Using a 30,000x4,000 PSD file in FCP

Karl151k

Karl151k

Well-known member
Ok, so the problem I'm having is this. In FCP 5.1, I have a very large PSD file that I need to track across. The image is 30,000 pixels across by 4,000 pixels high at 300 Dpi. Normally, I will layer everything I need in a sequence like this (call it Sequence 1) and then drag sequence 1 into a new sequence (call it Sequence 2) and then zoom-in on it with the Scale tab. This retains the resolution of the original images, however with this very large image, I'm finding that FCP does not retain it's resolution. It becomes blocky and pixelated when I change the scale over 100%. Anybody have any ideas how I can fix this down-resing problem?
 
I originally considered that, but it does not show a red or green render bar. It has a blue bar. I even went so far as to actually export it as a MOV and that resulted in the same piexlation effect.

Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately it seems to be more complicated than that.
 
Does it have to be a psd file? Might want to try a .jpeg or .tif. 30,000 x 4,000 is absurdly huge so FCP might just be choking on it.
 
I have tried that as well. This images needs to have transparency in some parts which is why I used a PSD. However, I also tried a tiff with transparency enabled and I got the same result.

I agree that FCP might be just overwhelmed with data, but I just keep thinking there is some ideal way to accomplish this. I'm running FCP on a dual core 2 ghz G5 tower with 5.5 Gigs of ram, just for reference.
 
I will add more later as I have had the same issue before and have to remember my fix. Here are 2 things to think about 1) use .png to save your transparency and 2) scale image down in Photoshop. Oh yeah and look to see if it is in preview only, sometimes the final output looks perfect but the preview in FCP looks pixelated.

More Later....

Ok re-read and you tried to export already. So first try lowering the dpi as dpi has no effect in video as the resolution is fixed. It does however create a larger file size which cause issues.

Also are you just tracking horizontally, if so you can lower your height to the height resolution of the format you are working with, IE 480, 720, etc.

Are you using FCP to move layers within the PSD? Why on earth are you zooming past 100% on a PSD that is 30,000 pixels across by 4,000 pixels high? Is this for Imax?

If your Sequence 1 is many layers you may have to just export each layer as a PNG or other transparent.
 
Last edited:
2K x 2K is the limit in FCP. Resize it in Photoshop- bringing that large a resolution into FCP is a huge waste of pixels.

Noah
 
I'd bring it into a comp in AE that was your output size and render it there.

IOW, if you final; output was 1080I, just rag it into a 1080i AE comp and render it out.

I wouldn't even try to do that in FCP.
 
By nesting the sequences you have now made the image the res of that sequence. Your 30k x 4k image is now whatever your sequence 1 settings are set to.
This is why you have to scale over 100% to get the effect you want.
Anytime you go over 100% you will degrade and pixelate the image.

Try adding the image file natively in sequence 2. Then open it in the motion tab and set your size. The clip will probably show it scaled way down to fit in the sequence. (this is why it has to scale UP past 100% nested) Now you can scale all the way up to (but not over) 100% and pan/zoom your image. Don't be surprised if this render is lengthy.

I agree with some of the others though. This may be just way too big for FCP to handle. Try AE or Shake or whatever your compositing app is to more effectively deal with this monster image.

Hope I was not to convoluted in my explanation and I hope this helps.
 
Yep

Yep

I had a little voice in the back of my head saying that to me about the nest sequence. I was in the middle of a project that I still haven't slept from or I was gonna create a PSD that big and test it. Then common sense took over and I went back to work on the project I was getting paid to do.
 
Great advice as always everybody. Thanks.

After about 24 straight hours of working (or waiting, rather) I've given up trying to get the effect done in FCP. I finally worked out how to get the piexlation problem under control. It involved adjusting the settings on the sequence and making it a 4,000x4,000 size comp. Then when I took that sequence and nested it into a new sequence, I was able to zoom in on it fully without the piexlation. Of course, once that problem was under control, I had about 8,000 new ones. So, due to my frustration, I just got back from the Apple store with my brand new copy of Shake, so now I get to figure out how to work that program. Horray!

Thanks again for everybody's awesome advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top