Moire Effect

[Guest Yachtsman1]

As I understand it Moire effect in PTE animated shows can be caused by one or more of three circumstances. 1. The size of an individual or series of pictures being too large. 2. Over sharpening of a picture when editing. 3. Playing the show on a PC/Laptop with insufficient RAM. One of my colleagues has produced a show that has moire effect on a number of animated pictures. The pictures are quite large 1 to 4 mb, sharpening has been used, but I'm not sure of the RAM size of the computer the show was produced on. My question is when the show is shown on a PC/Laptop with more than adequate RAM will the effect be transferred to the other machine.

Yachtsman1

[fh1805]

A starting point for further reading on the Moire effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern

[cjdnzl]

As I understand it Moire effect in PTE animated shows can be caused by one or more of three circumstances. 1. The size of an individual or series of pictures being too large. 2. Over sharpening of a picture when editing. 3. Playing the show on a PC/Laptop with insufficient RAM. One of my colleagues has produced a show that has moire effect on a number of animated pictures. The pictures are quite large 1 to 4 mb, sharpening has been used, but I'm not sure of the RAM size of the computer the show was produced on. My question is when the show is shown on a PC/Laptop with more than adequate RAM will the effect be transferred to the other machine.

Yachtsman1

Is it really a Moiré effect, or it is a shimmering effect when the image is zooming, but absent when the image is stationary? If the latter is the case, it isn't Moiré, but rather a consequence of a too-sharp image, and a slight softening with Gaussian blur will cure the problem.

Colin

[Igor]

For images which you will use for Zoom effect:

1. Don't use nor Bicubic Sharper resampling, nor Unsharp filter.

2. Sometimes it's necessary to apply slight Gaussian filter or enable "Blur" option in PicturesToExe for that image.

In some cases shimmering still can occur (especially if you set zoom from large size 100% to very small - 1% for example).

In future version 5.6 we'll add special anti-shimmering option which completely removes moire in any cases, but the image will look a little soft.

[JPD]

Look at this exemple I did for a Diapositif member, it's very simple and have good result and a perfect picture at the beginning and end of zoom.

[Igor]

For enthusiasts who would like to see how future Anti-shimmering option will work in v5.6, can try this option right now (in v5.5 it works in the editor, mini-player, AVI, DVD and not in EXE file):

In .pte project file, find object and the next line:

MipLevels=0

Change to MipLevels=1

[bmccammon]

I created a slideshow that uses a frame inserted in the OA editor. The frame sits below a transparent PNG file and pans from right to left over a period of 5.5 minutes. Numerous people have told me that they love the shimmer effect I created. The thing is, I didn't do anything to create the shimmer and really did not mean to have it shimmer. The PNG file is not sharpened at all and is a simple line graphic showing a bunch of squares and other shapes all of which are gray in color. It seems like the shimmer (if this is the same shimmering being discussed by others) can be caused by slow panning as well as zoom or sharpening.

[Lin Evans]

For those who would like to see a sample of the (MipLevels=1) compared to alternatives, I have prepared an example.

Using a very sharp image of the moon - in the first zoom out the sharp image is left and "smooth" is used to exacerbate the "shimmer" effect when the zoom out ends. Normal MipLevels=0

In the second example, the MipLevels =0 has been changed to MipLevels=1 and it actually works pretty well until near the end of the zoom where fairly strong "shimmer" is still seen.

In the third example a half percent (.5) gaussian blur has been applied to the sharp moon. The shimmer is less evident at the mid point of the zoom but still quite apparent at the end.

In the fourth example a one percent gaussian blure has been applied to the sharp moon. The shimmer is nearly all gone, but the moon blur is quite evident at the start with only minor shimmer at the end of the zoom.

In the fifth example, the sharp moon has a one percent gaussian blur "child" moon attached. The zoom out begins with the full sharpened moon but mid-way through the sharp moon is faded to zero while the child moon which has a one percent gaussian blur applied plus MipLevels=1 is faded in to 100%. Perhaps this represents the best overall solution. A combination of the new feature plus a child object identical to the parent except for sharpness diminished by a one percent gaussian blur and the new MiipLevels=1 feature enabled. This way the viewer sees a very sharp object to begin but when zoom out is sufficient the blurred object is phased in so that the "shimmer" is reduced only where necessary.

Another way of doing this would be to apply the gaussian blur only to the edges of the child object where "most" of the shimmer occurs.

Here's the link:

http://www.lin-evans.net/pte/shimmer.zip

Lin

For enthusiasts who would like to see how future Anti-shimmering option will work in v5.6, can try this option right now (in v5.5 it works in the editor, mini-player, AVI, DVD and not in EXE file):

In .pte project file, find object and the next line:

MipLevels=0

Change to MipLevels=1

[Conflow]

Hi All,

There are three basic types of 'Moire-Effect' (any many variants) but essentially they

are:- Motion Moire Effect ~ Scanning Moire Effect ~ Static Moire Effect, and all are

caused by simple fundamental 'Electro-Mechanical' differential artifacts.

I will try to be simple:- If you are Scanning simultaneously in an X and Y Axis against

fixed registration points (Lattices) and your 'synchronisation' is ever so slightly out

the errors become accumulative (or bunched) and these become visible due to the

greater contrast against other parts of the lattice. Also the opposite is true,where holes

are created.

Static Moire:-

We have all seen this ~ copy a Newspaper Photo and save it. Its 100% certain that the Image

will have a regular 'pattena pattern' ~ this is caused because the DPI (Printed Dots/sq.Inch)

do not 'synchronously register' with the Pixel-Lattice of your Monitor.

Example: 15" Monitor Screen has an area of 151sq/Inch and 5208 Pixels per sq/inch and

Printing has 400.dpi/sq/inch. So 13.Pixels are trying to represent 1.dot but Computers dont

work that way, they need 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, pixels of their (fixed) lattice for 1.dpi. Now we have a

pixel over-run and a pixel under-run ~ bunching is starting to happen and its visible as 'Moire'.

You have to experiment with the Monitor resolution to get synchronisation.

You have to create more or less Pixels to synchronise the Lattice Frame (ie:resolution)

Motion-Moire:-

When an Image is panning Vertically, Horizontally or Diagionally the Image is in motion against

the 'Fixed-Pixel Lattice' of your Screen. The PC has to contineously 'write' data information into

the Pixel-Lattice to create the motion effect. The 'scanning-system' has to turn-on and turn-off

each Pixels very rapidally indeed. Problem being that due to 'electron-storage effect' they cant

switch instantaneously. So if you are panning Vertically, Horizontally or Diagionally you are writing

against those Pixels in the motion pathway that have not yet been extinguished.

Again we have 'Bunching' and usually it is a Monitor artifact of slow response speed.

Modern Monitors vary in response speed from 10.Millesecs (slow) down to 5.Millesecs (fast) and

down to 1.Millesec (ultra fast) ~ thats as fast as we get in the Consumer Market today.

All things being equal with 'resolution-synchronisation', the faster the Monitor the better.

Hope this helps some Members to understand whats going on.

Brian.Conflow.

[Ken Cox]

SEE

http://www.scantips.com/basics06.html

http://www.scantips.com/basics6c.html

http://www.scantips.com/basics6b.html

http://www.scantips.com/faq2.html

granted this site is dedicated to scanning, but Wayne explains what is going on c/w picts

we can relate what he is saying to digital - take great big picts and resize as necessary

ken

[Lin Evans]

Hi Barry,

Point taken, however note that 1. & 2. are sometimes options, but not always depending on what the desired effect is. There are quite workable alternatives which allow one to both animate and eliminate the moire effect. Between Igor's blur feature and the MipLevels=1 a very nice solution is made for "most" cases. In the cases where extreme zoom is necessary and sparkling or moire effects are seen it's quite feasible to clone the object or image, apply a proper degree of gaussian blur, make that image a child of the original and opacity blend them over time so that at the end of the zoom no appreciable sparkle or moire effect is seen. I showed combinations of these effects in my samples in my above post.

Admittedly, unless the user is sophisticated enough with photo editing tools and with PTE this may not be a super-easy task, but for those who really want the ultimate in usability while still enjoying the or needing the superior zoom effect it's certainly achieveable with a little work.

Best regards,

Lin

How to get rid of the Moire effect

1. Don't animate

2. Don't animate that particular image as another may work much better.

3.

[Barry Beckham]

Lin

Ignor that last post, (now deleted) I started writing and got called away and exited the page, I had no idea it was posted, it was incomplete and as it was, it made no sense.

As I often do

[Barry Beckham]

Let me try again here and get what I wanted to say written. There are a number of ways to avoid the Moiré effect, which generally speaking has to be avoided at all costs. It is unbelievable distracting, unless you’re lucky enough to get it on water, (which then can look like genuine movement).

Here are a few ways to avoid it, apart from the other information above.

1. Don't animate - I don't mean not at all, but maybe you have chosen the wrong image to animate, perhaps one that is more susceptible to the Moiré effect than another may be.

2. Don’t make your images any bigger than they need to be for your show. Using the size toggles in the Objects and Animation screen to reduce the image size will cause or help cause the Moiré effect.

3. Avoid images with fine detail, which can also increase the effect.

4. Avoid high contrast subjects like summer leaves on a tree, which catch the light and shimmer badly.

4. Don’t sharpen the image, but this is sometimes unacceptable. (For me)

5. Try a different animation style if the one you have chosen gives problems. That sometimes helps. (I.e. from a pan left right to one up down)

6. Try the blur option in PTE5, which works most of the time, but then your image can look softer than those either side. (Assuming they are not animated too)

7. If the Moiré effect shows on a small part of your image, just locally blur that part using your image editor. The finger smudge tool is great for this. The smudged detail is too small to be seen in the image, but defeats the Moiré effect.

8. Avoid long zooms into or out of an image, the Moiré will be hard to defeat in these situations.

I have also found that as the pixel count in my camera has gone up, so has the chances of seeing the moiré effect. I discovered years ago that although we reduce the size of an image to let’s say 1024*768. If we did this with the same image from two different cameras, one that captures 6 million pixels and one 14 million. The 14 million pixel camera seems to be more susceptible to the Moiré effect. (Even when resized)

[Conflow]

Barry,Lin, Igor

Barry, I also have noticed this 'auto-posting' effect on the Forum Board.

Just last week I was compiling a reply to a query and before I even posted

it..Ken Cox had a reply to it...impossible ? so I thought...but there was my

(unedited) Post in front of Ken's reply.

This seems to be happening in 'Fast-Reply Mode'...I might add that this is

one of the features which Microsoft intends to impliment in its XP-SP3 Pak.

I will be watching this like a 'Hawk'. (Time is now: 11:39) lets see?

Brian.

[Ken Cox]

BRIAN

forum is hosted in USA so maybe i can get my answer in quicker as i dont have to "hop the pond"

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Thanks for all the replies to my query, however I think possibly all those who have replied have hotter PC's/Laptops and don't suffer from low Ram size and re-size files religeously, which a relative newcomer may not do. Our club's first public show is tonight, a few tickets still available for tonight and Monday if you've nothing better to do and are at a loose end in NorthYorkshire. Buy from www.espicdigitalmedia.co.uk or pay at the door, all proceeds to the local Churches.

Bellerby Village Hall tonight and St Matthew's Church Hall Leyburn Monday.

Yachtsman1

[Conflow]

Yachtsman

Barry made a very important point which may have gone over peoples heads.

He was refering to Hi-Res Cameras etc; where users tend to take large Photo's

which emphasise the Moire Effect and further enhance it under certain conditions.

Knowing how Moire is created in the 1.st instance is winning half the Battle and

Barry is right on the Ball as usual ~ it's very good advice indeed.

A Developing Rule:

1)

Never take Photo's larger than your Equipments' capacity to process them.

2)

If your 'Kit' is running at 1024x768 pixels (0.8 Megapixels) it can easily

reproduce Photo's up to 400.Kilobit Size. More than enough for PTE in

those circumstances.

3)

In this case the Camera should be set to take 1.0 Megabit Pictures or

the next step up ~ even its a 7.Megabit Camera~ let the Camera do

the reduction down to what you want. Its designed to do that properly.

Bear in mind the limitations of your Process-Equipment when Photographing.

These rules will reduce Moire down to managable levels and will be kinder to

your limited Memory resources..

Hope this simple summary of Barry's words is of some help to you.

Brian.Conflow.

[davegee]

I'm confused as usual!

I thought that what Barry meant was not to POST-PROCESS your images to a size bigger than that required for PTE?

I'm a RAW shooter and I suspect that barry is too (?) therefore what I get is the FULL pixel count out of the camera - in my case 24 MB files. There is no alternative to this when shooting RAW.

These images are then re-sized to suit the amount of zoom I use (if any) and selectively sharpened as necessary. If the sharpening produces Moire then I go back and alter the sharpening until it (the Moire) disappears.

DaveG

[Ronniebootwest]

I'm confused as usual!

I thought that what Barry meant was not to POST-PROCESS your images to a size bigger than that required for PTE?

I'm a RAW shooter and I suspect that barry is too (?) therefore what I get is the FULL pixel count out of the camera - in my case 24 MB files. There is no alternative to this when shooting RAW.

These images are then re-sized to suit the amount of zoom I use (if any) and selectively sharpened as necessary. If the sharpening produces Moire then I go back and alter the sharpening until it (the Moire) disappears.

DaveG

I am in agreement with Dave on this one. If you have a camera capable of producing large resolution RAW images, then take advantage of that fact and, if you are intending to use the images in PTE, then just process those images to to the size required, i.e. 1024x768 for static images and larger if you intend to zoom. As for sharpening, don't let the camera do any and resist the temptation to sharpen when converting the RAW image. If the photo then requires sharpening, then use a method that is better than the 'unsharpen' filter, e.g. Lab sharpening.

Just my thoughts and not written in stone.

Ron

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I am in agreement with Dave on this one. If you have a camera capable of producing large resolution RAW images, then take advantage of that fact and, if you are intending to use the images in PTE, then just process those images to to the size required, i.e. 1024x768 for static images and larger if you intend to zoom. As for sharpening, don't let the camera do any and resist the temptation to sharpen when converting the RAW image. If the photo then requires sharpening, then use a method that is better than the 'unsharpen' filter, e.g. Lab sharpening.

Just my thoughts and not written in stone.

Ron

I always shoot in Raw, the pictures I take are not solely for using in PTE shows, however saying that I use a Nikon D200 and this can be set to take 2 shots each time I take a picture, 1 raw and 1 JPEG whatever resolution I choose. However this does eat up card memory, so you pays your money etc. As I have now got a larger memory card and will probably set the camera back to dual shots and use the JPEG duplicates as PTE subjects.

Yachtsman1

PS 1st Club show went down a storm last night, even had the audience singing along in the second half.

[xahu34]

Hello Yachtsman1,

please answer the question of Colin (see here) from above: Do we really have to talk about Moiré or just about shimmering of zoomed images.

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[Barry Beckham]

Conflow

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood me and I can't agree with your summary. If your camera can capture 7 million pixels then capture them all is my advice. We can downsize from there and if the Moire effect is really unavoidable then we imply don't animate that image or I certainly don't..

For a start we don't always shoot exclusively for AV and high resolution images are not going to be possible with what you suggest. I really can't see any point in buying a camera with the capability to capture god knows how many million pixels and then only use part of the camereas capability. It's far too higher price to pay to avoid the Moire effect.

For all it's downsides the Moire effect has one positive one. It should make the author ask themselves the question. What is animating this image going to do for my slide show. If it is essential to animate you will find a way, if it's not, then don't.

I always shoot Raw files whether the images are for AV or not.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hello Yachtsman1,

please answer the question of Colin (see here) from above: Do we really have to talk about Moiré or just about shimmering of zoomed images.

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

Hi Xaver

Can't answer Colins question, It's not my show that had shimmering so I'm not in possession of how and from what it was constructed, I only have the exe file which lasts 20 minutes and is 533mb, so you can draw your own conclusion.

Yachtsman1.

[Conflow]

Conflow

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood me and I can't agree with your summary. If your camera can capture 7 million pixels then capture them all is my advice. We can downsize from there and if the Moire effect is really unavoidable then we imply don't animate that image or I certainly don't..

For a start we don't always shoot exclusively for AV and high resolution images are not going to be possible with what you suggest. I really can't see any point in buying a camera with the capability to capture god knows how many million pixels and then only use part of the camereas capability. It's far too higher price to pay to avoid the Moire effect.

For all it's downsides the Moire effect has one positive one. It should make the author ask themselves the question. What is animating this image going to do for my slide show. If it is essential to animate you will find a way, if it's not, then don't.

I always shoot Raw files whether the images are for AV or not.

Barry,

My apology if I misunderstood you ~ but then in your origional Post #22 there was no mention of Hi-Res Cameras

nor shooting in Raw ~ just your good solid advice appropriate to the vast majority of our 5000 Members.

Now it seems that the 'thread' is going off the origional 'Moire' topic' and gravitating to those who own Hi-Res

Cameras shooting in Raw, and with respects ~I do~ appreciate your working ethos, but not everybody on the

Forum owns an expensive Camera working it Professionally for a living.

Surely shooting in 'Raw' and its problems are the subject of a different thread entirely.

Brian.

[Barry Beckham]

Conflow

No, it has nothing to do with high res cameras or Raw and my views would be the same if we were talking about a 6 million pixel camera shooting jpegs. However, I think you under-estimate how many amateur photographers have cameras that record 6 million pixels and upwards. They are not uncommon at all and 8 and 10 seem to be close to the standard in the clubs I visit. Shooting raw is irrelavent to the Moire effect, its just a chosen way of working and more and more people are choosing that option. There is a tendancy for photographers, amateur or professional to drift towards what is best. ie PTE, Photoshop, shooting raw etc.

Raw gives a photographer enormous latitude to create much better quality images.

Can I also clear up a little misconception. I don't consider myself as a professional photographer at all and have never been commisioned to photograph anything. I am an amateur who drifted into creating tutorials when asked at demos and lectures I gave. It all started when Digital PhotoFX asked me to write tutorials for them when the mag was launched and it has just evolved into my web site today. Yes I make a few quid at what I do now, but would not like to have to rely on this income for a living.

My entire working life was in the Transport industry and photography has always been my hobby since I was in my 20's. I always wanted to retain the ability to decided what I wanted to photograph and how I did it.

My original point is that as more and more photographers use higher and higher pixel value cameras, they may find the Moire effect harder and harder to defeat.

The problem with not sharpening or softening the affected image (to defeat the moire effect) is that one unsharpened animated image between two static sharpened ones then stands out as soft. Now we are drifting back into image quality and images being sharp when they need to be. I am not sure I always have the answer to the Moire effect.

In my recent Scotland AV I originally tried a panned animated shot made from 4 images. The finished hi-res stitch is a nice image, but I couldn't get it to pan without the Moire effect, Softening the image wasn't an option I was prepared to accept, because it then didn't look right between the other two, so the pan had to go. It was my first from a new higher resolution camera and I suspect that was one of the reasons why it caused me a problem.