Stills, pixel aspect ratio...AGAIN...

MixNut wrote on 12/15/2002, 8:39 PM
OK...I've read all previous posts I can find on this subject and still cannot glean a definitive answer to my simple question. Forgive me for breaching the subject one more time, but I'm confused at this point and am going to pose this question in the simplest of real-life [mine, in fact] terms:

If I
-scan a photo on a flatbed scanner into Photoshop
-crop it in photoshop to only the desired content portion, regardles of resultant aspect ratio
-resize [WITHOUT STRETCHING] so that the width dimntion is 720pixels and the height is whatever it ends up

Then I

-drag the .bmp file into Vegas running a standard NTSC DV template w/the standard .9091 pixel aspect ratio
-leave the picture just as it is...Leave its properties>pixel aspect ratio set at 1.000 Multimedia
-print this back to DV tape [intermixed with DV video and other stills] with the provided DV template

WILL THE PHOTO BE STRETCHED WHEN VIEWED ON TV OR WILL IT BE CORRECT?

IF CORRECT...GREAT!

IF STRETCHED...WHAT IS THE SIMPLEST AND FASTEST WAY TO CORRECT THE STILLS TO SHOW UP NORMALLY ON TV?

Thanks in advance!

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 12/15/2002, 8:46 PM
It should be fine. Keep in mind that if is more than 527 pixels high, you will get black spaces on the right and left sides (because Vegas will size the picture smaller to fit vertically). If it's less than 527 pixels high then you'll get black spaces on the top and bottom (because the picture isn't tall enough to fill the frame).

Simplest yet ... don't bother cropping the picture in the photo editor. Scan slightly more area than you want to show on the screen, then import this entire photo in Vegas. Use Vegas' pan/crop tool to crop it. No fuss or worries about size or aspect ratio at all. The biggest advantage of this is that you can keep what you want shown within the safe areas for TV display, yet still have more of the photograph to fill out the edges for PC display.

The only time i would suggest resizing the pictures in the photo editor is if they are much larger than 655x480. Vegas' resizing algorithm tends to be somewhat soft and having it resize huge pictures may end up with them looking a little blurry. Resizing them in a photo editor to something around 800x600 or so first will let you control how sharp they will be.
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/15/2002, 11:53 PM
To add to that answer, if they are not cropped with Vegas crop tool, they MUST be either 655x 480, or 720 x 534, take your pick.
the math is to simply multiply one or the other (v or h) by .909 and that gives you your size. ie; 720 * .909=654.48, ergo, 655 x 480
If your resolution is too high, it's not that Vegas resizing is soft, it's that there is too much resolution to compress correctly and you'll end up with any number of artifacts. Use PNG files, not tif files, you'll see better color and have a faster render as no external reader is used.
Tyler.Durden wrote on 12/17/2002, 12:02 PM
Hi Mix, All...

I finally got off my duff and finished a tut on stills and aspect:

HTH, MPH

Tips:
http://www.martyhedler.com/homepage/Vegas_Tutorials.html

Chienworks wrote on 12/17/2002, 1:35 PM
Well, to be technically over-picky, still images can be any size and Vegas will do it's best to resize them to fit the frame even without cropping. By default Vegas will keep the appropriate ratio necessary to display the image correctly. If the image is too high or narrow you will have black on the sides. If the image is too short or wide you'll have black on the top and bottom. Is this a problem? Not necessarily. I've made many slide-show videos using photographs taken in portrait orientation. If the whole photo needs to be seen, it ends up sized to fit vertically and only fills about the center half of the screen.

The problems come about when you want the image to fill the frame both side to side and top to bottom. Even then, it's not the precise size that matters but the ratio of height to width. For NTSC DV, the image must be 1.36365 times as wide as high. Multiply 480 x 1.36365 and you'll get 655 (or close enough). But 1024x751 or 450x330 work just as well. You could even fill the frame nicely with a 30x22 pixel image, but i wouldn't want to look at it.
MoBetta wrote on 12/17/2002, 1:44 PM
Marthy,

Great presentation. My problem when importing stills into V.V. is not the cropping and resizing of the image ( PNG & PSD)... or the resolution, but the sharpness of the image. It appears a little blurry, almost out of focus. I've tried applying various filters in V.V and Photoshop, but with marginal results. By the way, the same results when reducing an event's velocity.

Any suggestions?

MoBetta
Tyler.Durden wrote on 12/17/2002, 2:32 PM
Hi Mo,

Images are 72 dpi or better?

You *rendering* Best quality?

Could make a significant difference...


MPH
prairiedogpics wrote on 12/17/2002, 2:46 PM
I recently did a slide show of scanned pics in VV3. I'm a novice (but not a newbie) and I spent a decent amount of time figuring a way to get scanned photos into Vegas (after reading all the posts as well) in a relatively easy way where the original picture dimension didn't matter (had lots of pics in all shapes and sizes).

Here's what I did with Paint Shop Pro and VV3:

1. Scanned pics at 600 dpi (I know, I know, the resolution CAN be less, I chose not to go lower.)
2. Cropped Scanned picture to my preference.
3. Resized pic to a max of 655 pixels wide OR a max of 480 high (depending on if pic was landscape or portrait), maintaining pixel aspect ratio. (pic now at 72 dpi)
4. Used UNSHARP MASK (to sharpen image)
5. Pasted copy of resized pic as a new layer on to a 655 x 480 transparent or colored background.
6. Merge layers and exported to 655 x 480 .png file (with alpha transparency if background was tranparent).
7. Add .png file(s) to VV3 timeline.
8. Render with BEST quality.

The images in the slide show were crystal clear. I was dumbfounded. It looked excellent!

Dan