Can I increase screengrab size / res?

Deuceofspades

Deuceofspades

Veteran
I hope David sees this :).

I use screengrabs a lot to promote my film and the Vegas screengrab function works great but the final photos are not that large and I was wondering whether there is a way to change the settings to make it capture larger photos (aka: better quality). Remember I use raylight with mxf files. I know that setting raylight to the highest quality as well as setting vegas to the largest preview size will make the "largest" screengrabs, but they are still not large enough for my needs (press write ups for ex).

Can I increase the res / size somehow, so that the screengrabs will be of Higher quality / larger size and possibly useable by the press who is currently covering the making of my film...

Any help appreciated!

Thank you guys!

FAITH
 
The way to have done this in the past was to set the preview to Best (Full), and then choosing .png as your file type -- and then you'd get full-size, high-quality stills. If it's a 720p project, the frame size will be 1280x720, etc.

However, with 8.0c (and maybe earlier?), I'm finding that "Full" setting doesn't do what it used to. You may have to undock the preview window and make it as large as possible in order for it to work . . . which is not a good change, I must say.
 
Mmmm.. OK, so I tried saving as a jpg and then as a png but seems the files end up the same size. Same width etc... I was able to save a larger photo by using the full screen function and then the print screen" button on my keyboard. Resulting quality was not any better, but photo is larger. It was a bit of a pain though so I gave up :)

QUESTION: I filmed in 1080i/24P and saw a lot of artifacts when playing it back in vegas. I used this setting so my photos would be of better quality (this was a photoshoot session done with my video camera, I film then do screengrabs to get photos).

What setting should vegas be in to not show all the interlacing lines?

Thank you guys :)
 
Use the "match media" icon in the Project Properties, and then change the field order to "progressive". Then, set your preview window to Best/FULL. Then, save as PNG. When you go back to editing, change back to "upper field first" and to Preview/AUTO.
 
It was 1080/24p and not 24pA?

Unfortunately, you ran into a limitation of Vegas/Raylight; Raylight does not allow you to use 24p standard pulldown and then edit in 24p (no pulldown removal). This can only be done in 24pA, so what you're seeing is interlace artifacting because the pulldown isn't removed.

In general, if you want to edit as progressive (and why wouldn't you?), shoot 24pA, always.

To get stills, use a 29.97 timeline; you won't see the interlace artifacting in every frame, but you will see it in 2 out of 5 of them. If you can find a good still image in the other three, then great. (Deinterlacing will lose you resolution.)

You may be able to use DVFilm Maker (included with Raylight, but you have to dig into the Raylight folders to find it) to remove the standard pulldown, but I'm not 100% sure of that. In any case, it would involved doing it for all of your clips and you have to do it before you edit for good results.
 
David Jimerson said:
It was 1080/24p and not 24pA?

Unfortunately, you ran into a limitation of Vegas/Raylight; Raylight does not allow you to use 24p standard pulldown and then edit in 24p (no pulldown removal). This can only be done in 24pA, so what you're seeing is interlace artifacting because the pulldown isn't removed.

In general, if you want to edit as progressive (and why wouldn't you?), shoot 24pA, always.

To get stills, use a 29.97 timeline; you won't see the interlace artifacting in every frame, but you will see it in 2 out of 5 of them. If you can find a good still image in the other three, then great. (Deinterlacing will lose you resolution.)

You may be able to use DVFilm Maker (included with Raylight, but you have to dig into the Raylight folders to find it) to remove the standard pulldown, but I'm not 100% sure of that. In any case, it would involved doing it for all of your clips and you have to do it before you edit for good results.
Click to expand...


OK point well taken, shoot in PA next time. I was able to capture screengrab, as i found I had one or two good ones every so often (as you said), even with a 24 p timeframe.

regarding losing resolution, i am not sure I got this right: Currently using footage shot in 24P with 24 timeframe (hence artifact as discussed above) does that mean that I have lost resolution or not - I guess the whole interlace deinterlace concept is fuzzy in my head. Is my footage currently being deinterlaced or not? Am I losing res with my current settings or not.

Here are some screengrabs of the photoshoot: I love the mood, but would really like better res / sharpness. I figured filming at highest res in HVX200 would give me better results... Then again, I was working with a low light look and that always produces soft images GRRRR.... Can't I have the BEST of BOTH worlds? What are your suggestions to improve this using the same gear I currently have...

AARON%20KING%202.jpg



AARON%20KING%201.jpg



AARON%20KING%203.jpg
 
The resolution is still the same between 24p and 24pA; they're identical except for the pulldown cadence.

It's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what's producing the softness here; you're using a lens adapter, right?
 
David Jimerson said:
The resolution is still the same between 24p and 24pA; they're identical except for the pulldown cadence.

It's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what's producing the softness here; you're using a lens adapter, right?
Click to expand...


35 mm adapter Letus Extreme will spften image some and also lower light is a big factor in softening (I have noticed). I did thorw a bit more light and closed iris down to 2.8 and speed was 1/60. I was hoping for more crispness that way (as opposed to doing say 1.4 or OPEN and 1/24) but no such luck :huh:.
 
Hard to say; too many variables to tell just from the shots. Could be the particular lenses; could have been a slightly soft focus; could have been several things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top