Guest Yachtsman1 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 HiI 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 PhotoshopGo to image / image size set the width to 1024px and the program will automatically give you the height 683pxSet 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 pxYou want a height of 768px so just alter the height to 768 pxThis 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 WishesMaureenSorry, no it doesn't.Yachtsman1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 I am wondering why you keep copying all the previous post in with your reply Yachtsman1 ? It makes the thread very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yachtsman1 Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 I am wondering why you keep copying all the previous post in with your reply Yachtsman1 ? It makes the thread very long.Assuming there are others out there reading this, they don't need to trawl through the full thread to get the gist of the specific question answered.OK Having slept on yesterdays comments, and thought about the solutions offered by various well meaning people. I thought I would display 3 more examples of the material I am working with, hopefully to explain more fully the difficulty in arriving at a reasonsonable replica. The pictures shown are as they are straight off the scanner, just converted to jpeg to display on here.Yachtsman1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 Just to clarify, are you asking what we would do? Or are you asking what you can do to satisfy the "client"?If your show is going to be 3:2 aspect ratio then I suspect that your only way forward is to present the images within some sort of "frame" within the 3:2 canvas area.You cannot have what appear to be something like 4:3 images fill the area without either stretching or cropping. Stretching would be a no-no for me and cropping appears to be a no-no for the "client".(The Neville Chamberlain image appears to be 16:9 or wider so a frame is your only answer there.Same goes if you make your show 4:3 - you will have problems with the 3:2 images.The ONLY alternative is to present each image in a frame within the 3:2 or 4:3 canvas without stretching.Under the circumstances I think that I would go for a 4:3 show as it would better suit any of the current range of projectors available.DaveG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yachtsman1 Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 Just to clarify, are you asking what we would do? Or are you asking what you can do to satisfy the "client"?If your show is going to be 3:2 aspect ratio then I suspect that your only way forward is to present the images within some sort of "frame" within the 3:2 canvas area.You cannot have what appear to be something like 4:3 images fill the area without either stretching or cropping. Stretching would be a no-no for me and cropping appears to be a no-no for the "client".(The Neville Chamberlain image appears to be 16:9 or wider so a frame is your only answer there.Same goes if you make your show 4:3 - you will have problems with the 3:2 images.The ONLY alternative is to present each image in a frame within the 3:2 or 4:3 canvas without stretching.Under the circumstances I think that I would go for a 4:3 show as it would better suit any of the current range of projectors available.DaveGHi DaveThe client has now decided to have the images as they appear on the slides. What he did before I became involved was to video a conventional old type slide show, which masks many of the errors on the slides due to it's low quality. He then transferred it to a DVD for others to have the benefit of by watching on TV. When I came along I used every trick in the book to enhance the original slides, now what he sees is a modern interpetation of the original. But when you compare the two side by side the difference is quite startling, enhanced colours, straightened images,spots removed and all the other features possible with today's technology. So to finish this thread off, he has decided the second show should be put together, warts and all to preserve the original style.Yachtsman1 (Gone into hibernation for the winter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 EricWhy dont you have a look athttp://www.scantips.com/Wayne Fulton has been around for quite some time. It might be worth your time to buy his bookken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yachtsman1 Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 EricWhy dont you have a look athttp://www.scantips.com/Wayne Fulton has been around for quite some time. It might be worth your time to buy his bookkenHi KenThanks for that, read the articles, I think it's a bit behind the technology of my present scanner the Canon 8800F. which will almost set the pictures to music, (slight exageration). The last pictures posted used an old technology scanner with no editing or enhancement. Once I get my head around the new one with digital ice technology it will cut out much of the fiddling associated with the old technology.Eric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 WHEN I WAS GETTING INTO THIS SCANNING GAME - WIN 95 ERAI SUBSCRIBED TO A COUPLE GROUPSONE OF THEM IS STILL AROUNDhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/Founded in May 2000, this group is the leading peer-to-peer resource for users of High End transparency and reflective scanners, including PMT Drum Scanners and pro-quality CCD scanners, such as those made by Howtek, ICG, Heidelberg, Imacon, or Polaroid, that are capable of scanning formats larger than 35mm.Users of pro quality flatbeds are also invited to participate. Apart from hardware, the group deals with issues such as color management, software, and workflow. Note: Messages may be deleted or members banned by moderators if, in their absolute discretion, they consider that this course of action is in the best interests of the group.you will have to join to ask questionsken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts