16:9 Slideshows?

[stonemason]

Whats current thinking on the best image size to use when creating PTE slideshows, that when converted to DVD fill the screen on a 16:9 TV set.

Thanks

Geoff

[AnKo]

Hi Geoff,

Good question. As you do, I make my shows in 16:9 aspect ratio. Are you working on a wide screen 16:9 monitor? Now my monitor is 24" wide screen and shows 1920 x 1200 px which is the same as 16:10 aspect ratio. Making 16:9 shows gives me black on top and on the botom of my monitor. To get back to your question, if you work with a 16:9 monitor, I gues its best to keep your monitor resolution as the minimum resolution. It makes working on a wide screen monitor easier I believe. But there is much discussion on this subject. It bet it will depend on the LCD TV resolution too.

All the images I work with are used in the original resolution. Sure, it makes show bigger and you have to take care of the moiré effect, but it is so much easier to prepare a show, because there is no resizing whatsoever.

By the way, working in 16:9 has one big disadvantage: images taken with the short side up (where the camera was rotated 90 degrees) are hard to display completely in 100% zoom. Horizontaly taken images are just great!

As you, I like to know what others use as resolution in this case.

Kind regards,

André

[davegee]

I have never constructed a 16:9 show and made a DVD but, assuming you are making a PAL DVD for instance, your original 16:9 image regardless of the original pixels is interpolated down to 720x341.0526 etc to make the AVI.

When you play it back on your 16:9 TV via a PAL DVD Player your 720x341.0526 etc pixels are interpolated back up to 1920x1080 to show full screen.

That's almost a 300% increase in pixel width and height.

What does that do for the quality of the images?

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

Geoff

drop a note to Hawk and Al Robinson -- they have it perfected

or use the search for their entries

ken

[Lin Evans]

Hi Geoff,

1080P is essentially two megapixel resolution so optimal image quality for non-zoomed frames would be satisfied by a two megapixel original (1600x1200 or other combo equaling 2 megapixel). If doing tight zooms from the original then more resolution would be needed to avoid greatly exceeding a 1:1 crop. These values would pertain to an original executable show displayed on a wide screen 16:9.

When converted to DVD at PAL or NTSC the images are going to end up at true low resolution (in terms of image dimensions) unless you have a Bluray player (or HD player - but now obsolete). In such case the original assumption as experessed above for the executable apply. Otherwise there is no advantage at all of the originals being larger than 1024x683 (1024x768) assuming they are coming from a digital camera. The same reasoning applies to use higher resolution originals for deep zooms. Although the final image as displayed on the 1080p or 720p display will be at NTSC or PAL resolution, the rendering is accomplished from the original. On a deep zoom if the original is 1024x682 for example, and the deep zoom is rendered from that point the final interpolated image will actually be upsampled greatly whereas if the original frame for the deep zoom is at high resolution the deep zoom may end up as only the equivalent of a 1:1 crop thus preserving the image quality. Think of it this way. If you first downsample a 10 megapixel capture to 800x600 pixels then zoom back in to the field of view of a 1:1 crop from the original but still containing 800x600 pixels, you loose a great deal of detail and resolution. On the other hand if you simply crop an 800x600 field of view from the 10 megapixel original you preserve all the optical resolution from the original capture.

What we must keep in mind is the difference between true "optical resolution" and "display resolution" which unfortunately is a very poor use of the term "resolution". Primarily because of the marketing mistake of equating file dimensions (pixel count) to resolution we have created a nightmare for general understanding. We do not diminish true optical resolution at all when we "crop" an area from a high resolution capture even though the file dimensions of the crop may be very small. For example there are magnitudes of difference between an original capture made with a 640x480 camera and a 640x480 image cropped from a 21 megapixel original capture. They both have the file dimensions of 640x480 meaning they have identical pixel counts but the "details" described by those pixels within that pixel count are vastly different.

The bottom line is that there is no advantage in rendering from a greater pixel count than the eventual display size in pixels "except" for those images which will be viewed as a deep zoom in. In such cases there are myriad reasons for starting with a high resolution original because each intermediate image is "rendered" in a hardware rendering process from the "original". So to get optimal results, don't assume all images in your show need start at the same pixel count.

Best regards,

Lin

Whats current thinking on the best image size to use when creating PTE slideshows, that when converted to DVD fill the screen on a 16:9 TV set.

Thanks

Geoff

[Barry Beckham]

Geoff

Is your question more aimed towards the image looking right when it is converted to a DVD and played on a widescreen TV. Currently people can look short and fat(er) when the image in played back on a widescreen TV.

Was that your question?

[Conflow]

Lin,

How true your statement really is ~ it is an absolute nightmare !

Lin wrote:-

..."What we must keep in mind is the difference between true "optical resolution" and "display resolution" which unfortunately is

a very poor use of the term "resolution". Primarily because of the marketing mistake of equating file dimensions (pixel count)

to resolution we have created a nightmare for general understanding"....

Personally I would say...'they' have created a nightmare of a 'Marketing Ploy'....blame it on the IT people.

Brian.Conflow.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Barry,

They won't look wrong when converted to DVD and played back on a Widescreen TV "If" you use the correct aspect ratio on both TV and DVD encoding "and" the correct cable.

Many times the "squashed" look is a result of using an improper cable or a combination of improper settings "and" improper cable between the DVD player and television. Here's a good reference:

http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=408961

Best regards,

Lin

Geoff

Is your question more aimed towards the image looking right when it is converted to a DVD and played on a widescreen TV. Currently people can look short and fat(er) when the image in played back on a widescreen TV.

Was that your question?

[stonemason]

Thanks to all for the very detailed information. The image ratio of my camera is 3:2, which if I use a full frame resized to 1024 gives me 1024 X 683. If I convert to DVD this gives me gives me black bands top and bottom of the screen. Logic says that if I crop and resize my images to 1820 x 1024 this should give me a 16:9 ratio slideshow. If I then convert this to Pal DVD (720 x576) will the aspect ratio of 16:9 be maintained. Lin I appreciate your very detailed explanation, however at the moment I tend not to use zoom or rotate in my slideshows, and only occasionaly use pan, so degrading of the image is not really an issue. As Barry says in his question what I am after is ideal image size to maintain quality, to retain the correct proportions and to fill the screen of a 16:9 TV when converted to PAL DVD.

Many thanks

Geoff

[Conflow]

Geoff,

Irrespective of 'Computer Screen Size' whether its 4:3 or 16:10 ratio we have found if you 'Save' your Images in 4:3 ratio

or alternatively in 16:10 ratio thats exactly what you will get out from the PC.AVG Socket irrespective of your Screen Format.

That fact gives so much hassle with 'Projection Beamers'. Now can that AVG Signal be converted to good DVD-TV Vision renedering ?

The arguement about proper Image Size to best suit a PAL TV System is very nebulus for the reason that the 'PAL Analog TV System'

is so entirely different in engineering concept compared to the more advanced 'PAL Digital TV System' ~ so one would have to choose

a different 'Rendering Technology' to put a 'Pal-Digital Recording' on to a DVD compared to the older 'Pal-Analog Reording System'.

I now hear all types of contra-arguments against that statement, but now consider this,viz:-

In this context one is trying to emulate the amazing 'quality' of a PAL-Digital Television Signal with DVD-Burners running very

limited Software such as is available to us ~compared~ to that available to a Television Producer in a Hi-Tech Studio ?????

(But that Software is expensive and so are Commercial Burners)

One is up against that Brick Wall...

Brian.Conflow.

[Ronniebootwest]

Blimey! Why all this technical stuff? The gist of this question was to determine the best size for an image that is intended for a wide screen monitor/TV. We are all probably in the habit of cropping our images to 1024x768 for normal 'square' monitors. What I (and others) would like to know is what size do we now crop to in order to display correctly on a wide monitor. A 'KISS' reply would be nice!

Ron

[Lin Evans]

1024x574 pixels

Lin

Blimey! Why all this technical stuff? The gist of this question was to determine the best size for an image that is intended for a wide screen monitor/TV. We are all probably in the habit of cropping our images to 1024x768 for normal 'square' monitors. What I (and others) would like to know is what size do we now crop to in order to display correctly on a wide monitor. A 'KISS' reply would be nice!

Ron

[Ken Cox]

Geoff et al

see

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=46513

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=36677

ken

[Ronniebootwest]

1024x574 pixels

Lin

I tried that Lin but found that I lost too much quality from my image so I cropped to the same resolution as my monitor (1680x1050) and found that the quality was maintained but the image did not quite fill the screen. However, an excellent way of doing things, even though at the expense of larger image sizes.

Ron

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ron,

The 1024x574 is for people who want to maintain 1024 as their width at 16:9 for DVD purposes. To match higher resolution monitors using the native resolution works fine as long as the video can keep up. Actually most wide monitors are 16:10 rather than the 16:9 for wide television displays so a bit more height is needed in the crop. One way to determine what will work best for your individual monitor is to do as you have and crop to the display size then go into Objects and Animations and set up for Original size and 100% on the zoom. If the image doesn't completely fill the screen then increase the zoom one percent at a time until it does. Take the figure (101%, 102%, whatever it takes to fill the screen) then increment your crop by that percentage based on the original dimensions and you should be close enough.

Best regards,

Lin

I tried that Lin but found that I lost too much quality from my image so I cropped to the same resolution as my monitor (1680x1050) and found that the quality was maintained but the image did not quite fill the screen. However, an excellent way of doing things, even though at the expense of larger image sizes.

Ron

[stonemason]

Hi Lin

I did a slide show using 1024 x 576 images and burnt to DVD the quality seemed OK ( still on analogue TV ) however the TV showed about 92% of the image on screen. It seems to me that the only way to display full image on TV is to have a 1024 x 576 black image and then in photoshop resize the images to 942 X 530 and paste each one onto the 1024 x 576 black background. This means that the area outside the TV safe zone is black, and the full image is contained inside the safe zone. I tried the same DVD disk on a friends 37 inch plasma TV and give or take a very small amount the area of picture cropped was the same. I intend to repeat the same slide show but using 1820 x 1024 black slide and then crop my images to 1674 x 942 and save as above, giving the same proportions but a higher pixel count. The images are all raw files so it's easy to reprocess at the higher values. I'll post back the results of this test. Many thanks for all your help.

Geoff

[Ronniebootwest]

Hi Ron,

The 1024x574 is for people who want to maintain 1024 as their width at 16:9 for DVD purposes. To match higher resolution monitors using the native resolution works fine as long as the video can keep up. Actually most wide monitors are 16:10 rather than the 16:9 for wide television displays so a bit more height is needed in the crop. One way to determine what will work best for your individual monitor is to do as you have and crop to the display size then go into Objects and Animations and set up for Original size and 100% on the zoom. If the image doesn't completely fill the screen then increase the zoom one percent at a time until it does. Take the figure (101%, 102%, whatever it takes to fill the screen) then increment your crop by that percentage based on the original dimensions and you should be close enough.

Best regards,

Lin

I followed your suggestions and have now come up with, what I think, is an optimal 'Crop Size' for my images.

I am running my monitor resolution at 1680x1050 so first of all I changed the PTE screen size to the 16:10 ratio then I cropped my images to 1750x1100 at 72 resolution. This completely filled my monitor screen without any borders showing. Interesting to note that the crop dimensions needed to be larger than the actual monitor resolution.

Ron

[Conflow]

Ronnie,

As I had advised you (Off Forum) the native resolution of your Monitor

is 1680x1050 - that is actually 16:10 Ratio. By changing the PTE Ratio to 16:10

will give a bigger Picture, because PTE 16:10 must cater for ALL Screen Sizes

not simply your own Screen Size. Yes you would have to 'crop-it' back down to fit

your size of Screen, that would be a normal procedure. For other's with a bigger

Screen the cropping ratio would be different. But the important thing is to retain

the Screens 'native-resolution' for best qulity which you have done.

Brian.

[Ronniebootwest]

Great stuff Brian - I got something right for a change.

I am well satisfied with this new setup of mine and I am very grateful for all the help that you have given me.

I must also acknowlege Lin Evans who is always a source of reliable advice.

Ron

[thedom]

Stonemason,

As the image ratio of your camera is 3:2, here is a little "trick" I used for my 16:9 slideshows (The screen ratio of my camera is 4:3 but as my TV and video projector are 16:9, I prefer to use this format) :

I keep the 4:3 ratio and in PTE, set the image to cover slide mode (in the common tab or ALT+S).

Then I move my image up or down (with the mouse and keeping my finger on the SHIFT key) to precisely adjust what part of my image I want to show.

And if I change my mind and finally decide to present the picture in its 4:3 original format , as I didn't crop my images (but just reduced them to 1920px width for picture I do not want to zoom), I just have to reduce the zoom to show it entirely.

Hope it can help you.

[stonemason]

Many thanks Dom I'll give that a try.

Geoff