVD that I want to make. I'm unsure of the process
> and details eg dpi (?96), PAL resolution (?768x576?, resizing?
> file type (JPEG?). Any pointers, sugestions, help much appreciated.

720x576 PAL DVDs:

Scan / frame / crop at 788x576 (square pixels), then resample (in
only the horizontal direction) to 720x576.

704x576 PAL DVDs:

Scan / frame / crop at 770x576 (square pixels), then resample (in
only the horizontal direction) to 704x576.

* * *

If you want to crop/resize directly from a larger image to the
625/50 DV pixel aspect ratio and the standard DVD frame sizes,
you could also use the following methods:

720x576 PAL DVDs, height-based method:

1) Use a bounding box crop tool (or similar) to mark up your
desired source frame height from the original scanned image

2) The desired width (in square pixels) is 720/576 * 128/117 =
160/117 of the desired height (in square pixels). For example,
if your desired source frame height (the height of the rectangle
you want to crop from the original scanned image) was 663 pixels,
the width of the rectangle should be 160/117 * 663 = 906.666...
=~ 907 pixels, so in this sample case you would crop a 907x663
pixel frame out of the original scanned image.

3) Resample the image directly to the target resolution; 720x576.
(While resizing, make sure that the graphics app does _not_ try
to lock the height and width values of the image together.)

720x576 PAL DVDs, width-based method:

1) Use a bounding box crop tool (or similar) to mark up your
desired source frame width from the original scanned image.

2) The desired height (in square pixels) is 576/720 * 117/128 =
117/160 of the desired width (in square pixels). For example,
if your desired source frame width was 800 pixels, the height
of the rectangle should become 117/160 * 800 = 585 pixels. In
other words, in our sample case, you need to crop out a
800x585 pixel frame out of the original scanned image.

3) Resample the image directly to the target resolution; 720x576.
(While resizing, make sure that the graphics app does _not_ try
to lock the height and width values of the image together.)

It works in a similar way for the 704x576 target resolution, but
the factors are different (since the digital active picture area
is of a different shape, too):

- 704x576 PAL DVDs, height-based method: multiply the desired
source image height by 1408/1053 (= 704x576 * 128/117) to get
the corresponding width, then crop and resample to 704x576.

- 704x576 PAL DVDs, width-based method: multiply the desired
source image width by 1053/1408 (= 576x704 * 117/128) to get
the corresponding height, then crop and resample to 704x576.

For more information, see

<http://www.iki.fi/znark/video/conversion/#conversion_table>

--
znark
 

Al

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
558
0
18,980
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40BE4797.2F79813B@hotmail.com>...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> >
> > I always resize so that the longest dimension is
> > 4,000 pixels, using 16-bit TIFF.
> >
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity - why?

The larger image size allows you to create a Moving Path, in which you
zoom in and then pan across the still while still maintaining good
image quality - this is called the "Ken Burns" effect, after the
author of the Civil War and other documentaries.

This is a really neat way of "animating" a still photo.

If you zoom in on a still photo that has dimensions close to the
screen size, it is possible that image quality will degrade somewhat,
enough to make it fuzzy.

Regards,

Al
 

Bobby

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
287
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks for the help. Having further read up I can see the advantages of
knowing which software I will be using, but I still don't (Premier. Avid,
Vegas). While I'm deciding, thought I could at least scan my stills. Still
not sure on file type (JPEG, bmp, tiff) or DPI (assuming I want to "pan and
scan").

Anyway, lots to learn & do! Thanks to all!

Bobby
 

Brian

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2003
1,371
0
19,280
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bobby" <rbbryxxx@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>I wish to scan some slides, photos, negatives (Epson 1640 SU) to use in a
>video/DVD that I want to make. I'm unsure of the process and details eg dpi
>(?96), PAL resolution (?768x576?, resizing? file type (JPEG?). Any pointers,
>sugestions, help much appreciated.
>
>Bobby
>
It depends on what Video editor or DVD authoring program that you're
using.
Some video programs have a scanning options for adding photos and auto
adjust the photo after it's been scanned.
If you don't have a video program then go to www.ulead.com and check
out some of the features for programs on this site.

Regards Brian
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bobby wrote:

> Still not sure on file type (JPEG, bmp, tiff) or DPI
> (assuming I want to "pan and scan").

Whenever you want to display a full-screen PAL video image
of some scanned object (no matter how big or small on the
paper) you should have scanned in at least 576 pixels of
picture data in the vertical direction from that very
object.

(You can measure the height of your target with a ruler and
then calculate some rough dpi value for your scans from that.
For example, 300 dpi is not enough if you want to display
a 1 inch tall original detail on the paper in a full-screen
PAL picture, but 600 dpi would be enough. Likewise, 300 dpi
for a 2 inch tall detail would be enough. You could use 150
dpi for a 4-inch tall detail etc.)

24-bit BMP is a better choice for an intermediate format
than JPEG since storing in JPEG format involves using a
lossy compression algorithm (i.e. data is being lost each
time you save in JPEG format.)

TIFF would usually do, too, although TIFF is actually a
complicated family of different graphics image formats
rather than a single format - you can have uncompressed
TIFFs, LZW compressed TIFFs (non-lossy) and even JPEG
compressed TIFFs (lossy) to name but a few. (Usually
when graphics apps save in "TIFF format" they use some
non-lossy variation of it, though.)

--
znark
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Al wrote:

> Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40BE4797.2F79813B@hotmail.com>...
> > PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I always resize so that the longest dimension is
> > > 4,000 pixels, using 16-bit TIFF.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Just out of curiosity - why?
>
> The larger image size allows you to create a Moving Path, in which you
> zoom in and then pan across the still while still maintaining good
> image quality - this is called the "Ken Burns" effect, after the
> author of the Civil War and other documentaries.
>
> This is a really neat way of "animating" a still photo.
>
> If you zoom in on a still photo that has dimensions close to the
> screen size, it is possible that image quality will degrade somewhat,
> enough to make it fuzzy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Al

Oh, OK. I didn't realize you were doing pan/scan. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Does Premiere do filtering to reduce interlace artifacts (flickering of small details)?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40BF6990.CF6E74B5@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Al wrote:
>
> > Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<40BE4797.2F79813B@hotmail.com>...
> > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I always resize so that the longest dimension is
> > > > 4,000 pixels, using 16-bit TIFF.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity - why?
> >
> > The larger image size allows you to create a Moving Path, in which you
> > zoom in and then pan across the still while still maintaining good
> > image quality - this is called the "Ken Burns" effect, after the
> > author of the Civil War and other documentaries.
> >
> > This is a really neat way of "animating" a still photo.
> >
> > If you zoom in on a still photo that has dimensions close to the
> > screen size, it is possible that image quality will degrade somewhat,
> > enough to make it fuzzy.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Al
>
> Oh, OK. I didn't realize you were doing pan/scan. Yeah, that makes perfect
sense.
>
> Does Premiere do filtering to reduce interlace artifacts (flickering of
small details)?


It doesn't do filtering. However, Premiere's resampling algorithms aren't
particularly good, which is why I use the maximum possible resolution. By
doing so, I've always gotten, clean, non-artifact, non-flickering still pans
and zooms. I haven't tried it in Premiere Pro, yet, but this was how I did
it in Premiere 6.0 and 6.5.

>
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2i9buqFk8ejuU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Does Premiere do filtering to reduce interlace artifacts (flickering of
> small details)?
>
>
> It doesn't do filtering. However, Premiere's resampling algorithms aren't
> particularly good, which is why I use the maximum possible resolution. By
> doing so, I've always gotten, clean, non-artifact, non-flickering still
pans
> and zooms. I haven't tried it in Premiere Pro, yet, but this was how I
did
> it in Premiere 6.0 and 6.5.

Just deinterlace it if you have that problem. I haven't found any
significant drop in quality when deinterlacing a still picture.

There is another filter that solves the problem as well, without
deinterlacing - I don't remember which, but maybe someone else will. It was
mentioned about a month or so ago.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:10bv2gs590o58a1@corp.supernews.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2i9buqFk8ejuU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > Does Premiere do filtering to reduce interlace artifacts (flickering
of
> > small details)?
> >
> >
> > It doesn't do filtering. However, Premiere's resampling algorithms
aren't
> > particularly good, which is why I use the maximum possible resolution.
By
> > doing so, I've always gotten, clean, non-artifact, non-flickering still
> pans
> > and zooms. I haven't tried it in Premiere Pro, yet, but this was how I
> did
> > it in Premiere 6.0 and 6.5.
>
> Just deinterlace it if you have that problem. I haven't found any
> significant drop in quality when deinterlacing a still picture.

This isn't a deinterlace issue. When using Image Pan transform in Premiere,
the internal resizing algorithms in Premiere result in considerable
artifacts when zooming or panning the image. These cannot be fixed using
deinterlace which, in any event, is applicable only to imported stills, not
to stills which have been animated using Image Pan.

>
> There is another filter that solves the problem as well, without
> deinterlacing - I don't remember which, but maybe someone else will. It
was
> mentioned about a month or so ago.

This is an old issue, and one that is well-documented. The solution I've
given is the only one that works with the Image Pan transform.


>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

PTRAVEL wrote:
> snip <
>
> When using Image Pan transform in
> Premiere, the internal resizing algorithms in Premiere result in
> considerable artifacts when zooming or panning the image. These
> cannot be fixed using deinterlace which, in any event, is applicable
> only to imported stills, not to stills which have been animated using
> Image Pan.
>
> snip more <


Or you could use Vegas which does not have these issues at all :)
(Sorry folks but I had to say it. Please note the smiley.)

Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> This isn't a deinterlace issue. When using Image Pan transform in
Premiere,
> the internal resizing algorithms in Premiere result in considerable
> artifacts when zooming or panning the image. These cannot be fixed
using
> deinterlace which, in any event, is applicable only to imported
stills, not
> to stills which have been animated using Image Pan.

If you do a lot of this, it might be worthwhile to investigate Moving
Pictures from stagetools.com. I'm playing around with the demo and
though it's expensive, it's quite easy to use and I haven't noticed any
artifacts as of yet.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com-no spam> wrote in message news:<ImQvc.17546$BH2.7118@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> > This isn't a deinterlace issue. When using Image Pan transform in
> Premiere,
> > the internal resizing algorithms in Premiere result in considerable
> > artifacts when zooming or panning the image. These cannot be fixed
> using
> > deinterlace which, in any event, is applicable only to imported
> stills, not
> > to stills which have been animated using Image Pan.
>
> If you do a lot of this, it might be worthwhile to investigate Moving
> Pictures from stagetools.com. I'm playing around with the demo and
> though it's expensive, it's quite easy to use and I haven't noticed any
> artifacts as of yet.

When I don't want to do this in Premiere, I use a program called
Imaginate, which gives control over virtually every conceivable
parameter related to "Ken Burnsing" a still.