PDA

View Full Version : Power Point Slide Quality



Ron Kirby
06-09-2006, 11:44 AM
My client just informed me the quality of the Power Point slides in the presentation I just produced are unacceptable. I'm disheartened!
I have tryed VGA capture with VT.
I have tryed importing them as png's and then using ISS to lessen the flicker.
PLEASE HELP!
How do you get the Power Point slides to look nearly as clean and crisp as they do on a computer screen or through a projector? Is it possible?
Ron

billmi
06-09-2006, 12:59 PM
Have they explained in what way they are unacceptable?

If they are creating them in a resolution higher than that of NTSC video, the VT is having to scale them down to include them in the video. It will be impossible to exactly reproduce a VGA resolution powerpoing page on a standard definition NTSC video - that's just the nature of the beast - it's not an issue, of the VT, or any other editing system or software - it's just a reality of video.

Ron Kirby
06-09-2006, 01:43 PM
Some of the lettering is blurry. They have a logo in the bottome right hand corner that is blurry. Items, sometimes letters, sometimes clip art, etc., are somewhat blurry.
This particular client demands top quality video, and I'm struggling with the graphics issue here.
QUESTION
Is there a better way to achieve the absolute best results other than exporting the slide as a png and using iss in the VT?

Rich Deustachio
06-09-2006, 02:27 PM
If it's a large job you might consider buying TriCaster Pro which is supposed to deal with this exact situation.

ScorpioProd
06-09-2006, 02:51 PM
But again, as has already been stated, what you are describing is simply what happens when you put computer resolution PowerPoint on NTSC video.

It is impossible for it to look as sharp and crisp as it does on a computer screen or projector from a computer, period.

wvp
06-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Some of the lettering is blurry. They have a logo in the bottome right hand corner that is blurry. Items, sometimes letters, sometimes clip art, etc., are somewhat blurry.
This particular client demands top quality video, and I'm struggling with the graphics issue here.
QUESTION
Is there a better way to achieve the absolute best results other than exporting the slide as a png and using iss in the VT?
Try (as a test) creating one slide within VT. Get ahold of the highest quality logo you can. Using CG program, resize the logo, type the text and see what that does for them.
If they like what you do it will take a long time to re-create all the slides but its the only way.
As was mentioned, the problem is your client created eveything on a progressive scanned, high resolution computer monitor and now they are trying to compare that to a low-rez (720x480), interlaced image.

Mediaworx
06-24-2006, 12:59 PM
It is impossible for it to look as sharp and crisp as it does on a computer screen or projector from a computer, period.

While this is most certainly a true statement, you can achieve excellent results by saving the PP slides as JPG's, bring them into VTEdit, use Tool Shed Default Preset "Scale(stretch to NTSC)". To ensure they play well with VTEdit, you can save them out in VT as a PNG before importing to the timeline. Unfortunately PP doesn't allow you to do this natively. You might be able to tell the difference in sharpness, but I'll almost guarantee your client won't

J_Camp
06-24-2006, 06:33 PM
It is impossible for it to look as sharp and crisp as it does on a computer screen or projector from a computer, period.I'm about to disagree a little, not with what you said, but with the notion that the results can't be satisfactory. That may not be what you are saying, Eugene, but it seems to be the general thread implying that the PPT through iVGA is noticeably sub-quality.

I had been spitting out my PPT slides as JPEGs, bringing them into CG and then saving them as a project to produce clear representations of them for video, because our scan converter was not doing the job...we had the blur thing going. The quality through the scan converter was so noticeably below what was expected it was ridiculous, so we changed to this process...still allowed the office folk to hold on to their precious PPT and allowed us to have a much better quality image for production.

After a few months of doing this, I upgraded to VT[4.6] and began to bring them in through iVGA. I've asked several of the staff to come in and play a little game of which is the "CG'ed" one (for lack of a better term for the process we had been doing it) and which one is brought through iVGA...I've yet to have anyone pick confidently and most have picked wrong (expecting the "CG'ed" versions to look better than iVGA).

The results aren't blurred or fuzzy, but extremely satisfactory...in fact, if I don't stare for minutes with my fact right at the screen examining every detail, it's hard for me to tell the difference.

I don't get what's up with your situation, dude, but it isn't the norm, where I'm concerned....then again, some people on here are living in Shagri-La compared to the small processes in VT that are constant malfunctions and giving me headaches, so who knows?

ScorpioProd
06-24-2006, 08:27 PM
I'm not saying iVGA is sub quality at all, simply that what was being described sounds a lot like expecting a high resolution PP image to look just as good on SD NTSC, which it definately won't.

That said, I do PP to VT all the time with VGA Capture, and I'm happy with the results.

Ahmed
06-25-2006, 08:30 AM
I'm not saying iVGA is sub quality at all, simply that what was being described sounds a lot like expecting a high resolution PP image to look just as good on SD NTSC, which it definately won't.

That said, I do PP to VT all the time with VGA Capture, and I'm happy with the results.

My 2 cents...

We have all kind of Scan Converters, from low quality (the one that come as TV-Out with the VGA card) to broadcast scan converter that cost USDxxxx. And I have tried, and bought many different brands.
I have yet to find anything that will give you the same quality on video as the your normal VGA output. It is just impossible. It is not just the resolution, it is also the frequency that converter have to worry about.
The VT is up there as far as quality is concerned with the converters that cost us few thousands of USD. The only problem is that if you use a low end graphic card on the machine that plays back the PowerPoint, and use a normal 100Mbit network, you will get problem with crawls, scrolls, and video playback is not as smooth. Put a PCI-Express card, and get 1Gbit network, and that problem disappears.

So what is the best solution, and this is not just for PowerPoint. If you could output your presentation as sequence of images, then use Aura to convert to Video, then use VT-Edit to add transitions, then you will have a cool PowerPoint presentation.

BTW, if you could use Scala www.scala.com, you will be better off than PowerPoint, as Scala rasterizes text far better than any other presentation software.

here is a link for image sequence conversions tutorials and more using Aura
http://www.clickgrafix.com/tutorials/tuturials_aura.htm