Pictures in time line

Luke

Luke

Well-known member
Im not a big still photography guy and im not sure how the rules apply when putting images from a digital still camera into a time line. So, do I need to do anything (image size, rez, all that good stuff) in Photoshop before I put it into Vegas to get the best results? I have a friend who has a Nikon D70 and another buddy of mine has a canon 20D, so it will be one of those.

Thanks
Luke
 
I'm sure Vegas works very similar to Premiere in this manner.....You can bring them in as jpg's or tiff's, maybe even psd's (not sure) at whatever resolution you shot them in. Just realize the original size files will be huge compared to the 720x480 window you are dropping them into. You'll have to scale them back in Vegas.
Or you could scale them down prior to bringing them in. The only disadvantage to doing that is you will not be able to zoom into a small portion of a photo if you reduce the size ahead of time. The advantage to scaling first is that the file sizes will be much smaller and your timeline may play smoother/faster while editing. Either way it will play fine once you render the file out to tape/DVD,etc...
I have a 20D and bring full size psd files into PPRO all the time.
 
Sounds good to me. My friends go back and fourth on who’s cam is better. Its usually playful arguments and funny to watch. How do you like your 20D? I film wildlife and the DVX is very limiting with its zoom capabilities so I was thinking of getting an XL2 body and a nice zoom lens. My friend had me set on getting the Nikon but I figure if I can use the same lenses between the XL2 and the 20D, why the hell not spend the extra 500 bucks. Like I said before, I know little about still photography.
 
You may also want to consider bringing the photo in as a .png file instead of .jpg. png's support alpha channels but I don't think .jpg's do. Depends on ultimately what you plan to do with the photo.
 
You'll also need to play with subpixel rendering to get rid of the jaggies and sharp edges -- especially if you're panning or zooming into stills (which is very easy in Vegas and looks very good).

Warning: Rendering time will go up -- way up!

If they just stills without movement, you may be able to get away with a very slight gaussian blur (.3 or .03 -- I forget).
 
I'm not sure what you're talking about pmark23 when you're saying to play with subpixel rendering to get rid of the sharp edges, etc. I've done several videos using still photos & they've always turned out fine.

Quick note to Luke, anytime I've worked with Vegas, it doesn't matter what size the picture is (3-4+ times bigger than 720x480, etc.) it will always be adjusted to fit within your viewing area/window. Like Sirius Doggy said, the larger the photo, then more you can zoom in, etc.

I'm constantly moving within still photos to bring more life & emotion to them ... hate that slide show effect where you can always tell it's just a picture & nothing more.
 
Luke said:
Sounds good to me. My friends go back and fourth on who’s cam is better. Its usually playful arguments and funny to watch. How do you like your 20D? I film wildlife and the DVX is very limiting with its zoom capabilities so I was thinking of getting an XL2 body and a nice zoom lens. My friend had me set on getting the Nikon but I figure if I can use the same lenses between the XL2 and the 20D, why the hell not spend the extra 500 bucks. Like I said before, I know little about still photography.
Click to expand...

I love the 20D - My best friend has the Nikon D70 and after I bought my 20D he used it and liked it better than his own camera. Since you're thinking about he XL2 you may as well go with the 20D. - Just be aware that Canon makes a handful of lenses that are only compatible with the 20D, Rebel and 350XT. They will probably not work with the XL2 lenses adaptor.
 
Envision said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about pmark23 when you're saying to play with subpixel rendering to get rid of the sharp edges, etc. I've done several videos using still photos & they've always turned out fine.
Click to expand...

What resolution stills are you using? Panning across high-resolution stills greater than 1:1 pixels introduces aliasing along the horizontal and vertical edges. Small images or highly zoomed images don't have aliasing (but may be blurry if zoomed in too much.)

If you get aliasing, then sub-pixel rendering will help a lot. If you don't need it then great! Your rendering time will be much lower! :beer:
 
If I ever have that issue, then I'll try to remember sub-pixel rendering, and look it up to figure how to do it. When clients want me to create a video with stills, I request they send me images at least 1440x960 or larger ... that way, I can zoom in at LEAST 2x and still have perfect resolution to fit in with any other video clips at 720x480.
 
By "sub pixel rendering", do you mean that the imported still image has less pixels than the native dv frame (i.e., there are less still image pixels than 720x480?)
 
Vegas has a cool feature where a frame is rendered multiple times to take advantage of situations where there's more pixels in the timeline media than is needed in the final video (or at least I assume that's what it's for.)

The net effect is that aliasing is greatly reduced -- but only where aliasing is present. It won't blur the entire image like other alias-removing algorithms or techniques (such as a 1-pixel gaussian blur).

Check the Vegas docs for more info.
 
pmark, thanks for the heads up. I have never come across this in Vegas, so I look forward to trying it.
 
No reference in Vegas help to sub-pixel rendering. What does it mean? I searched for 'frame', 'pixel', 'subpixel', 'sub-pixel', 'render', 'rendering', and none of the many topics that are returned resemble what you are talking about.

Can you state exactly which topic in Vegas covers this?

I may have a 'similar' problem. I am importing some still images, and they appear to have a 'moire' patterns. As I pan, zoom, and rotate the pictures, these patterns dance on the screen - very distracting. Now - these are high resolution pics (8 megapixel digital camera), so I suspect that some kind of aliasing is going on, and sub-pixel rendering (or whatever its oficial name is) should help.

Jerry
 
Thanks for all the help, just when you think a post is dead even more members come to the rescue. Sirius, as for the Canon/Nikon thing, im still debating. They are both so good, but the Nikon is cheaper and if I don’t get an XL2, im not sure I can justify spending the extra cash. I’ve compared tones of images (in print, stock lenses) and Its just to close to tell a difference. In the end its up to the user to make them look awesome.
 
XCheck said:
I am importing some still images, and they appear to have a 'moire' patterns. As I pan, zoom, and rotate the pictures, these patterns dance on the screen - very distracting. Now - these are high resolution pics (8 megapixel digital camera), so I suspect that some kind of aliasing is going on, and sub-pixel rendering (or whatever its oficial name is) should help.

Jerry
Click to expand...

I've seen the same thing in my preview window before, but after rendering to mpeg (or whatever) it's not been an issue. Is this only in preview that you see it, or in your renders as well?
 
Envision said:
I've seen the same thing in my preview window before, but after rendering to mpeg (or whatever) it's not been an issue. Is this only in preview that you see it, or in your renders as well?
Click to expand...
I haven't tried how it looks after it's been rendered, but it shows in both preview window and on an external NTSC monitor fed through a deck.
 
XCheck,
The resolution is too high for an NTSC display, hence the "twittering/moire" on fine details.
Try using a small amount of gaussian or directional blur in post to take the edge off a bit.
In Vegas 4.0e I set the blur to .001 or .002 for a start.
Hope this helps.
Ken
 
kplo said:
XCheck,
The resolution is too high for an NTSC display, hence the "twittering/moire" on fine details.
Try using a small amount of gaussian or directional blur in post to take the edge off a bit.
In Vegas 4.0e I set the blur to .001 or .002 for a start.
Hope this helps.
Ken
Click to expand...
Thanks, it makes sense - it's the same effect as looking through two layers of window screen, I guess. I tried the blur method but it didn't work - only when the still image became too blurry the moire went away. I wonder if there is any trick with masking/compositing that could help.

Also, a static picture is not really a big deal - I can scale it down in Photoshop and get a decent image from that. Where it really hurts is if I want to simulate a slow push and track by zooming/panning the event. I guess I will have to play more with it to see if a lower resolution source image will give me better results.
 
I'm telling you, render it out & see if it's still an issue. Remember, once you render, you're typically rendering it to a much lower resolution (i.e. 720x480 or less for DVD, or even less for web). I've seen the same problem in preview, but never after rendering, and I'm guessing you won't either in your finished product.

So ultimately, why mess with it (blur, etc.)? Who cares what the preview looks like when the finished product is what matters. Just my 2 1/2 cents.
 
XCheck said:
No reference in Vegas help to sub-pixel rendering. What does it mean? I searched for 'frame', 'pixel', 'subpixel', 'sub-pixel', 'render', 'rendering', and none of the many topics that are returned resemble what you are talking about.

Can you state exactly which topic in Vegas covers this?

I may have a 'similar' problem. I am importing some still images, and they appear to have a 'moire' patterns. As I pan, zoom, and rotate the pictures, these patterns dance on the screen - very distracting. Now - these are high resolution pics (8 megapixel digital camera), so I suspect that some kind of aliasing is going on, and sub-pixel rendering (or whatever its oficial name is) should help.

Jerry
Click to expand...


Sorry for the delay in responding -- just got back from a shoot.

I don't have Vegas on this 'puter, but I also remember having a difficult time in finding any documentation -- but it's there.

Select VIEW, then VIDEO BUS TRACK.

Right click on the new track that appears, select INSERT/REMOVE ENVELOPE, and then VIDEO SUPERSAMPLING.

An envelope curve now appears. Apply the curve ONLY to the parts where the moire appears. Experiment with how much you need to make it disappear. The more you increase it, the more rendering time will increase.

If you use the Gaussian Blur, the entire frame goes soft. With subpixel rendering, nothing is blured, just redundant information is removed (as far as I can tell).

Hope that helps! :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top