35mm Slides For PTE

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi All

I went to an RPS AV seminar at Bradfrod West Yorkshire yesterdaday. There were some complimentary copies of the RPS AV magazine available so I acquired one. Last night I skimmed through it and there was an article about someone converting 35mm slides to digital, for AV use. The article mentioned sizing the pictures to 1024x683 not the norm of 1024x768. I assume this will leave a black band top & bottom of the picture in PTE, which if pulled out to match the banding box will crop the sides. I am in the process of converting a large number of 35mm slides for use in a PTE show. The first batch I used the 1024x768 format, and received some queries about distortion of some pictures. Would anyone comment on their experiences in the same circumstances.

Yachtsman1.

[bmccammon]

It seems to me that if one is going to go to the trouble of copying 35mm slides into a digital format that you'd want to include the entire slide content at the highest resolution possible and crop for subsequent use(s) based on the format and capabilities of any hardware used for presentation. My practice is fully scan or copy 35mm slides, store them and then edit for use in PTE or for other presentation. Maybe I'm missing your point or question.

[Lin Evans]

The reason for scanning to 1024x683 is that this is the correct aspect ratio for a 24mmx36mm transparency or film strip. By using the correct aspect ratio no distortion is introduced.

Yes, there will be a black band at top and bottom and cropping the sides in unavoidable "if" you decide to not have a border and background and you are displaying the images on a monitor with 4:3 aspect ratio and using fit to slide. On the other hand if you display them on a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio device there will be other issues such as no border on top and bottom but large border on each side. With a projector, it depends on the aspect ratio just as with a monitor.

The "proper" way to scan would be at the aspect ratio of the film or transparency. Then you can decide how to crop or whether to crop. To avoid cropping create a mask and border (frame) with a 1024x683 cut-out in your choice of background color and texture and having a large enough outside size to fit the screen or display device. This way all the image will be displayed without cropping.

Digital cameras have various aspect ratios. In the early days, fixed lens type digicams had an aspect ratio which worked out to equate to 1024x768 primarily because inkjet printers were commonly used to print on paper cut to 8.5x11 inches which worked out nicely to make an 8x10 print. On the other hand dSLR cameras (digital single lens reflex) kept the same aspect ratio as film so that to print the entire image without a border required 8x12 inch paper. Since 8x12 inch paper, frames, etc., were not commonly available, some dSLR cameras offer a choice of aspect ratios for the capture, but their "sensors" still have the aspect ratio equaling 1024x683, etc. (fixed typo of 1024x682) Also today, many dSLR's as well as digicams offer a variety of capture aspect ratios including 16:9.

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

It seems to me that if one is going to go to the trouble of copying 35mm slides into a digital format that you'd want to include the entire slide content at the highest resolution possible and crop for subsequent use(s) based on the format and capabilities of any hardware used for presentation. My practice is fully scan or copy 35mm slides, store them and then edit for use in PTE or for other presentation. Maybe I'm missing your point or question.

I think you are missing the point, Lin has explaied it in his reply. If you scan a 35mm slide at 1024 x768 it stretches it and introduces distortion. if the object in the picture is say a ship with the bow & stern close to the edge of the frame,and scan it at 1024x768 thhe height of the picture will increase making it slightly out of proportion to the original. many subjects, landscapes etc would not be noticeable. If the ship is scanned at 1024/682/3 (not sure which is correct, the article mentioned said 683 Lin 682) the 4-3 screen will not be filled, black line top and bottom. To fill it, the banding box equalises proportionately, so the bow and stern woud be off picture and the shot would have to be panned to see the full ship.

PS some of the slides are over 50 years old.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

It's possible that both Bruce and I are misreading your post.

You keep mentioning "scanning at 1024x768" or "1024x683".

If I am scanning slides I scan at the full resolution of the scanner and the files are then sometimes 50Mb or more.

At that stage I take them into CS3 and crop and resize to 1024x768 or 1024x683.

You give the impression that you are scanning directly at 1024x768.

That's asking for trouble - can you clarify?

DaveG

[Lin Evans]

It's a typo on my reply, the dimensions are 1024x683...

Best regards,

Lin

I think you are missing the point, Lin has explaied it in his reply. If you scan a 35mm slide at 1024 x768 it stretches it and introduces distortion. if the object in the picture is say a ship with the bow & stern close to the edge of the frame,and scan it at 1024x768 thhe height of the picture will increase making it slightly out of proportion to the original. many subjects, landscapes etc would not be noticeable. If the ship is scanned at 1024/682/3 (not sure which is correct, the article mentioned said 683 Lin 682) the 4-3 screen will not be filled, black line top and bottom. To fill it, the banding box equalises proportionately, so the bow and stern woud be off picture and the shot would have to be panned to see the full ship.

PS some of the slides are over 50 years old.

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

It's possible that both Bruce and I are misreading your post.

You keep mentioning "scanning at 1024x768" or "1024x683".

If I am scanning slides I scan at the full resolution of the scanner and the files are then sometimes 50Mb or more.

At that stage I take them into CS3 and crop and resize to 1024x768 or 1024x683.

You give the impression that you are scanning directly at 1024x768.

That's asking for trouble - can you clarify?

DaveG

Hi Dave

I have just bought a Canon 8800 scanner which scans 4 mounted slides at a time and is capable of all sorts of actions prior to actually scanning. After reading the replies, I am confused.

It will mean setting the scanner up to be accurate with what I say next, so I will leave things as they are for now. Tomorrow I will set up the scanner and confirm how it is set. However, I can confirm that I have been scanning the slides directly in to Elements 5 at 600dpi the lowest setting on the machine. I then re-sized them 1024x768 300dpi in order to put them directly into PTE. Thanks for yours and the other responses.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

What I would do is scan at the highest resolution the scanner is capable of.

Re-size in photoshop to whatever size your project is.

You don't even need to alter the PPI/DPI - just leave it.

The subject has been covered many times here - there is no difference at all, for the purposes of PTE projects, between a 1024x768 at 8000 ppi and a 1024x768 at 300 ppi.

DaveG

[bmccammon]

What I would do is scan at the highest resolution the scanner is capable of.

Re-size in photoshop to whatever size your project is.

You don't even need to alter the PPI/DPI - just leave it.

The subject has been covered many times here - there is no difference at all, for the purposes of PTE projects, between a 1024x768 at 8000 ppi and a 1024x768 at 300 ppi.

DaveG

My point exactly. Thanks Dave.

All I was trying to say was to scan the 35mm slide so that the transparency film is totally included in the scan but none of the mount. Scanning at highest resolution seems wise so that the information in the slide is retained. The resultant scan is a file with dimensions that are proportioned to the original 35mm slide. After that you can crop to any proportion or size you want depending on the use you intend to make.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

My point exactly. Thanks Dave.

All I was trying to say was to scan the 35mm slide so that the transparency film is totally included in the scan but none of the mount. Scanning at highest resolution seems wise so that the information in the slide is retained. The resultant scan is a file with dimensions that are proportioned to the original 35mm slide. After that you can crop to any proportion or size you want depending on the use you intend to make.

I think I can give you an example of the problem. This slide was not scanned with my current scanner, but with one that has bit the dust. The original was a bitmap, the only alteration to Golfer1 was to convert it to a jpeg. Golfer2 has been re-sized to 768x1024, note the compression of the height.

[cjdnzl]

I think I can give you an example of the problem. This slide was not scanned with my current scanner, but with one that has bit the dust. The original was a bitmap, the only alteration to Golfer1 was to convert it to a jpeg. Golfer2 has been re-sized to 768x1024, note the compression of the height.

Yachtsman,

I think you may be confused between resizing and cropping. What you appear to be doing is altering the aspect ratio of the image by separately sizing the height and width by different amounts, i.e. you are not keeping proportionality between width and height, so of course the image will appear either squashed or stretched.

The only way you can alter the aspect ratio from 1024*683 (3:2 ratio) to 1024*768 (4:3 ratio) is by cropping the end(s) of the image. You cannot stretch or compress the image in one direction only and hope to keep proportionality.

You should scan the slides at the scanner's native resolution, which should be noted in the book. The scanner always scans at its native resolution regardless of your selected ppi, and interpolates up from the native resolution to produce greater ppi, or down to a lesser ppi.

This means that when you resample to your final size, 1024*683, the image has been resampled twice - not good. For optimum image quality, scan at the native res. and resample from whatever that is to 1024*683 in a single resample move. The resampling algorithms in Photoshop or Irfanview are much more sophisticated than the scanner's.

Regards,

Colin

[rmstevens]

Hi Yatchman1,

I am actually the author of the article in the RPS AV Mag.

I do say in the acticle that I found the optimum scan size I used was 2018 x 1344 pixels.

After work in Photoshop the final image was cropped to 1024x683 pixels.

I was faithfully copying the orignal slide sequence so felt I had to retain the 35mm ratio.

I have never had any complaints of the black bars top and bottom.

Best wishes,

Roger

[davegee]

Yachtsman,

When you are re-sizing (and if it is with Photoshop) make sure that the "Constrain Proportions" is ticked and only change EITHER the height or the width.

That way the re-sized image will maintain the same aspect ratio.

Is that the problem?

If you want to crop and re-size at the same time you can do it with the CROP tool.

Enter 768 px into the width box (for your example) and 1024 px into the height box and then drag the tool over your image.

You will notice that it draws a box which is of a FIXED aspect ratio. Take care not to draw a box which covers an area less than 768x1024 or interpolation upwards will take place.

Hit enter and it is done.

DaveG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Yachtsman,

When you are re-sizing (and if it is with Photoshop) make sure that the "Constrain Proportions" is ticked and only change EITHER the height or the width.

That way the re-sized image will maintain the same aspect ratio.

Is that the problem?

If you want to crop and re-size at the same time you can do it with the CROP tool.

Enter 768 px into the width box (for your example) and 1024 px into the height box and then drag the tool over your image.

You will notice that it draws a box which is of a FIXED aspect ratio. Take care not to draw a box which covers an area less than 768x1024 or interpolation upwards will take place.

Hit enter and it is done.

DaveG

Hi Dave

In Elements 5 if I tick the constrain proportions box I cannot size the image to exactly 1024x768, depending on whether the picture is in portrait or landscape, one of the dimensions is incorrect. When cropping I usually select crop from the edit function on the info toolbar and drag the presized box that appears to cover what I want. Then I resize via edit to either 1024x768 or 768x1024 with the constraint proportions box un-ticked.

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Yatchman1,

I am actually the author of the article in the RPS AV Mag.

I do say in the acticle that I found the optimum scan size I used was 2018 x 1344 pixels.

After work in Photoshop the final image was cropped to 1024x683 pixels.

I was faithfully copying the orignal slide sequence so felt I had to retain the 35mm ratio.

I have never had any complaints of the black bars top and bottom.

Best wishes,

Roger

Hi Roger

As an experiment I have copied the following pictures into a PTE show TS1 fills the banding box and preview screen, ts2 & ts4 are sized at 1024x683 & 2018x1344 respectively, ts2 has narrow black bars top and bottom, ts3 has wider black bars top and bottom.

[davegee]

OK,

Let's start again.

1024x768 is a 4:3 aspect ratio.

In order to end up with 1024x768 your image must be 4:3 to begin with.

1000x750; 2000x1500; 4000x3000 etc are all 4:3 aspect ratios.

To crop to a 4:3 aspect ratio use the crop tool. Various presets are available or you can make your own.

When you want to resize you can then use the EDIT tools to do that with the "Constrain Proportions" ticked - it should always be ticked for images.

If your image has been correctly cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio whichever you choose to change (width or height) the other will automatically change to suit.

If you change the width to 768 the height will automatically change to 1024 preserving the 4:3 aspect ratio.

BUT, it must be 4:3 to begin with.

Crop to correct aspect ratio first - then re-size to 768x1024.

Alternatively, crop and re-size at the same time using the crop tool with preset dimensions of

width = "768 px" and height = "1024 px"

I hope this helps?

DaveG

P.S. I don't have Elements 5 to check, but since Elements 6 the Re-size command has been in the IMAGE menu, not the EDIT menu as you suggest?

[Guest Yachtsman1]

OK,

Let's start again.

1024x768 is a 4:3 aspect ratio.

In order to end up with 1024x768 your image must be 4:3 to begin with.

1000x750; 2000x1500; 4000x3000 etc are all 4:3 aspect ratios.

To crop to a 4:3 aspect ratio use the crop tool. Various presets are available or you can make your own.

When you want to resize you can then use the EDIT tools to do that with the "Constrain Proportions" ticked - it should always be ticked for images.

If your image has been correctly cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio whichever you choose to change (width or height) the other will automatically change to suit.

If you change the width to 768 the height will automatically change to 1024 preserving the 4:3 aspect ratio.

BUT, it must be 4:3 to begin with.

Crop to correct aspect ratio first - then re-size to 768x1024.

Alternatively, crop and re-size at the same time using the crop tool with preset dimensions of

width = "768 px" and height = "1024 px"

I hope this helps?

DaveG

P.S. I don't have Elements 5 to check, but since Elements 6 the Re-size command has been in the IMAGE menu, not the EDIT menu as you suggest?

Hi Dave

Slip of the tongue, yes re-size is in image not edit as previously stated. The following images are from the new canon scanner. As scanned the image size is 1604x1052 1200ppi. 3 & 4 show the image with the Constrain ticked & unticked. Not sure what you mean by the image must be 4-3 to start with, it's a 35mm slide.

Yachtsman1.

[davegee]

If we take your original scan at 1604x1052 that is pretty close to (but not exactly) 3:2 aspect ratio - same as 35mm slide.

To get an accurate 3:2 image from that you need to crop it to something like 1578x1052 using the crop tool set to those dimensions.

That will take a little from one or both sides of the image.

Having arrived at a 3:2 image you can now go to IMAGE in Elements and, with "Constrain Proportions" ticked, you can enter the pixel size you require for either the height OR the width and it will be re-sized to the correct 3:2 aspect ratio automatically.

For example if you alter the width to 1200 you will see that the height will automatically be set to 800 preserving the 3:2 aspect ratio of the "original" (cropped) version of your image.

If you set the width to 1024 you will see the height automatically go to 682.666666666666666666 because it is impossible to set a 3:2 aspect ratio of 1024 wide and have the height come out as a whole number. It's better to set something like 1200 pixels wide or 1026 pixels wide and fit to screen in PTE. That way the 3:2 aspect ratio will be accurately preserved.

Once again, crop to the desired aspect ratio, be it 3:2 or 4:3 or 16:9, and THEN re-size in IMAGE/Re-size using a figure for the desired width and letting the "Constrain Proportions" set the height.

Alternatively set the crop tool to 1200x800 (or 1026x684 if you want to get closer and still be accurate) and use that to crop and re-size at the same time.

Fit to Slide in PTE in a Fullscreen 3:2 (15:10) project will then FILL the screen ACCURATELY with your image.

DaveG

P.S. Here's you boat accurately cropped to 3:2 at 1026x684 pixels.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

If we take your original scan at 1604x1052 that is pretty close to (but not exactly) 3:2 aspect ratio - same as 35mm slide.

To get an accurate 3:2 image from that you need to crop it to something like 1578x1052 using the crop tool set to those dimensions.

That will take a little from one or both sides of the image.

Having arrived at a 3:2 image you can now go to IMAGE in Elements and, with "Constrain Proportions" ticked, you can enter the pixel size you require for either the height OR the width and it will be re-sized to the correct 3:2 aspect ratio automatically.

For example if you alter the width to 1200 you will see that the height will automatically be set to 800 preserving the 3:2 aspect ratio of the "original" (cropped) version of your image.

If you set the width to 1024 you will see the height automatically go to 682.666666666666666666 because it is impossible to set a 3:2 aspect ratio of 1024 wide and have the height come out as a whole number. It's better to set something like 1200 pixels wide or 1026 pixels wide and fit to screen in PTE. That way the 3:2 aspect ratio will be accurately preserved.

Once again, crop to the desired aspect ratio, be it 3:2 or 4:3 or 16:9, and THEN re-size in IMAGE/Re-size using a figure for the desired width and letting the "Constrain Proportions" set the height.

Alternatively set the crop tool to 1200x800 (or 1026x684 if you want to get closer and still be accurate) and use that to crop and re-size at the same time.

Fit to Slide in PTE in a Fullscreen 3:2 (15:10) project will then FILL the screen ACCURATELY with your image.

DaveG

P.S. Here's you boat accurately cropped to 3:2 at 1024x684 pixels.

Hi Dave

First of all thank you for all the attention you are giving this original post. Most of what you are saying I know and instinctively do. However, the guy I am doing the work for is a stickler for accuracy, some of the slides contain subjects which come to or overlap the edges. In these instances even the slightest crop cuts down the subject, which is why the article I read in the AV news Sunday flashed alarm bells in my mind. I thought someone had got over digitising the original picture without distortion, loosing any of the content or black lines top and bottom or sides. As my example showing the 3 views of the ship shows, you can't.

To qualify that a little further, if I use the 1024x683 size the black lines top and bottom can be got rid of as you know in the banding box, but this then crops the sides. To compensate for this I would introduce a slow pan showing the full picture, great. No can do, the show has an existing sound track that the slide times have to match, introducing the slow pan increases the time on screen and gooses the sound track. This is a 200+ picture show with slides on screen with differences of 5 to 25 seconds. The Voice track has a musical background so the thing cannot be messed with. This is the second show in a series of 4, on the first the sound track was on 2 separate CD's one with bleeps to actuate the old type slide projectors one with the music & voice. So I was able in audacity to stretch the bleep track, which was 20 seconds shorter than the master track to match the master, this took 2 hours as the time difference was not constant, they were recorded at different times. Peter then explained how to set the slide times to match the bleep track and a decently accurate faximile of the original was produced.

The second show hasn't the benefit of two separate recordings of the ST so the original problems are exacerbated even more. The owner is 15 years older than me and I'm in my 69th year so the difficulties in re-recording to match an amimated show with pans and zooms to show the original pictures in full are beyond reach. I just thought someone had found a solution to this particular problem.

Thanks again to all for your patience.

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

If we take your original scan at 1604x1052 that is pretty close to (but not exactly) 3:2 aspect ratio - same as 35mm slide.

To get an accurate 3:2 image from that you need to crop it to something like 1578x1052 using the crop tool set to those dimensions.

That will take a little from one or both sides of the image.

Having arrived at a 3:2 image you can now go to IMAGE in Elements and, with "Constrain Proportions" ticked, you can enter the pixel size you require for either the height OR the width and it will be re-sized to the correct 3:2 aspect ratio automatically.

For example if you alter the width to 1200 you will see that the height will automatically be set to 800 preserving the 3:2 aspect ratio of the "original" (cropped) version of your image.

If you set the width to 1024 you will see the height automatically go to 682.666666666666666666 because it is impossible to set a 3:2 aspect ratio of 1024 wide and have the height come out as a whole number. It's better to set something like 1200 pixels wide or 1026 pixels wide and fit to screen in PTE. That way the 3:2 aspect ratio will be accurately preserved.

Once again, crop to the desired aspect ratio, be it 3:2 or 4:3 or 16:9, and THEN re-size in IMAGE/Re-size using a figure for the desired width and letting the "Constrain Proportions" set the height.

Alternatively set the crop tool to 1200x800 (or 1026x684 if you want to get closer and still be accurate) and use that to crop and re-size at the same time.

Fit to Slide in PTE in a Fullscreen 3:2 (15:10) project will then FILL the screen ACCURATELY with your image.

DaveG

P.S. Here's you boat accurately cropped to 3:2 at 1026x684 pixels.

Hi Dave You must have been writing at the same time as me.

If you look at the first picture in the series of 4, you will note in your example you have cropped off a white spot in front of the bow of the ship, which is the sort of detail the guy I am doing this for, notices. In particular one of the shots is a school class which when cropped, cuts off one of the pupils.

Yachtsman1.

[rmstevens]

Hi Yatchman,

I do think you are making this a lot harder than it actual is.

My final pictures in the av do not crop or distort the original slides

but do have black band top and bottom. This is going to happen

when the monitor is not 3:2 ratio but perfectly acceptable if you

want to see pictures as they were originally taken. The secret is

to scan the whole of the slide at a reasonable size but 3:2 ratio.

Then final crop of 1024 will result (with constraint on) in a height

of 683. If you have a vertical, still scan 3:2 rotate and finally crop

to height of 786. I am not worried what the resulting width is

because all my verticals will have the same width.

Hope this helps,

Roger

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Yatchman,

I do think you are making this a lot harder than it actual is.

My final pictures in the av do not crop or distort the original slides

but do have black band top and bottom. This is going to happen

when the monitor is not 3:2 ratio but perfectly acceptable if you

want to see pictures as they were originally taken. The secret is

to scan the whole of the slide at a reasonable size but 3:2 ratio.

Then final crop of 1024 will result (with constraint on) in a height

of 683. If you have a vertical, still scan 3:2 rotate and finally crop

to height of 786. I am not worried what the resulting width is

because all my verticals will have the same width.

Hope this helps,

Roger

Hi Roger

It's Yachtsman1 BTW, one who sails yachts. My client doesn't want any of the picture content cropped, these are archive slides which must have all the original image preserved. If you read the previous posts however tedious, you may understand what I'm getting at. I now wish I hadn't read your article and saved myself the hassle.

[Maureen]

Hi

I was sorry to miss the AV day at Bradford (our poor dog was taken very ill so I had to stay home )

Roger

Congratulations on a super job converting the slide/ tape AVs.

I have seen them and they are very well done indeed & certainly project well, with no problems even on a new 1920px HD projector.

As Roger, said you are making very hard work of this.

I would be inclined to use the word "resize" rather than crop.

Forget about Dpi

If you use Photoshop or Elements scan as large as you can to obtain as much information as possible in the image.

Good idea to save this very large file somewhere safe in another folder for any future use.

In Photoshop

Go to image / image size

set the width to 1024px and the program will automatically give you the height 683px

Set background colour to black (can be done later * in Photoshop)

Go to image / canvas size /

change units to pixels and you will see width 1024px height 683 px

You want a height of 768px so just alter the height to 768 px

This will give you a band of black top and bottom

* In Photoshop you have the option of chosing the canvas extension colour (black) not sure if Elements gives you this option.

All images resized in this way will automatically drop into the same central band and when projected the black band will not be noticed in a darkened room.

You can also set up an action to let Photoshop do all the resizing very quickly in this way.

I have changed new AVs from their 1920p size to a smaller 1024px by 768px size for some Festivals/ competitions using an action in this way. Very quick and accurate.

Just don't add the awful white lines around the images

Hope this helps.

Best Wishes

Maureen

[cjdnzl]

Hello again, Yachtsman,

Having read through this entire thread, it boils down to three possibilities for your friend.

He has to accept one of:

Black lines top and bottom;

Cropped ends off the images;

Distorted images.

There are no other possibilities.

Of those three, the optimum choice would be black lines, thus preserving the entire image in the correct 'shape'.

How about using a frame around the images, possibly even making the image smaller horizontally so you can have a frame all around. Also, if you want you can add titling to the frame without intruding on the image area.

Colin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hello again, Yachtsman,

Having read through this entire thread, it boils down to three possibilities for your friend.

He has to accept one of:

Black lines top and bottom;

Cropped ends off the images;

Distorted images.

There are no other possibilities.

Of those three, the optimum choice would be black lines, thus preserving the entire image in the correct 'shape'.

How about using a frame around the images, possibly even making the image smaller horizontally so you can have a frame all around. Also, if you want you can add titling to the frame without intruding on the image area.

Colin

Hi Colin

This is what I have been trying to tell the owner. There is another alternative as mentioned above, to animate the full screen slide with a pan which goes from the RH side to the left or visa versa, or top to bottom in the case of a portrait slide. However, this would possibly mess up the slide times which are cast in stone due to the existing sound track, which is not variable without re-recording the whole 65 minutes. The last word from the owner "this is a story with pictures". That is also my last word on the matter.

Yachtsman1.