Another still question

reidc wrote on 10/12/2004, 2:30 PM
I have a substantial number of still images which I am preparing for import into Vegas. They will be used in a documentary I've just started working on. So I'm scanning the images @ 300dpi (there will be a lot of zooms & pans on many of the images), but here's my dilemma. This documentary is in the formative planning stages, and there is still discussion as to whether it'll be a 4:3 or 16:9 production. I thought this was settled, but it's not, apparently. So in my pre-processing of the stills, what can I do, if anything, to make sure whatever image processing and output (pre-Vegas) I do will be suitable for either format? Or does formatting the images for 4:3 automatically disinclude their use in 16:9, or vice versa? backstory here is that we had originally specified 16:9 as preferable, but the target broadcaster had said 4:3 was preferable for them. So I began image processing for 4:3, but now they're talking about future-proffing, formats-wise. How do I plan for both?

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 10/12/2004, 3:04 PM
The DPI isn't important, it's the actual pixel count.
The images need to be more or less formatted for the display aspect. If in doubt, format for wide, and plan on cropping if you are gonna do 4:3. You can always cut off, but it's difficult to glue back on.
Chienworks wrote on 10/12/2004, 3:33 PM
Scan the whole photograph and don't even worry what aspect ratio it has. Once the photo is on Vegas' timeline go into Pan/Crop, right-mouse-button click on the frame, and choose "Match output aspect". If you're in 4:3 then the frame will crop to 4:3. If you're in 16:9 the frame will crop to 16:9. The largest frame dimension that will fit in the photo will be used. You really don't need to do anything more than this.

The only problems you will have is if the photos fit nicely in one format but you are using the other. Part of the picture will be cropped off and you may have to decide what parts to keep and what parts to lose. For example, if you take a photo in 4:3 of someone standing up filling the frame from top to bottom and then use this in a 16:9 project you have to decide to either cut off their feet or their head (hopefully you'll choose feet, unless it's a commercial for the boots they're wearing), or have empty space on the sides that the photo doesn't fill. Conversely, if you have a picture of a group of people that stretches all the way from one side of a 16:9 photo to the other side and you want to use this in a 4:3 project, you have to lose the people on the sides or have empty space on top and bottom. The moral is, one would suppose, to either know what format you're shooting for in advance or leave extra space in the picture around the subject when taking the picture.

And yes, as pointed out above, DPI doesn't make the slightest bit of difference in video and is quite meaningless. If you scan an 11x14" photo at 300dpi then you will have an enormous file that wastes resolution. If you scan a 1/2" locket photo at 300dpi then it won't be enough pixels to fill the frame without becoming fuzzy. What matters is that your scans are at least 654x480 pixels for 4:3 or 853x480 for 16:9 (assuming NTSC). Scan larger than that if you plan to crop or zoom in, but only as high as you need. If you want to zoom in on half of the picture than scan large enough to get 1308x960 or 1707x960; any more is a waste.
JL wrote on 10/12/2004, 5:53 PM
Also, keep in mind that there is no rule that says you need to always display a 16:9 or 4:3 shaped image with your stills. In fact, by removing that restriction you free yourself up to be much more creative with pan/crop, transitions, and using more/all of the image.

JL

reidc wrote on 10/13/2004, 10:19 AM
This is all great advice. Thank you all so much. My inclination is to argue for shooting & posing for the highest denominator (16:9), then reformat for 4:3 if necessary. As for stills capture, everything has been scanned at 300dpi. I was just trying to front-load image processing before the bulk of the project gets underway to get a bit of a leg up. Although I've read a lot in these forums about "Match Aspect Ratio" in Vegas, its usefulness has been made immediately clear to me by the above post. I understand the implications of wide images in 4:3 and tall images in 16:9, but I face these issues even now with many of the images anyway. My last question concerns zooming in on an image. There are a few images where it will be desireable to zoom in extremely close and do a slow zoom out. For these situations, what are the maximum advisable resolutions? Or, as suggested above, do I simply acquire at 300dpi (already done for all images) and not deal with the rest until I'm in Vegas?
Chienworks wrote on 10/13/2004, 10:28 AM
Don't say 300dpi anymore; it means absolutely nothing! ;) We have no idea how large your photos are. What we need to know to help you is the pixel size of the images you've scanned. Are they something like 3000x2400 or are they more like 300x240 pixels? This is what matters. If you want to fill an 853x480 frame then you would have to scan 10x8 inch photographs at about 90dpi or 5x3.5 inch photographs at about 170dpi. If you want to zoom in then you would need higher resolution. If you want to fill the frame with someone's face that is 1/2 inch high in the picture then you would have to scan at 960dpi. What resolution you need depends on the size of the frame, how far you want to zoom in, and the size of the photograph. Just saying "300dpi" on it's own doesn't mean anything.

Also, 16:9 isn't necessarily the "highest denominator". If you need to worry more about vertical sizing then 4:3 shows more than 16:9 does. Formatting for one ratio doesn't mean it will work for the other, no matter which way you look at it. The only safe way to go is to make sure the picture includes extra space around the subject. Unfortunately in your case the pictures are already taken so you may not have the opportunity to play it safe.
rs170a wrote on 10/13/2004, 10:39 AM
...zoom in extremely close and do a slow zoom out. For these situations, what are the maximum advisable resolutions?

For ease of calculations, assume that 300 dpi = 300 ppi (pixels per inch). That means that a 1" x 1" photo scanned at 300 dpi gives you an image that is 300 pixels x 300 pixels - which is too small to completely fill an NTSC (720 x 480) screen. To fill it height-wise, you'd have to scan it at 480 dpi - which would give you black bars on the side. If you scanned it at 720 dpi, it would fill the frame width-wise but you'd end up cropping some of the top and bottom.
A 4" x 6" image is the perfect scanning size because they're both mulltiples of 120 (720/6 = 120 and 480/4 = 120). You need to look at the picture, determine what portion of it you want to fill the frame, and set the scan size scan accordingly.

Mike
JL wrote on 10/13/2004, 1:11 PM
As a general rule, when I scan an image it is done without thought or regard as to how the image may used in Vegas, but rather with the ambition of making a perfect digital copy of the original. I will use the highest scanning resolution necessary to accomplish this without going too high, as the later would result in a larger than necessary file size without preserving any additional detail. If this is done correctly, you’ll then find that for zooming within Vegas, the limiting factor will not be the scanning resolution but the quality of the original image. This strategy also allows the most flexibility with what can be done with the image down the road, especially if the exact treatment is an unknown at the time of scanning.

Since the scanning operation works on dpi, it can be unnecessarily confusing (and limiting) to try to calculate and adjust for screen resolutions and aspect ratios during the scanning process. In many cases, what resolution to scan at should depend on the nature and quality of the source material, not the output format. Generally, if starting with a decent quality photograph of wallet size up to about 4”x 6”, I find scanning at 300 dpi works well. I’ll scan larger photographs at 150 to 300 dpi, depending on the print quality of the original. For film, slides or contact prints, I’ll scan at 1200 dpi or higher. Again, these are general figures and may very well be overkill if the only intended use is in Vegas – but then again, maybe not.

Once the original has been digitized, and saved to a lossless format, I’m free to tweak, retouch, crop, resize, color correct, brush out ex-boyfriends, or whatever is needed for a particular project. I know I always have the original digital image to go back to. Once in Vegas, I find that each image benefits from a custom fit (usually by trial and error) with regard to time, aspect ratio, movement and transition.

JL