Working on a video project that will have some still pictures in it. The pictures seem incredibly small compared to what I'm used to. Some examples: 720x960 96.6kb, 540x960 70.2kb, 612x612 58.3kb, 443x960 36.4kb. Will they look 'right' in a DVD project? Blu-ray? Is there a rule of thumb that tells you what size will look good in a project? Thanks in advance. Cin
Thanks guys, I had no idea. I've never used anything that small. Almost all stills that I have used in the past were between 1.5 and 4MB. On a side note, why do some pictures have the same 'dimension' but the 'size' in MBs is different? Thanks again. Cin
I have the next way of working with these that suites me the best. When you are working on a project, that project has already certain dimensions f.i. HD 1920x1080 pixels.When you add a pictures that has other dimensions it suites not that of the project. For this Vegas has for long time an option to set it right from the moment you add the picture. That option is in Options/Preferences/Editing (1 on the screenshot), That option make in the Pan/Crop (2) the right dimensions for your present project. You are still able to arrange the right look with the pan/crop options to move that pan/crop box(3)
When the picture becomes by this too blurry I delete it and use another one.
Almost all stills that I have used in the past were between 1.5 and 4MB.
It's the pixel image size that counts, not it's compressed storage file size, although the degree of compression will affect the image quality.
Yes, it is confusing to compare because the unpacked (8bpp) uncompressed image size will be hidden to the editor unless they dig for the information. A 50 MB compressed file may contain essentially all of the information when unpacked to 200 MB for editing.
Thank you guys for all the information, and thank you j-v for the picture. They are definitely worth a thousand words in my world! ;) I guess I got confused by the fact that my computer makes thumbnails all the time for stuff and they are in the kb range and I also know they are very tiny and wouldn't be a good size for a project. After work today I'm going to take a dozen or so and burn them on a DVD just to see for myself what they will look like. Thanks again. Cin
Thank you Fr0sty for your response. So resolution=dimension? And if resolution is all that matters is there any point in having a larger file? I thought the larger the file, the better the quality? Thanks, Cin
Yes, resolution = dimension e.g. 720 pixels by 480 pixels. But file size affects the quality of the image carried by those pixels. The greater the compression the greater the quality loss. Greater compression = smaller files, less compression = larger files. You need to find a balance that suits you. Using jpg or png for your images even small compression produces files much smaller than an uncompressed file. With jpg I use 95% quality i.e. only 5% compression.
Greater compression = smaller files, less compression = larger files.
Depends also on the kind of picture, a graphic, like a logo, with a few colours and less details can be a very small file. Because the compression can also be very effective and doesn't mean automatic quality loss. The same counts for video.
Compression takes the pixels in those dimensions and decides how it can remove data from them in order to reduce file size. The method is complex, but to over-simplify it, it basically takes the image and divides it up into sections, and decides if it can make all the pixels in that section the same color without you being able to notice it. The higher the compression, the smaller the file, but the more of that native pixel data is going to be removed in favor of this approximating based on groups of pixels that it makes the same color, and this will eventually lead to a very washed out, grainy, pixelated image. So, you can have a 30kb DVD quality image at 720x480, and it'll probably look rough, but a 0.5mb image of the same exact resolution, being far less compressed, will look much closer to the original.