Future Proofing your AV's

[Almark]

While many folk use the 16:9 ratio (1920x1080, which is TV and projector Full HD), many are now using 16:10 ratio (computer monitor).

As most modern (12Mp)cameras can now capture around 4000x3000 pixels, it really seems foolish to crop/resize to less than half that. Therefore; in order to future proof AV's, may I suggest that it be a much better approach to double the pixel size. Examples - 16:9 from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, or 16:10 from 1920x1200 to 3840 x2400.

For users with really big (pixel) size images,(eg Canon 5D Mk2, Nikon DX3) it might be better to triple the pixel size and keep the 16:10 ratio, (5760x3600).

I am, of course, fully aware that such an approach will increase the exe file size. But as high speed broadband is now almost the norm, AV workers may want to consider this "suggested approach".

I welcome your thoughts and comments...

[Barry Beckham]

I suggested a re-think along these lines some time ago, suggesting 1920*1200 or 1920*1080 was better advice to be giving in the light of software and PC improvements. The idea didn't exactly inspire forum members, but that was when most were still using 1024*768 and the leap was a bit too far perhaps.

I have already done this making a slide show with images directly from a Canon 1Ds Mk3 so we are talking 6000*4000 pixels or around that. I included animation to see how it was handled and as long as the animation is gentle and measured it works fine on my PC, but then is a new one and I would expect it to handle the file sizes. The Moire effect may be a bit of a problem for anyone viewing these large shows on small monitors. I could see some evidence of it on my 27in screen and I am not a fan of sweating blood to create sharp images and then softening them, just to allow animation.

What I did suggest recently, was to create the bare bones of the slide show with images directly from the digital camera, then use save to zip to make a smaller version for general consumption, keeping the large file for future proofing. I am looking at what I produced a few months ago and it contains 10 images from my camera and already PTE says it will be a 122MB file.

If we adopted this approach, at least one member would never see a slide show again.

[davegee]

It seems to make little sense to make slide shows and restrict them to "computer monitors". Output for TVs and HD projectors need to be seriously considered. Each producer has to decide where the fruit of his labours is going to be more at home.

The MP4 seems to be gaining in popularity and its ease of playing on a TV monitor or HD Projector with little or no losses is more appropriate for the near future (HDMI or USB).

After much consideration I have adopted the 16:9 "frame" for all shows. Other aspect ratio productions are made at 1080 high and superimposed within the 16:9 "frame".

By adopting this workflow I avoided having the shows being stretched to fit the TV monitor by its Media Player.

If anyone has any evidence that the current 16:9 - 1920x1080 - format for TV is about to change please let me/us know?

DG

P.S. on Barry's point about monitor sizes etc. Regardless of the size of the monitor in inches and the resolution of the images used to make a show "something" is reducing it to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 be it PTE or your graphics card or the TVs Media Player. I'm more inclined to want to be in charge of any downsizing and see the results "pixel for pixel" the way I produced them. Just my opinion.

[Ken Cox]

DAVE

you will not have any problem convincing those of us that have been advocating your thoughts for quite some time, it is the 99.5% of others that you will have a problem with

people have to look ahead and make the shows for the future -- make different versions and be ready for when you change viewing methods

-- take HQ big picts and use them - PTE can handle them

make your system work it's heart out -- you will be surprised what it can do

ken

[davegee]

Welcome back Ken!

DG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

For myself, I make my shows to suit my current display equipment, 5x4 monitor 4-3 projector. 1280x1024 5x4 show sized pictures.

As for future proofing, I have the highest spec 3x2 15MP camera & PC I could afford with the current mid range operating system running at 64bit.

The reason I don't make my shows to match those being suggested is, that when I go back to my shows, I can usually find one or more items I could have done differently, usually shortening them or less animation. I also take into consideration the development of PTE & it's features and any variations I feel would improve my shows.

Therefore my future proofing is to always save the original Raw pictures we take, then if I feel I need to change any of my past work I can go back to basics and produce an up to date version of my original to suit whatever I feel is better.

Since 2007 when I got into serious digital photography & PTE, We have around 120GB of saved raw pictures & have changed around 60% of my original shows.

Yachtsman1.

[Barry Beckham]

P.S. on Barry's point about monitor sizes etc. Regardless of the size of the monitor in inches and the resolution of the images used to make a show "something" is reducing it to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 be it PTE or your graphics card or the TVs Media Player. I'm more inclined to want to be in charge of any downsizing and see the results "pixel for pixel" the way I produced them. Just my opinion.

I am not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate a bit as I am probably missing the obvious. If I make a show for myself at 1920*1200 and its seen on a 1024*768 monitor, how do I stay in charge? It has to be downsized to fit the screen.

[davegee]

Point taken Barry, but I was talking about making shows to suit MY setup or, in the case of a competition, to suit the competition's "rules" and the projector they are going to be shown on.

When your shows are released to the general public you obviously have no control over the monitor on which they are displayed.

I wonder if the losses which are going to take place are greater when a show is made with 4000x3000 images than when made with carefully prepared 1920x1080 (when displayed on Joe Blogg's 1280x1024)?

I don't have an answer - pure speculation.

DG

P.S. Off topic - did the Cyclone effects reach your neck of the woods?

[coopernatural]

Danger of the proposed higher res AV future proofing,

is that it might become subject to some last minute government,luxury pixel import tax,or something.

Anyway,future proofing just isn’t as good as it used to be in the past.

Presently I commit all my surplus pixels to a special e-bin.Every 2 weeks a large e-van arrives and empties it.

They take the waste pixels away for recycling onto the ProShow forum.Apparently they can’t get enough of them.

It might be wrong of me,but I get a nice warm feeling with that.

Davy

[cgbraggjr]

One point - in the past I have found that an image that is not either the same size as the display monitor or projector, or twice that resolution, suffers badly when displayed. IOW, if I have an 800x600 monitor I do better with an 800x600 image than with a 2000x1500 image. Downsizing in the computer bites. OTOH, a 1600x1200 looks about the same as the 800x600. Perhaps version 7.0 will deal with some of that. We'll see.

Second point: I use Lightroom, mostly (Photoshop gets called on for difficult situations - you know what I mean - but it all ends up back in LR). So, I crop all the slides in a show to the desired specs and export them to be used by PTE. (I crop to a ratio and the export program can set the actual resolution.) Once a show is assembled, it's relatively easy to generate another show in another format. I go back to Lightroom, create virtual copies of the photos and crop them to the new specs. I then copy the PTE show, and export the "new" slides into the copy, overwriting the "old" slides. Since the slide file names are the same, I instantly have a new show in the new format.

This is important to me because I compose for my bird club, which has a low-res projector, my computer, and my HD TV. Too much work, unless I plan ahead.

[Barry Beckham]

Dave

No, the Cyclone was over a 1000k away from us, but I think we are in for some rain this week because of it. We were up there a couple of months ago and stopped over night at one or two of the places badly hit.

PTESize

I wonder if the losses which are going to take place are greater when a show is made with 4000x3000 images than when made with carefully prepared 1920x1080 (when displayed on Joe Blogg's 1280x1024)?

I tried it quickly with the high resolution slide show that I had already made. I put a 6000*4000 image alongside an identical one at 1920*1200. I can't see any difference in the two images as I switch between them. In fact I went back and marked the second shot, because I wanted to be sure I was skipping between two sperate images. Its an interesting debate, but surprisingly I agree with Eric. By the time we may want to update a show for larger screens our own skill levels would have moved on, PTE will be different and most of the time we will be more inspired by a different project to maintain interest. I have returned to an older slide show, but the remake used nothing of what I previously produced.

I use PTE quite a bit in my tutorial disks these days and have done so quite a bit on a recent one. I make then at 1920*1200, but view them on an old 1024*768 monitor to make sure they look OK and I never have any issues with quality. As you know, I am pretty fussy about that.

Argonaut

After reading your post, I tried another test with a different image and I am not seeing what you describe. There is nothing between the images from 6000*4000 and 1920*1200. Well, not with the couple I tried.

Its an interesting concept though. It only seems a short time ago that I was using Kai Power Show, anyone remember that? The maximum size you could go was 800*600 and here we are talking about using images 6000*4000. However, I will stay with 1920*1200 and if and when that needs reviewing I will.

[cgbraggjr]

Barry - I'm sure the video card has a lot to do with the quality of the resizing. Experiencing the issue is what made me set up to create different-res shows. Also, as one of those who grew up when memory was expensive and video cards slow, I incline to using the smallest possible images. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go outside and shout at some clouds....

[Barry Beckham]

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go outside and shout at some clouds

Sorry, lost in translation. I don' know what that means

[mhwarner]

While the size of the file in pixels is an issue I struggle with (currently my laptop, while not "old", has 2 GB of memory and is dual core, but doesn't have the speediest graphics card), the issue I find most troublesome is the crop factor. I really am not crazy about the amount of top and bottom that must be cut off to fit the 16:10 or 16:9 proportions, particularly since it is almost impossible to do a batch of images that way with some sort of automation. I find that I need to manually crop so as not to lose important parts of the image. While I love to see images (and slideshows) full-screen, most of my latest shows have ended up being 3:2 so that they only require downsizing. But if I am making a DVD for sale or for family distribution, then I tend to go with 4:3. Ultimately, it just seems impossible to come up with a one-size-fits-all show.

On the subject of file size/resolution, I am currently working on a show using full-size images. The show has quite a few slow pans and zooms and seems a bit jerky on my computer. I am in the process of downsizing but am having to figure out the optimum size for the zooms so that they don't pixelate. I don't have a hard and fast rule as to what I would download, but my internet connection (like a good number of people I know and meet in my travels) is wireless (a Verizon broadband card). I don't believe it is safe to assume that most people (unless they live in metropolitan areas) have high-speed connections. I would probably balk at downloading anything over 100 MB, and would need to carefully consider even that. Another consideration is that most folks (at least those on satellite or wireless) have some sort of data download metering so they will be selective about file size maximum. (I know that most young adults probably don't give it much consideration, but then I doubt many of them are downloading slideshows.)

[cgbraggjr]

Sorry - the 'shouting at clouds' is one of those cultural references. Grandpa Simpson, demonstrating the problems of old people dealing with younger people (and tech), had a famous moment shouting at clouds in frustration. Since we're dealing with technical matters, and I'm an old f$&(*, I figured, what the hey.

[Barry Beckham]

While the size of the file in pixels is an issue I struggle with (currently my laptop, while not "old", has 2 GB of memory and is dual core, but doesn't have the speediest graphics card), the issue I find most troublesome is the crop factor. I really am not crazy about the amount of top and bottom that must be cut off to fit the 16:10 or 16:9 proportions, particularly since it is almost impossible to do a batch of images that way with some sort of automation.

If your making an AV that is a bit more than slapping some images to music, you should not even think of batch resizing. Why would anyone give up such a huge creative part of the process and hand over what is to be seen on the screen to the automatics of a computer. Nuts, if you ask me?

I find that I need to manually crop so as not to lose important parts of the image. While I love to see images (and slideshows) full-screen, most of my latest shows have ended up being 3:2 so that they only require downsizing. But if I am making a DVD for sale or for family distribution, then I tend to go with 4:3. Ultimately, it just seems impossible to come up with a one-size-fits-all show.

Manually cropping is the only way to go, but while I agree up to a point, with the format issue, you have to loose only 80 pixels from the height of the 16:10 format (1920*1200) from 3:2 (1920*1280). Thats only 40 pixels top and bottom and most of the time, that isn't significant. While this will not meet all needs, I think there is almost a one size fits all. Stay with your 3:2, if you find that format best for you and live with the small areas around the PC screen that is not covered when the show is played back on 16:10, 16:9, 5:4 or 4:3 monitors. Its no great problem really and the same with TV viewing. If you really have a need to make a DVD and fit the entire screen, then you can always make a copy of your already made show and crop the copy to 1920*1080

On the subject of file size/resolution, I am currently working on a show using full-size images. The show has quite a few slow pans and zooms and seems a bit jerky on my computer. I am in the process of downsizing but am having to figure out the optimum size for the zooms so that they don't pixelate. I don't have a hard and fast rule as to what I would download, but my internet connection (like a good number of people I know and meet in my travels) is wireless (a Verizon broadband card). I don't believe it is safe to assume that most people (unless they live in metropolitan areas) have high-speed connections. I would probably balk at downloading anything over 100 MB, and would need to carefully consider even that. Another consideration is that most folks (at least those on satellite or wireless) have some sort of data download metering so they will be selective about file size maximum. (I know that most young adults probably don't give it much consideration, but then I doubt many of them are downloading slideshows.)

Your right, I doubt the youngsters are downloading 100MB slide shows, they are too busy downloading 2.3 gigbyte feature films. The optimum size for a zoom is that the image must be as big, as the highest zoom you want to use. So as you zoom in. you do not go past the point where your now stretching too few pixels, over too large an area. If you go to the size position in pixels inside the Objects and Animation screen you can set your image at its highest size so you can see how much you can actually zoom, While its set at 100% make that your animation end point and your done. Be careful though as many deep zooms are boring, they go on and on an on just because the ability to create them is there, not to add any value to the end product.

If 3:2 is your favoured format you can always make up a small scale chart. 3:2 format will be achieved with all of those in the list below and after a short while, you will soon see how many pixels it takes to create the style of zoom that you want. Please ask yourself one question before you spend 30 seconds zooming into some fuzzy detail buried deep in the image. Is a zoom of this depth going to enhance what I am producing?

1920*1280

2220*1480

2600*1733

3000*2000

2840*2560

[davegee]

If you REALLY want to optimise your file sizes you can make a note of the highest value that the zoom goes to for a particular image in O&A > Animations.

Multiply the resolution of your show by that percentage and that's the resolution that you need for that particular Image.

Example:

Resolution of show - Project Options > Screen > Size of Slide = 1920x1080

Deepest Zoom for Image - O&A > Animation > Zoom = 140%

Width of Image required = 1920x1.4 = 2688

Resolution required for Optimum File Size = 2688x1512

That's if you REALLY want to be precise, but that way at least one end of your zoom is going to be a true pixel for pixel representation of your image on a 1920x1080 screen.

DG

[Almark]

Thank you all for your replies. I now use the 16:10 ratio with a pixel size of 3840x2400.

I have found that my computers handle the bigger version with out any problem.

If you have time, or interest, I offer links to the two versions:

1. 16:9, 1920x1080, 41.7 MB

Download 1

2. 16;10, 3840x2400, 157 MB

Download 2

Apart from the slight change in ratio, both are visually the same.

[davegee]

Hi Mark,

I downloaded both shows and watched on my 16:10 computer monitor and my TV.

Firstly the 16:10 large show on my Computer monitor.

The images are superb and fill the screen. I liked the show and will watch again.

I noticed that I could use the right arrow to move the images along but the music and commentary then went out of sync. I tried to pause the show for comparisons but failed. Something to think about?

Now the 16:9 show. It seems obvious to me that you have compressed the images top to bottom to fit the 16:10 images to the 16:9 format. Short fat people. I compared the 16:9 show on my laptop monitor and the 16:10 show on my desktop monitor and, on the same slides I could see the same information top and bottom and on both sides. Please correct me if wrong!

I see little point in that and went for the escape button.

On the TV, even with the AR "problem", I prefered the 16:9 version because it filled the screen whereas the 16:10 had black lines on each side.

On the subject of whether the increase of file size due to the sizes of the images was worth it, I found it difficult to judge because it was impossible to compare like with like either on the computer monitors or on the TV.

The best option out of the two that you offered was the 16:10 shown on my 16:10 computer monitor but it is impossible to say if that version would be any better than a similar show made with 1920x1200 images rather than your 3840x2400 images.

I must try to get there someday!

DG

[Almark]

Thank you all for the feedback. I look back on some of my first attempts in AV (2006), in ProShow and PTE, that were prepared at 1024x768. Because of a lack of discipline and management I find that cannot find ;-) the pte file, or if I do, the images can't be found (due to computer changes / hard disk upgrades and so on.)

We all learn from experience. For anyone interested, I now use an external esata 1TB for my photos and av's, and movies. I use Capture NX2 for all my adjustments, and will sometimes use Photoshop for edits, and Lightroom for management. Having the lightroom cat on an external HD means I can use my laptop when not at at my main 'puter.

[BootZilla]

Mark -

Well, I'm not sure where to start on this one - file size large vs file size small - aspect ratio, true crop or squished crop - sizing for the future etc...

First of all, I'm a huge fan of wide screen images and movies. For me, the 16x9 AR makes for a more interesting view. When I'm shooting, I am consciously aware of leaving a bit more room for cropping knowing that I'll want to display in a wide format.

Future proofing; Like others, I've made shows in past years in varying AR because of limitations with earlier versions of PTE. As new versions of PTE came out, I found myself redoing my favorite shows again to take advantage of large AR's. Luckily, I had saved all my finished original images as large Tiffs. There's no way I would up size the jpg images from an earlier show to make a new one because of the clarity downgrading. Like BB, I want the highest visual quality possible. In some of my earlier shows, I created masks that allowed me to show the image in a wide view but that meant the image had to be smaller and a lot of monitor real estate was devoted to the mask. So when we got the ability to actually show a wide image full screen, I was quite pleased and even happier when we got the ability to "lock" the AR controlling the way others could view my shows. Not trusting technology to come to a screeching halt, I thought about all the show redoes that I had done and figured I should try and anticipate more changes, so I now size my jpg "images for show" @ 3840 px x 2160 px. Yes. it gives me a much larger sized file but I never have to be concerned about any image I want to zoom or pan.I know there's members that arbitrarily put size limits on shows that they will download, in that case, they lose! How many times, after completing all the work on your images and loading them into the PTE time-line and then realize that "oh that would be neat if I animated it". You're already showing it at 100%. Do you just say to hell with the quality and zoom it anyway because you think the animation is needed or do you go back to the original file and re-work it at a higher rez? I used to run into this all the time. Now, I no longer have those issues.

On an interesting note - I did enjoy going back and redoing some of the shows, they came out better than the originals. I think mainly because my skill level in both PTE and PS had increased.

Cropping for a specific AR vs distorting the image to fit a desired AR - To me this is a no brainer. I have yet to look thru the view finder when I'm shooting and say to myself "this shot will look great if I squish/distort it to fit the 16x9 AR". I'm not suggesting that any of us do but I too viewed both of Mark's versions of Yellowstone and could see that the image content was identical in both versions even though at different AR's, that shouldn't be, it appears he took a short cut and altered the images to fit the 1920x1080 AR rather than re-cropping them. Why would you do that?

Monitor size vs TV - My monitor is 1920x1200 but I make all my shows at 1920x1080 - why? We live in a 16x9 AR would and probably will for a long time to come. I much like having my TV screen full and am willing to sacrifice a wee part of my computer monitor top & bottom to be blank. It may be difficult down the road to even get high end computer monitors in anything but 16x9, plus as I said earlier "the wider the frame the better" for me that is.

Do I restrict myself to only 16x9 images? No I don't but when it comes to displaying them in a slideshow, I simply lay them over a full screen image background. The smaller foreground images always have a white border to help make them stand out and sometimes I'll even use a blank black file to darken down the background image to give the foreground more impact. So, although I'm a wide screen enthusiast, I realize that not all image suit that AR.

Greg Gordon