Image Quality

jjv wrote on 4/12/2002, 6:12 PM

I am testing a number of programs to determine what program can create the highest quality imaging for a slide show multi-media presentation including multiple soundtracks and a few short avi files. I have about 160 high quality jpg images (800x600) that are included for this test. During my initial tests, I have found that the quality of the avi files after rendering were poor (set quality to "best"for project).

What is the absolute best image quality format available that should be used to render, regardless of time to render or size of file after completed? Final product must be full screen.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 4/12/2002, 6:29 PM

Probably the best bet would be MPEG-2 at a very high bitrate, maybe 8,000,000 or more. AVI should play back clearer and sharper, but some players have a hard time keeping up with the data stream. Also, Windows Media Player has a bug that causes it to display DV avi files at half resolution (360x240). Keep in mind though that any video format is going to be limited to 480 pixels high for NTSC or 576 pixels high for PAL.

jjv wrote on 4/12/2002, 6:58 PM

Since image quality is my highest concern, a result of my photography background, is their a different media player that would not have a problem giving the quality I am looking for should I decide to render as an avi? I have tested a number of different avi formats, none have been clear on the full screen windows media player in xp.

Nat wrote on 4/12/2002, 9:03 PM

In windows media, there is a "digital video" quality setting, by default it's not set to "high" meaning the playback quality isn't too good. The option is in the menu "tools" then option, then performance and then you click the "advanced" button and set the slider to the right to increase the playback resolution.
Hope that helps.

Ron Lucas wrote on 4/12/2002, 10:04 PM

Nat,

This setting you mentioned fixed my problem viewing AVI NTSD DV videos on my computer. I've been pulling my hair out trying to figure out why this particular format would look the worst on my system. And it was a setting in Media Player this whole time.

Thanks much for the info!!!

Ron

swarrine wrote on 4/12/2002, 11:12 PM

Hi-

800 X 600 may not be high enough resolution if you are zooming in on the pictures.

What problems are you experiencing? Pixelization? Jitters? More specifics are needed.

jjv wrote on 4/13/2002, 7:36 AM

The final rendered file, played in Media Player, is pixelated. I am attempting to create a file that plays full screen on my 17" monitor at a monitor setting of 800x600. What is the best format to use when rendering? Most of my reading indicates that an avi file is the way to go. I don't care about the size of the file for now. I am only concerned with the quality of the imaging at this point, which is mostly high resolution images scanned and re-sized in photoshop to a size that is as close as possible to 800x600. However, I must eventually include some short avi files as well in this mulitmedia presentation.

swarrine wrote on 4/13/2002, 2:59 PM

Full screen on your computer...

I just tried in WM using digital stills, I see what you mean it looks horrible. However, I also tried using video and it worked quite well, even in my monitor setting of 1024X768.

Try this, put 4 or 5 pics on a track with transitions that you will use, etc and render to tape. Import that tape and render to WM. These were my settings (using video) WM, 3Mbps, 800X600. Set WM to full screen on playback. Maybe, just maybe.

Let us know if it works.

Nat wrote on 4/13/2002, 4:20 PM

No problem, I'm glad I could help you !
I was so happy when I discovered that feature !

jjv wrote on 4/13/2002, 5:15 PM

What do you mean by "render to tape", please be specific as I am have not used tape for anything, all my work is digital.

When I render, I must indicate the file type, what are you recommending? Please be specific.

Jim

Cheesehole wrote on 4/13/2002, 7:47 PM

>>>What is the absolute best image quality format available that should be used to render, regardless of time to render or size of file after completed? Final product must be full screen.

NTSC or PAL DV Progressive works great for a slideshow with transitions.

it will play perfectly in full screen on a decent system with WMP. WMP8 works best.

swarrine wrote on 4/13/2002, 10:14 PM

Hi jjv-

Render to tape, DV tape I mean. Tools>Print video to DV tape. Make sure your DV camcorder is hooked up.

My point was for whatever reason, video worked full screen while still images did not. Therefore, as an experiment, convert your stills to video. IMHO, no better way to convert to video than to print to DV. Once on DV it is video. After you capture back to VV3 it would (theoretically) be video and might work. While I did not try a conversion, regular video did work for me full screen.

--sw

swarrine wrote on 4/13/2002, 10:42 PM

OK, you motivated me. I tried it.

Download: http://wallacemv.com/vv3/untitled.zip

On the WMV Click full screen. Is this what you want?

Note: File is 1.84MB for 4 pics, 9 seconds of video, Windows Media Format

jjv wrote on 4/14/2002, 9:19 PM

OK, I looked at your video. Looks good. Now, please don't be offended;I want to take the quality one more step. I have photo images that, because I am a former photographer, could display the hair on the nose of an eagle. I want to find out what I must do to eeek out every bit of detail in a movie format.

I guess that means I must find out how to take a photo image scanned from the negative, scanning it at just the right settings, then rendering it using the absolute best format for movie replay. I don't know whether to use a tiff, bmp, or jpg scan (originally at 1200x1200, 2400x2400, or 720x540.)

I then need to know whether to resize it, assuming I use an image larger than the rendering can handle.

Finally, I want to pick the best format for rendering(mpeg, avi, mjpeg, lossy, lossless, no compression, and size format...).

I know handling still images can be different than actual movie avi files etc, I guess I have much to learn...

Jim

altphase wrote on 4/15/2002, 3:50 PM

I guess the main question is what would be the final destination for this video. If it's video tape than you're probably limited to DV which is a lossy compression and as good as it is, will show some artifacts. If this is meant to be played on a computer monitor I would try a high bitrate MPEG-2 or a high bitrate MPEG-4 AVI. If you have a RAID or a very fast HD you may try going to an uncompressed AVI which would probably be as good as you can get out of VV.

Dominik

Chienworks wrote on 4/15/2002, 4:13 PM

I'd also like to point out that *most* video formats are limited to 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL) resolution. Non-DV .avi files are usually 640x480. No matter what resolution used for the original pictures, the final result will be one of these smaller resolutions.

If you want to break away from video standards, it appears that you can create an 800x800 uncompressed .avi file, but this will be enormously huge (maybe 2.25GB per minute), and will probably be unplayable on most computers. It certainly won't be printable to tape. Even display systems that can handle the resolution will have a very difficult time keeping up the frame rate, and the playback will probably skip badly.

2me2u wrote on 4/17/2002, 10:30 PM

I ran into this same problem with a slide show I made. HERE is How you fix it....You have to do this. RESIZE your pictures to what ever your output is. If you are using MPEG1 for example you have to resize it to 352x240, etc...That is what I did and the presentation is clear as day, unlike when I left them in the orginial size and they ended up all pixelated

bjornkn wrote on 4/18/2002, 2:01 AM

Jim,
Have you considered using a different type of program which is more suitable for multimedia work?
Macromedia Director is such a program, and I think you would be more happy with the image quality as you will then view the originals AFAIK. You would also be able to add interactivity if you need it.
Director is quite expensive though :-(
Maybe Flash could do it too?

My experience with video formats tells me that you would need a very powerful machine to view more than a 640x480 video at 25fps. At least I can't do it on my Athlon 1.33GHz with Radeon AIW video card.
I have quite good experience with the DivX codec, but if you try it you have to be aware of that they are charging at least $1500 license fee for any commercial usage of their codec!