vertical cropping

[steven62]

Hello,

When doing a show at 1920 x 1080 I know that I need to crop my images to 1920 x 1080 for horizontal images, but what would I crop the few vertical images to? Normally I would crop to 1080 x 1920 if I was doing a print but what about a slide show?

Steven

[Lin Evans]

Hi Steven,

Unless you particularly want to show less than the full copy, you would crop the same way you would for a print. 1920 high by 1080 wide.

Best regards,

Lin

Hello,

When doing a show at 1920 x 1080 I know that I need to crop my images to 1920 x 1080 for horizontal images, but what would I crop the few vertical images to? Normally I would crop to 1080 x 1920 if I was doing a print but what about a slide show?

Steven

[davegee]

Alternatively you could crop to 1080 high using the Aspect Ratio of the original portrait format image (to save space).

There is no right or wrong way.

DG

[steven62]

Hi Steven,

Unless you particularly want to show less than the full copy, you would crop the same way you would for a print. 1920 high by 1080 wide.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

Thanks. Being new to this I find that in some areas I may be making this tougher then it is but felt I needed to ask just in case.

Thank you,

Steven

[Guest Yachtsman1]

With a portrait style image I crop 1080x1920. Then I select a common slide to use as a background, reduce the opacity to about 45% so the background is just visible behind the subject slide, this looks better than a black border to the portrait image. Alternatively, show the portrait image full width & animate it top to bottom (pan) or visa versa. Recently been using the first suggestion, trying to keep off too much animation. I also invariably shoot landscape style pics, but where necessary due to site restrictions, portrait.

Yachtsman1.

[xahu34]

Let us consider two examples:

1. The portrait image should be fully included.

You insert the image with mode "Fit to slide", and you reduce the image's size using the zoom function (say: to 80%). In this case the optimal height of your image is 864 = 1080*80/100. OK? The image must not necessarily have an aspect ratio of 16 to 9 (or 9 to 16).

2. The portrait image should fully cover the screen with a vertical pan.

You insert the image with mode "Cover slide", and you program a vertical pan via key frames. The optimal width of your image then is 1920. Again, the image must not necessarily have an aspect ratio of 16 to 9 (or 9 to 16).

Regards,

Xaver

[steven62]

Hi All,

As Dave mentioned there is "no right or wrong way".

I appreciate the various responses to questions posted on the PTE forum and have decided to put each reply into my bag of new found knowledge and try each one. By doing this I seem to become more comfortable in using PTE.

That, I believe is what it's all about.

Thank You,

Steven

[Barry Beckham]

Just a personal view, but a top to bottom or bottom to top pan bores me to death. Why would anyone want to look at a huge image bit by bit through a letter box?

[Lin Evans]

Hi Barry,

I can think of several reasons. First, you can't get the entire image on screen at one time. As with a panorama scrolling horizontally, closeup detail of some significant features such as a closeup of an interesting geological formation, tree, etc., may be desired and our screens simply are not tall enough to get it all in a single display vertically.

What if you wanted to display a magnificent redwood tree, but the tree is 400 feet tall? One "could" say, I suppose, that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in a show, but there are many people who disagree and really want to see the detail in the bark - leaves, etc. What about a very tall building which had some significant architectural interest?

There are times when a vertical pan might be used effectively. Recently, I wanted to show some amazing detail in a dead Bristlecone Pine. The only way I could effectively do so was a vertical pan. What if we had a super high resolution image of a crowd of people and wanted to show both the entire frame and also closeups of people located in the lower as well as the upper quadrant?

Just some thoughts....

Best regards,

Lin

Just a personal view, but a top to bottom or bottom to top pan bores me to death. Why would anyone want to look at a huge image bit by bit through a letter box?

[Rickl]

I can think of several reasons. First, you can't get the entire image on screen at one time. As with a panorama scrolling horizontally, closeup detail of some significant features such as a closeup of an interesting geological formation, tree, etc., may be desired and our screens simply are not tall enough to get it all in a single display vertically.

What if you wanted to display a magnificent redwood tree, but the tree is 400 feet tall? One "could" say, I suppose, that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in a show, but there are many people who disagree and really want to see the detail in the bark - leaves, etc. What about a very tall building which had some significant architectural interest?

I did exactly that this summer - How else to show the immense size of a redwood tree - But I did not letterbox it. I zoomed out to full HD width, began at the bottom showing people at the base of the tree and did a slow pan from the bottom of the tree to the top...

Many who have seen it were impressed at the size of the tree... More effective I think than showing a letterbox image of two stitched images...

Dick

[JEB]

Hi,

A technique I use is a bit of both and in whatever order takes my fancy or think appropriate at the time.

If I start with a vertical pan I fade it out to about 40% at the end of the pan and then fade in the superimposed full vertical image with a delicate border.

Horses for courses as they say. NO HARD RULES.

John

[davegee]

I like Top to Bottom Pans (or vice versa) marginally better than I like upright images in a Landscape Project (is there any other kind?).

P.S. I HATE!!!!! upright images in a Landscape project. Sometimes a necessary evil!!

DG

[xahu34]

A nice discussion, isn't it? In April 2009, a famous member of this forum has posted the topic "Topics that loose their way"

Regards,

Xaver