Lightroom export resolution size for PTE Studio

[Beemer]

All of my images are either NEF or RAF raw files.  I use Adobe Lightroom Classic. 

My NEF raw files are 7360x4912 pixels (3:2) and my RAF raw files are 4,288 x 2,848 (3:2)   I have no desire to shoot 16x9.

As a PTE AV Studio newbie,  I would like advice regarding optimum file resolution when exporting from Lightroom.   

(1) How does PTE handle a NEF to JPG export if I leave it at 7360x4912?

(2) What is the minimum export resolution if I wanted to include zoom and pan effects?

Ian

 

[Lin Evans]

What is the resolution of your display?  There is absolutely no legitimate reason to use any larger image in your show than the resolution of the device you're displaying the show on, except for those very few images you may zoom to greater than 1:1 display size.

You're originals are 36 megapixels. The highest resolution displays currently available are 4K which is slightly less than eight megapixels (3840x2160). So decide which resolution display you intend to show your slides on and set the output resolution from Lightroom to a jpg with a compression level of about 8 and the horizontal aspect equal to the display and let the vertical be what matches for a 3:2 aspect ratio.

If you are doing really super zooms for some reason and want to have those few images at their original capture resolution that should be fine, but putting out larger image resolution than the device on which they will be displayed just greatly increases processing time and unless you are using an executable format, the video output codec will downsample them anyway to the resolution chosen. 

PTE doesn't use RAW formats so output your NEF's to JPG from Lightroom. 

Best regards,

Lin

[davegee]

(1) It handles it very well, especially if your output is mp4 but it is not optimal.

(2) An example: if your deepest zoom for an image is 200% then for optimum results your image needs to be twice the viewing screen "resolution" (for exe) or twice the mp4 resolution (for video).

If your monitor is 1920x1080 then, for an exe the image would need to be 3240x2160 for a 200% zoom (optimum).

If you intend to fill the width of a 1920x1080 screen you would optimally need 3840x2560.

DG

[Beemer]

Many thanks to you both and all understood.

Ian

[Yaryman]

Beemer, 
Just my 2¢. Sizing the images to at least 4K will future proof your slide show, even if you have no plans EVER to make a show greater than 1080P. ( you still might )
Five years ago, none of the TV's in my house were 4K. Now all three are. Including a 70" just purchased model that cost all of $700.
Watching a slide show in full 4K on a 4K TV is wonderful. 

[davegee]

50 minutes ago, Yaryman said:

Beemer, 
Just my 2¢. Sizing the images to at least 4K will future proof your slide show, even if you have no plans EVER to make a show greater than 1080P. ( you still might )
Five years ago, none of the TV's in my house were 4K. Now all three are. Including a 70" just purchased model that cost all of $700.
Watching a slide show in full 4K on a 4K TV is wonderful. 

We have been through this before. Existing HD TV will not necessarily play a 4K MP4 so you have to make a HD version and also a 4K version. If you already have 4K and never ever share your work, I would agree.

DG

[Yaryman]

DG, 
Perhaps I didn't make it clear about my suggestion. 
Crop the pictures to at least 4K resolution, then make the slide show 1080P, from those files.
Then when one day you decide, you want that show to be 4K, you can just render it to 4K size from files & show you already have sized for 4K.
Maybe the OP is just going to use the full frame files he has to make the show, so there is no need to worry about making the show bigger latter.

 It's just been my experience that rarely if ever one takes a photo that doesn't benefit from being cropped. 

[davegee]

Yes, I agree with that.

If you also make allowance for potential panning/zooming, then what you are really saying is that you should use full resolution images from something like a 24MP camera.

DG

[jkb]

A plea!

If you are making a show with larger images and intend entering competitions, please remember that these large shows will take much longer to upload and download. 

Also the poor competition secretary will have many to process and if everyone sends big files, they need a lot more storage space.

Individual image files do not have to be big for projection. Even on a big screen you still only need 72dpi. Most competitions run on 1920x1080 or 1600x1200 projectors. Some smaller clubs are still using 1024x768

So please resize your images if entering competitions or festivals.

Thanks, Jill

[Beemer]

46 minutes ago, jkb said:

A plea!

If you are making a show with larger images and intend entering competitions, please remember that these large shows will take much longer to upload and download. 

Also the poor competition secretary will have many to process and if everyone sends big files, they need a lot more storage space.

Individual image files do not have to be big for projection. Even on a big screen you still only need 72dpi. Most competitions run on 1920x1080 or 1600x1200 projectors. Some smaller clubs are still using 1024x768

So please resize your images if entering competitions or festivals.

Thanks, Jill

Hi Jill,

I assume that your reply was directed to me and I fully recognise the need for moderation of file size.   Your comment about "only needing 72dpi" is however an example of a long since perpetuated myth.   Projector lcds,  computer screens and TV screens all have their own fixed ppi (dpi is a printer term).  No software can adjust the ppi of a projected or screen image. 

Ian

 

[jkb]

Hi Ian,

No not you specifically, the post was directed at anyone who enters competitions.

We get some very large file sizes for shows that only last a few minutes & not many slides.

I know about the dpi/ppi

But saving at 72dpi vastly reduces the file size compared to 300dpi
I do Save for web in Photoshop at around 60 to 80% and have no problems when the images are projected on a large screen.
This keeps each image around a few hundred K rather than several mb - makes a big difference to the final file size.

I usually build my AV with the full size images until I am happy with it, then resize each image to crop as I need it.

Jill

 

[Lin Evans]

Hi Jill,

The "dpi" tag has no bearing on file size.  If the pixel count and compression levels are identical, whether a file has a tag of 300 dpi or 72 dpi the properties show the file sizes to be identical.

Best regards,

Lin

[Beemer]

Lin, Adobe has to take blame for the  "export" or "save to" 72 (or other) dpi/ppi misconception.  As we both agree it has no meaning when the output is to a display/projector.   Moreover the file size does not change regardless of what might be entered.   File size is determined solely by resolution and if file compression has been used.   I have proved this several times in demonstrations to my camera club. 

I cannot condone using "Save for web" for club viewing or even home viewing.  Yes it reduces file size but jpg compression reduces viewing quality. 

Ian

 

[davegee]

Ian,

can you elaborate?

are you saying that you do not use JPEG?

or that you set quality = 100?

Whatever method of saving as a JPEG you use you are offered a quality setting which you can usually adjust to your requirements.

the beauty of Save for the Web is that it lets you SEE whether you will generate unwanted artifacts. For maximum quality/minimum compression set quality = 100.

It is the same as any other method.

With the same image,

Using Save As quality 12 = 1.09mb

Using SFTW quality 100 = 1.09mb

Cannot see ANY difference between the two.

Where is the problem?

DG

[Beemer]

Dave,

In answer to your reply perhaps you misread or did not read the full thread.  I have no problem.   I export from Lightroom 100% jpg at a resolution appropriate to the projected or screen display. 

Ian

[davegee]

Hi Ian,

The only negative reference to "Save for the Web" that I can find is yours and that is what I replied to.

I agree with Jill, albeit that I use a higher percentage than her purely as a safety net.

I think, if you are going to condemn a process that I and many others use regularly, that you need to substantiate it.

I am open to persuasion.

DG

 

[Lin Evans]

It's possible that a reluctance to use Save For The Web stems from the warning given when trying to save larger file sizes this way. I'm not certain whether this warning is universal for all versions of Photoshop or only for older versions, but if one attempts to save for the web with CS5 and is using a 24 mp image at 3:2 aspect ratio (6000x4000 pixels) the following warning is produced:

Perhaps those using higher megapixel cameras are put off by this and reluctant to use this?  Just guessing...

Best regards,

Lin

[davegee]

No Lin,

On my system there is a very short delay between the 6000x4000 Original and the Optimised appearing but no error messages.

DG

[Beemer]

15 hours ago, davegee said:

Hi Ian,

The only negative reference to "Save for the Web" that I can find is yours and that is what I replied to.

I agree with Jill, albeit that I use a higher percentage than her purely as a safety net.

I think, if you are going to condemn a process that I and many others use regularly, that you need to substantiate it.

I am open to persuasion.

DG

Dave,

I apologise for using the word condone which was inappropriate.   My thread has gone off course as it was intended only to remove the misconception about saving for projection or screen  at a stated dpi, e.g 72dpi.    

As a newbie here I did not fully appreciate that members have different use for their PTE work.   At present I have no need to upload AV to websites or social media as my use will be at home or for camera club presentation.   IMO the images should be optimised for the intended task.

For web:   I agree that small MP4 file size is important especially now that some users have 4K laptops and monitors and that some want to use 60fps.  With regards the images that PTE will use for making a web viewed MP4,  JPG compression quality, colour and file size, as you know,  is dependant on the image content.   If lower compression is used and staircase artifacts and banding is not seen then fine. 

For projection: My presentations and that of others in my camera club will be on a 1920x1080 projector.   If the images used by PTE are say 3240x2160 (x2 zoom) then I would not expect the MP4 file size to be significant even with 50 jpg images at 100% quality export setting.  Why then use a lower quality setting?   In my viewing of club presentations that used PTE, and ProShow I do see artifacts and banding.   With each member using different compression settings some shows are clearly inferior to others.    I just feel that for club presentations exporting images at 1980x1080 or 3240x2160 and at 100% quality makes a more level field.

As I initially said I am a newbie here and don't want to be controversal.  I have much to learn which is why I am grateful for advice.   If I react to something I feel is wrong then, like you,  I am open to persuasion.

Ian

[davegee]

I think that you have got it absolutely right.

But you can achieve it AND use Save For The Web. It is an extremely useful tool. Being able to SEE any artefacts or lack of them is a big plus.

If your output is mp4 or an EXE for your own use, then I agree, set everything to 100%.

DG

[Beemer]

Dave,

thanks,

Ian