PDA

View Full Version : LW images and Final Cut!



sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 06:57 PM
OK guys, I know this is'nt really a LW problem ,but I'm posting it anyway.

I have a bunch of LW still images I've imported into Final Cut. I've edited them all together to make a slide show of my portfolio. Problem is, the images are pixilated. My original images are 10" x 5", and 300 dpi.

Why are the images pixilated, they should be clean? Any Final Cut users out there??

ericsmith
07-19-2008, 07:00 PM
Final Cut should anti-alias when it scales to fit the canvas. Could you post a screenshot so we could see exactly what's happening?

Eric

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 08:12 PM
Heres a sample.

Ohhh...just look at those horrible edges, like steps. Why can't things just work?

ericsmith
07-19-2008, 08:24 PM
Go into the sequence settings and set interlacing to none.

That should take care of it.

Eric

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 08:37 PM
Eric, I went to sequence>sequence settings..........but theres nothing about interlacing. It just has a Timeline Options tab and a Render Control tab.

Confused.....:stumped:

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 08:42 PM
:agree:

Also unless you are going for a Ken Burns effect you might want to do deal with the resolution issue outside of Final Cut, in Photoshop. If you are doing something in the Ken Burns style, Apple's Motion would be the better way to go. I only say this because Motion is much better suited to that sort of task and Photoshop will give you more straightforward control with cropping and resizing.

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 08:46 PM
Rakker, I have no resolution problems, its only in Final Cut. My images are beautiful except in Final cut. Something is happening once they are loaded into Final Cut.

What can it be??? Oh the pain...the paiiiinnnnnn!

ericsmith
07-19-2008, 09:10 PM
It's definitely Final Cut messing with fields. You can tell because the "pixelization" is only happening on horizontal lines. What's happening is that it's trying to remove interlacing, so it's doubling up every other line, and eliminated the others (effectively making your vertical resolution half of what it should be). I'm firing up my Mac so I can open up Final Cut here and give you more specific direction.

What version of Final Cut are you running, by the way?

I've got an old one here (v3) but I use 5.0 at another studio that I freelance at.

Eric

ericsmith
07-19-2008, 09:19 PM
Do you see a Field Dominance pulldown? It should give you the options of Lower (even), Upper (odd), or none. It should be in the same area as frame size and Pixel aspect ratio.

If you find it, set it to none.

Also, what compression codec is the sequence set to? If you use the DV-NTSC codec, it's going to munch your images a bit.

Eric

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 09:25 PM
Rakker, I have no resolution problems, its only in Final Cut. My images are beautiful except in Final cut. Something is happening once they are loaded into Final Cut.

What can it be??? Oh the pain...the paiiiinnnnnn!

Like Eric says FC may be looking to remove interlacing that is not there. The other issue that that can come up is when FC is up/down resing your images. FC generally does a great job, but the UI in that particular case can be a little clunky. That is why I suggest having pre-arrived at the final screen resolution in Photoshop.

Also if you have Final Cut studio, then you probably also have Motion which has a lot more options and a better UI for this type of work. Also Motion is designed to handle all kinds of graphics without having to go in and mess with the sequence settings, and it goes without saying that exporting from Motion to Final Cut is a piece of cake.

Surrealist.
07-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Sean, what are the property settings for your project? Not sure how it works in FCP but if your property settings don't match the image settings it would recompress it. The next thing is are you talking about the preview on your computer? Have you tried to render out a sequence and look at the final animation? It may only be a real time playback issue.

Sorry I am only trying to apply logic from my own NLE and it may or may not apply to FCP but it is worth a shot.

EDIT: Just reread rakker16mm's post so yeah it is doing something to the images looks like.

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 09:38 PM
Im using Final Cut Express.

The setup is: Apple intermediate Codec 1080i60

I don't know where field dominance is.

In fact, I can't find anything that says anything about compression.

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 09:39 PM
Sean, what are the property settings for your project? Not sure how it works in FCP but if your property settings don't match the image settings it would recompress it. The next thing is are you talking about the preview on your computer? Have you tried to render out a sequence and look at the final animation? It may only be a real time playback issue.

Sorry I am only trying to apply logic from my own NLE and it may or may not apply to FCP but it is worth a shot.

EDIT: Just reread rakker16mm's post so yeah it is doing something to the images looks like.

That reminds me that there is a setting for the pallet and clip viewer windows. Those windows can be resized which would obviously affect the resolution of the preview. It also turns out to affect overall performance if it is set to a size that requires the graphics work extra hard.

And then there is always the joy of seeing your final sequence after it has been compressed for DVD. It never looks quite the same again ;D

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 09:41 PM
Also, in my properties area, my frame size is 3000 x 1500

29.97 fps

Pixel aspect: Square

uugghhh......wheres my Advil??

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 09:44 PM
Im using Final Cut Express.

The setup is: Apple intermediate Codec 1080i60

I don't know where field dominance is.

In fact, I can't find anything that says anything about compression.

Ah. I'm not sure where to start looking in Express, but that Codec is interlace. Do you have different codecs to choose from in Express?

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 09:50 PM
Well theres these:

DV-NTSC
DV-NTSC ANAMORPHIC
DV-NTSC DV CONVERTER
DV-NTSC FIREWIRE BASIC
DV-PAL
DV-PAL ANAMORPHIC
DV-PAL DV CONVERTER
DV-PAL FIREWIRE BASIC
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 1080I50
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 1080I60
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 720P30

Does that help?

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 09:55 PM
Well theres these:

DV-NTSC
DV-NTSC ANAMORPHIC
DV-NTSC DV CONVERTER
DV-NTSC FIREWIRE BASIC
DV-PAL
DV-PAL ANAMORPHIC
DV-PAL DV CONVERTER
DV-PAL FIREWIRE BASIC
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 1080I50
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 1080I60
HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 720P30

Does that help?

First take the Advil and then try HDV-APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC 720P30. I'm not sure it will solve you problems but at least that in a non interlaced format.

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 11:27 PM
Im frustrated and tired and I'm going to bed. I did a test with the same image on my desktop, and it was much better, but not like my original Photoshop image.

I'm wondering even if it has something to do with my 30" Apple monitor.

F-ing painful!!! And so is the top of my head, right on top!!! :thumbsdow

sean hargreaves
07-19-2008, 11:31 PM
Why the hell is my 17" laptop 1440 x 900, and my 30" monitor is 1280 x 800 and I can't make it bigger?

WTF?? :devil:

rakker16mm
07-19-2008, 11:55 PM
Im frustrated and tired and I'm going to bed. I did a test with the same image on my desktop, and it was much better, but not like my original Photoshop image.

I'm wondering even if it has something to do with my 30" Apple monitor.

F-ing painful!!! And so is the top of my head, right on top!!! :thumbsdow

From my experience there is always some loss associated with translation of one format to another. The best you can hope for is to minimize the losses. I can't remember the name of the book co-written by Walter Murch that discusses optimizing your Final Cut system, but I will try to look it up.

Also if you are viewing an interlaced format on a computer monitor it is going to be more noticeable than it is on a television set. I did some titling for a short film a while back and it all looked great until it got compressed and burned to DVD. Then I got see it on a computer monitor and cried, but then seeing in on a TV screen it really wasn't too bad... not great... but not TOO bad. So any way that is why I recommended the progressive format.

Surrealist.
07-20-2008, 12:27 AM
Why the hell is my 17" laptop 1440 x 900, and my 30" monitor is 1280 x 800 and I can't make it bigger?

WTF?? :devil:


It is a 30 inch Apple monitor? Resolution should be 2560 x 1600 max.

meshpig
07-20-2008, 02:26 AM
Rakker, I have no resolution problems, its only in Final Cut. My images are beautiful except in Final cut. Something is happening once they are loaded into Final Cut.

What can it be??? Oh the pain...the paiiiinnnnnn!

:)The button is here... as in under "field dominance";

60841

m

meshpig
07-20-2008, 02:35 AM
The sequence settings tab is where you also set the resolution and compression.

60842


Go for "Animation" because it's close to no compression then export it out later.

m

meshpig
07-20-2008, 05:16 AM
Doink... :dance:people with bad eyesight shouldn't do video hey.

tribbles
07-20-2008, 05:33 AM
I had a similar problem with FCE - however, ALL of my LW images were fine - it was just the only photo in the sequence that went wrong. Never did solve it!

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Meshpig,

I'm on Final Cut Express, I think you're showing a window from FC Pro. I have a sequence settings window, but not the same choices, not as many.

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 10:09 AM
Richard (Surrealist),

My 30 inch Apple monitor only goes up to 1280 x 800 in the choices. I don't know why!!!

Did I buy a duff monitor?

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 10:12 AM
Rakker16mm,

I'm not really up on all the 'interlacing', and 'progressive format' language, I don't really understand what you mean or what it is, can you please describe?

Thanks!

Surrealist.
07-20-2008, 10:13 AM
I am not a mac person so I have no idea. In windows it is usually a setting for the driver of your video card. How do you set that on a MAC?

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Well, on a Mac you go into Preferences>Displays, and it gives you the choices. It just does'nt show anything bigger than what I said.

Theres always something.............

tribbles
07-20-2008, 10:26 AM
Which Mac are you using? To get the full resolution of the 30" displays, you need to have a dual-channel DVI card (I think that's what it's called).

rakker16mm
07-20-2008, 12:57 PM
Rakker16mm,

I'm not really up on all the 'interlacing', and 'progressive format' language, I don't really understand what you mean or what it is, can you please describe?

Thanks!

Hi Sean,

It seems like every time you turn around some one has come up with a new format or broadcast standard. I think there are others here who could give you a much clearer picture than I can about Progressive vs. Interlaced formats. Basically, ( AFAIK ) all the new formats that end in "i" such as 1080i, are interlace formats.
If it ends in "p" Such as 720p, it is a progressive format.

Essentially the import point is this. When you look at an image on a computer monitor the horizontal lines are all drawn down the screen in numerical order IE 1,2,3,4, etc etc. This is an example of the progressive format. In contrast an interlaced format such as you see on an old television set draws all the even lines on one sweep and all the odd lines on the next. Like so, 2,4,6,8, ~ and then 1,3,5,7 and so on. So if you freeze the tape or DVD and get close to the screen you see kind of a jagged edge on things in the scene that were moving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

It occurs to me that the renders you are presenting in your reel are not moving unless you are doing something like a Ken Burns effect, so interlacing might not be that much of an issue. On the other hand people watching you reel may be doing so on a computer which all the progressive format AFAIK. That is why I think you might want to go with a progressive format. Interlaced formats just don't look very nice on a computer with a LCD screen... at least in my opinion... from what I have scene so far, but as I say my knowledge in this is a bit limited.

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 01:06 PM
Thanks Rakker16mm,

That helps my understanding a lot. Much appreciated!! :thumbsup:

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 01:07 PM
Tribbles, I'm on a MacPro desktop.

gerry_g
07-20-2008, 01:26 PM
U need a graphics card with a Dual Link out not a DVI out cos these monitors are refreshed left side and right side independently to gain that higher res output (that's why it's called a Dual Link connector), if you plug them into a standard DVI out (which you can) you're stuck with the lower res output.
1– check your current card isn't fitted with both (a Radion9650 is for sure my old Dual2.7 PPC machine has one and works just fine) you can tell which connector is which cos the Dual is a wider connector with four additional pins at one end arranged in a square formation, I would think just about every mack tower that has shipped for the last five or six years has had one, on the other hand if you're plugging it into a laptop with a cut down mobile graphics card your probably screwed and have to connect the monitor using the Dual to standard DVI connector cable that ships with the monitor.
2– Teres a little Dual Link logo on the damned thing anyway (the port and the connector) so how can you go wrong

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 01:37 PM
Well, its a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT card.

I'm not up on this stuff.

tribbles
07-20-2008, 01:55 PM
MacPro with 7300 GT card should support it from what I can remember - although there's two DVI outputs, and only one of them is dual link. http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html mentions that you need to have two cards to support two 30" monitors...

Which one, I don't know, I'm afraid.

gerry_g
07-20-2008, 02:01 PM
Well there you go, I just copied and pasted this off a resellers web site

The NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT provides excellent all-around performance in creative and productivity applications. It features a 256MB frame buffer and both a single-link DVI port and a dual-link DVI port, making it capable of simultaneously supporting one 23-inch and one 30-inch Apple Cinema display.

What this means Sean is you have it plugged into the wrong connector ATM. so take the converter of the end of your monitor cable and plug the native Dual Link DVI connector into the other wider Dual Link DVI port on the back of the NVIDIA card and all should be well

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 04:46 PM
Guys, go to the LW Mac thread......have a laugh......I fixed it thanks to everyones great patience and help!!!!

I can't believe it!! Thank you all...:D:D:D:D:D

Dexter2999
07-20-2008, 06:41 PM
Did you fix your interlace problem?

I downloaded the manual and took a quick glance. I didn't see an option for selecting the interlace, but there was line saying that you need to make sure that the media you are importing is the same as your project.
SOooooo....is there a place to select your project preferences? Are they set for Progressive or interlace?
If there isn't a place, you could import the image sequence back into LW and set it to the composite background and re-render the image sequence in an interlace format that will match your project.

FYI, I believe Lower Field first is the NTSC standard. Upper field first I think is PAL. Progressive scan obviously has no interlace.

Good Luck

Scazzino
07-20-2008, 06:55 PM
I believe Final Cut Express only works with DV formatted video... I think you need Final Cut Pro if you want to work with other (non-DV) formats...

synergy3d
07-20-2008, 07:02 PM
Make sure that when your render your timeline its set to full quality.

sean hargreaves
07-20-2008, 07:06 PM
Yes, guys, I sorted it out thanks to everyones help. It was my monitor resolution, I replugged into the other outlet and now its great. I tested Final Cut and the resolution is great.

All that fiddling about and it was all becasue I had the monitor plugged into the wrong outlet.

My nightmare is now bliss.......thanks again everyone!! :thumbsup::D

toby
07-20-2008, 11:23 PM
I believe Final Cut Express only works with DV formatted video... I think you need Final Cut Pro if you want to work with other (non-DV) formats...

No actually it works with anything QT can open, maybe you're thinking of iMovie...

Surrealist.
07-21-2008, 12:20 AM
Yes, guys, I sorted it out thanks to everyones help. It was my monitor resolution.

That would do it alright! Glad you figured it out.

meshpig
07-21-2008, 05:24 AM
Meshpig,

I'm on Final Cut Express, I think you're showing a window from FC Pro. I have a sequence settings window, but not the same choices, not as many.

Yeah, sorry Boss I figured that moments too late as usual.

m

sean hargreaves
07-26-2008, 10:12 PM
OK, I figured out the pixillation problem, it was my monitor...now I fixed it.

Bit theres always something, and I've read the manuals, two of them.

When I export as a Quicktime movie it compresses the file. So the final result is a less than acceptable movie, the stills are not crisp by any means, and the Quicktime movie is a little jittery.

I also set my settings at 720p30.

Does anyone know whats happening here?

Thanks,

Sean

toby
07-27-2008, 03:12 AM
Hi Sean!
If you do file/export/Quicktime then press Options you'll be able to set any codec and quality level you want. Which codec would be determined by how it will be viewed, and what audience. I can help you with that if you're unsure.

meshpig
07-27-2008, 04:41 AM
OK, I figured out the pixillation problem, it was my monitor...now I fixed it.

Bit theres always something, and I've read the manuals, two of them.

When I export as a Quicktime movie it compresses the file. So the final result is a less than acceptable movie, the stills are not crisp by any means, and the Quicktime movie is a little jittery.

I also set my settings at 720p30.

Does anyone know whats happening here?

Thanks,

Sean

Sean

720p30; the p stands for Pica which is a typographical measurement not related to what you're doing. So, don't use that.

The frame size can be set to the resolution of the images you're rendering in the settings panel; try selecting Custom and specify. Like height and width. So you end up with a 1 to 1 ratio.

See how you go!

m:)

Lightwolf
07-27-2008, 04:45 AM
720p30; the p stands for Pica which is a typographical measurement not related to what you're doing. So, don't use that.

Erm.... no, p is for progressive (as opposed to i for interlace).

Usually HD formats are written as "vertical pixel res" "interlace/progressive" "frame rate".
I.e. 1080i60 or 720p25

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
07-27-2008, 05:49 AM
Erm.... no, p is for progressive (as opposed to i for interlace).

Usually HD formats are written as "vertical pixel res" "interlace/progressive" "frame rate".
I.e. 1080i60 or 720p25

Cheers,
Mike

OK, Cool thanks for that I was thinking dpi. So, 720p25 is scanning the image 25 times @ 720 vertical res and 1080i60 is interlacing at 30 fps?

m

Lightwolf
07-27-2008, 06:01 AM
OK, Cool thanks for that I was thinking dpi. So, 720p25 is scanning the image 25 times @ 720 vertical res and 1080i60 is interlacing at 30 fps?

Yup, 1080i60 is 60 fields per second interlaced to 30 frames.

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
07-27-2008, 06:16 AM
Yup, 1080i60 is 60 fields per second interlaced to 30 frames.

Cheers,
Mike

So, what's the progressive doing? They'd be horizontal scans as in syntagmatically wouldn't they?

m

Lightwolf
07-27-2008, 06:19 AM
So, what's the progressive doing? They'd be horizontal scans as in syntagmatically wouldn't they?

Huh? *puzzled*
The main difference is that the fields have both a temporal (by half the frame rate) and spatial (on scanline) separation.

Cheers,
Mike

sean hargreaves
07-27-2008, 10:26 AM
Thanls guys for the info. :thumbsup:

Toby, I went to FILE>EXPORT>USING QUICKTIME CONVERSION>OPTIONS

I have no idea what is the best, least compressed codec choice. Also, is frame rate an issue, I was thinking 29.97?

Thanks,

Sean

sean hargreaves
07-27-2008, 12:20 PM
Ok guys, I've got the image quality the best I could when I copy it to DVD. The problem is, after I burn the DVD it does'nt play well. The image quality is fine, but the sound is messed up and it'll hold on one image for a long time, despite the timeline curser at the bottom scrolling.

So basically I save the movie as a Quicktime file to my desktop, I review it, and its fine. But then after I burn ot to my DVD and review it, its problematic.

Very bizarre!

sean hargreaves
07-27-2008, 12:26 PM
Hmmm....I'm wondering if its because I'm copying a Quicktime movie to a DVD....as opposed to a CD.

Is there a difference?

toby
07-27-2008, 12:59 PM
For simplicity's sake keep the output frame rate the same as the input, or what you rendered it at.

As for codecs there's a lot of choices, for lots of uses. If the video is going to be processed further, you'd use a 'lossless' codec like Animation, it compresses without losing quality, but still produces large file sizes. If this is a finished product you can use a lossy codec, especially if you're keeping the originals. Use a codec with keyframes like Sorenson3, mp4 or h264, set quality to high, and set the keyframe value from 6 to 24. The higher the keyframe value the smaller the file size and lower the quality, it also makes scrubbing worse. If this is for the web I'd set the quality to Medium and keyframes to 100.

Let me know how it turns out!

toby
07-27-2008, 01:06 PM
Hmmm....I'm wondering if its because I'm copying a Quicktime movie to a DVD....as opposed to a CD.

Is there a difference?

Shouldn't be. But playback speed depends on the read speed of the disc and hardware. What's the resolution of the quicktime? If it's too big you won't be able to read it from disc fast enough, and you'll get skipping. The best codec for hi-res playback is photo-jpg at 50% quality, try that.

sean hargreaves
07-27-2008, 05:04 PM
Sorry guys, I was out for a bit.

OK, Toby, I'll try that: JPEG-Photo, quality medium.

I'll report in a little while. Thanks!

toby
07-27-2008, 05:15 PM
That probably won't help unless your video is smaller than HD, 1920x1080. This is the biggest I could play real-time streaming from the hard drive; streaming from a dvd is slower. If it is that big or bigger you'd need Blu-ray technology to view it real-time.

sean hargreaves
07-27-2008, 05:37 PM
OK, Toby, that worked.Brilliant, thanks!!:D

But I'm still only burning a Quicktime movie direct to a DVD disc, which is a problem if I want it to be played on a TV.

So, I import the Quicktime into i-Movie, or i-DVD, and in the importing process, it loses quality, and when viewed on these programs it is a crappy image. Why on earth in the uploading process would it LOSE clarity? I'm baffled again, and of course, the manuals don't answer the question cos to them, everything is great. Ugghh!

meshpig
07-28-2008, 02:38 AM
Why on earth in the uploading process would it LOSE clarity? I'm baffled again, and of course, the manuals don't answer the question cos to them, everything is great. Ugghh!

They're not really designed for quality. iMovie and iDVD are castrated versions of the pro software.

m:)

Dexter2999
07-28-2008, 07:13 AM
So, what's the progressive doing? They'd be horizontal scans as in syntagmatically wouldn't they?

m
I don't know if this was answered in terms everyone could understand so I thought I would chime in.

1080i is an interlace signal, meaning Odd horizontal scan lines and even lines alternate at 60hz to produce an image at 30frames per second. So at any given time you are seeing 540 horizontal lines of the image.

720p is a progressive scan signal. Progressive scan means there are no alternating odd and even lines of resolution. You get all 720 lines every refresh of the screen.

1080p came around because to get from resolution to the other you had to upconvert to a 1080p then down convert to get to the other resolution. Doing this took time and money and probably just a little image quality loss. So the industry just moved everything to a higher standard 1080p.

beverins
07-28-2008, 01:31 PM
so everyone knows, video is always 72dpi. The only measurements which matter in video are the pixel dimensions.

it doesn't matter if the video is an AVI/MOV/MPG or destined for VHS / DVD/Bluray. It's always 72dpi.

beverins
07-28-2008, 01:36 PM
To solve the aliasing problem you can try to have Photoshop resize to 72dpi. Then have it downsample to the available video size.

DVDs only go to 720x480. A superbitmap (larger than 720x480) is useful if you intend to pan and zoom into the image, otherwise a print-res image doesn't give any benefits when transferred to video.

Lightwolf
07-28-2008, 01:51 PM
so everyone knows, video is always 72dpi. The only measurements which matter in video are the pixel dimensions.
It's always 72dpi.
Lol...
Erm.
Absolutely wrong. Absolutely right. Absolutely wrong again.

dpi has no meaning whatsoever in conjunction with video. It is only relevant for print, and even then lpi is more important.

ppi may be used to measure the dot pitch of a screen, but again that is irrelevant when producing video.

And yes, this does seem to come up once per year as well (Mainly from people with a background in print) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. Sorry beverins for being so harsh...

Lightwolf
07-28-2008, 02:00 PM
While I'm at it:
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

Cheers,
Mike

jeremyhughes77
07-28-2008, 03:17 PM
I edit more than I get to do 3d work. Im on FCP so not sure if this helps you or not... First, are your images larger than 4k? If so shrink them for import as much as you can to the largest rez you need. Next, what are you planning on your final output file type being? h264? DVD? Have you done a test render yet and is that what we are actually seeing or is that the FCE playback window you did a screen grab from?

If you havent already, try doing a test render at the native size of your timeline and making sure you have deinterlaced selected. You're probably getting some funkiness there since those HDV settings it has as available all have non-square pixels on them and its squashing. Rendering should give us a better idea of what is going on. Can you pass along render settings when you export?

BTW, take a look on creativecow.com at the FCE forums, you can get some more help there too.

jeremyhughes77
07-28-2008, 03:24 PM
I'm dummm, sorry for the previous post. Everything was sorted out it looks like. I completely missed page 4 somehow :)

If youre still dealing with the quality-loss issue, try to render into an uncompressed format and then render your MPEG in idvd from that. Also, Id just stay interlaced at this point since youre going out to a disc. Even if you're 24p, the dvd player will do the pulldown for you.

archijam
07-28-2008, 03:35 PM
While I'm at it:
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

Mike, that site is awesome. The sarcasm is so thick you could spread it on toast...

Lightwolf
07-28-2008, 04:03 PM
Mike, that site is awesome. The sarcasm is so thick you could spread it on toast...
Hehe, true. Well, I just found it... google "72dpi video" and there you go :)

Cheers,
Mike

Dexter2999
07-28-2008, 04:15 PM
Well, I must admit I propogate the 72dpi "myth" to beginners. When they are working with Adobe products it is the number that gives them the desired results when resizing an image most of the time.

They never seem to understand why something they scanned in doesn't fit on screen or why something they grabbed from a website doesn't print out well.

Of course this numbers does go right out the window as you change computer resolutions because screen resolutions will vary.

But for NTSC and to my limited experience PAL standards it has been a good number to use as a rule of thumb.

Lightwolf
07-28-2008, 04:23 PM
Well, I must admit I propogate the 72dpi "myth" to beginners.
Honestly, don't. Unless you are dealing with print. It makes more sense to explain it once, properly.

When they are working with Adobe products it is the number that gives them the desired results when resizing an image most of the time.
Hm, configure PS to be pixel based then ;)


They never seem to understand why something they scanned in doesn't fit on screen or why something they grabbed from a website doesn't print out well.
The problem is, dpi won't help either unless they know the whole shebang: pixels, dpi, real world size ... and the relation between them.
Explaining the uselessness of dpi for video work is then just a matter of two sentences really.


Of course this numbers does go right out the window as you change computer resolutions because screen resolutions will vary.
It goes right out the window because currently there aren't any computer monitors at 72dpi anyhow. They're mostly around 96-120 ppi.


But for NTSC and to my limited experience PAL standards it has been a good number to use as a rule of thumb.
The only reason to set it at all is indeed PS, and that's only because fonts draw differently at different dpi settings. But that's a PS thing.

Cheers,
Mike