What size slide show do I make

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtsman

I understand what you mean better now, but progress doesn't stop, the same thing was said at 6MP and look where we are now. It will continue to grow I think.

[Laszlo K]

Thanks for all the replies, but perhaps I didn't make things as clear as I thought. I am only interested in image/slide show sizes and what the general consensus is among the more knowledgeable user of PTE.

If we all had a crystal ball, then I suppose this question would be an easy answer, but from what I read there is quite a variation in what you all choose.

The question, "What size images should I use in my slide show" Has never been an easy one to answer, too many if's and but's. However 5.6 has put right some of those and I am coming around to this line of thought. Create everything at high resolution.

I am now working on a 27in Dell 1920*1200 monitor. It will be a while till I exhaust that, (I hope) and even then I doubt we will go much bigger as the desk size starts to become a factor. The monitor does have a great deal of WOW value when a slide show created at 1920*1200 is displayed on it. If you followed one of those shows with an older 1024*768 show it does tend to look a little small. Now a larger size doesn't mean much if the show isn't good, but on the assumption that the show is a good one, a larger slide show does look pretty good and also has the edge on the smaller one, when all else is equal.

As you have all said it also looks pretty good on smaller monitors too, although we have to accept the black bar top and bottom. So, for the future my thoughts are make my slide shows at full resolution.

Here's my thought. Make the shows at full resolution from the images as they come from your camera. (Obviously this will depend on the camera and pixel count) The image sizes from my current camera are 5616*3744 and that is a very large file, but I could cut that in half and still have 2808*1872. If I made my slide shows at half size (2808*1872) I would still have enough resolution to cover my monitor resolution and a fair bit to spare for future eventualities.

Now, I know what you’re thinking here, that many PC's will not handle the file sizes and they probably would not, but those of us who know PTE well could make the show at these sizes and on completion we could save all the components of that show. (Save to Zip perhaps)

Now it is a simple matter to make a copy of the entire show and reduce the resolution of the images to whatever you want at the time. Even changing the format wouldn't be out of the question or a long drawn out process.

Its just that I would love to have all the shows I have even made saved in this way now, but of course I haven’t because I didn't think to do so at the time. They would be saved OK, but at the resolution they were created at.

Does anyone else see some merits here or not?

Hi Barry!

I have been playing around PTE for a while and teaching our Special AV interest group in out Camera Club.

I will lay it out here what was done:

Project 1

Pick one image make between 5-10 variation of it in Photoshop or whatever you use. Set PTE for 7 Sec per slide and 2000 Msec transition ( cross-fades only) Pick and trim music for the duration of the slides. But I want a story.

So the total is 10 images and like Peter said start small and short but say something otherwise your audiance will sleep.

Project 2

I had built a sound track of 1 Min 45 Sec ( part of a war movie, Chinese and Vivaldi with several sound effects.

All got the track and they had to add images to make a story.

So it was 1 Min 45 total time.

Project 3.

Remove my audio and replace it wit a track what was mixed by them.

So the result was a 1 Min 45 Sec show what was done with images that was taken by them and sound trac mixed by them.

And it had a story

Project 4

Take 20 images put them in a folder and that is your bank.

Create a 1 1/2 minute show with any number of images from the 20 but give me a story of peace and serenity, than as the continuation

on the same timeline start another 1 1/2 minut show using the images from the bank of 20, but you can remove, add or exchange 5 images from the bank of 20 and you can also repeate images but give me a story of violance anger etc.

Here you deal with timing, sound effects, music, transition effects etc, to make the difference.

Here we had 3 minutes of total contrasts.

Project 5

Give me a story under 4 minutes.

I had started with total beginners and now I have a group who can create a show very well. And that is the point to produce something

that all is willing to watch and maybe watch it again.

Make them short and make more of them. I very rarely go over 8 Minutes but try to stay between 4-6 minutes

Group them by subject, People don't have your memories to fill the gaps or repetitions.

Hope this give some pointers. Yes and I use the 1024 X 768 size

Good luck

Laszlo

[Barry Beckham]

Laszlo

Thank you for the reply and after the amount of typing you did I am almost reluctant to say that you have misunderstood the thread. I do know what I am doing and I also lecture on topics such as PTE and Photoshop.

The issue of size did not refer to the length of the show at all, but the image size. I already know the answer to the question I posed, but I was interested in the views of other serious users.

If you read my posts again, you will see what I mean

[JEB]

Laszio,

Thank you for your post. I, not being an expert, do not claim to know many, if any of the answers but like you, try to spread the word to the members of my camera club. Your suggestion is very interesting and I will try to adopt it in some form or another next season.

You may be aware that there has been some debate recently about straying off topic, which clearly can be more distracting to some than to others. However, it often brings many benefits such as your ideas have on this occasion.

Thank you,

John

[lathompson]

I would be interested to hear what experienced PTE users on this forum would say if asked the following question by a new user of PTE and someone new to slide shows and AV.

What size slide show should I make?

And then Why ?

Now I already understand most of the discussion that this topic could generate, but perhaps we can steer clear of that. So, for this poll I am interested in you as an individual, your personal thought process and why you choose the slide show size you do.

As a secondary point, do you like to fill your screen with the slide show, irrespective of the resolution of that screen?

Late to the discussion, but here's my answers:

First, my qualifiers...... I produce shows for clients. I do not always shoot the images myself, but if I do, I shoot in the landscape mode and crop to a width of 3000 px. leaving the height in proportion with my camera format. I use different cameras with different ratios. Cropping in camera is loose for last minute crops to fill the viewing frame.

Many times I use the client's images. Many are poor quality, many are not focused professionally and many are from submitted photographs of various sizes. On top of that, most are not photographed for the cropping I want to use. Every client image gets close scrutiny and custom cropped with a sign-off from the client sealing the deal. I crop verticals with as much aggressiveness as I can get away with. Shows are customized to the client's intended use.

What size slide show should I make?

I would make the show's resolution at least 25% larger than the resolution of the tv monitor screen or digital projector to be used. I don't utilize much pan or zoom in my shows. I use it, but keep it subtle. If heavy movement is requested, I customize per image. If the show is for a client, I ask them to find out the monitor's size and resolution in advance as that will be the basis for the show. If they do not know, I suggest making the show based upon a 16:9 ratio and tell them it may or may not match the screen when played.

And then Why ?

The purpose is to produce a result for one particular client or situation to fit an exact need. Satisfying more than one ratio pattern means doing another show for that resolution. If the client only wants the one sizing, I do let him know that it will show differently on different resolutions and to expect that to happen. I do not get into a learning session with them and I do not make decisions for them. Sounds cold, but softly delivered, it never causes waves or damages customer relations. A/V classes are available for a fee.

As a secondary point, do you like to fill your screen with the slide show, irrespective of the resolution of that screen?

I prefer filling the screen. No white or decorative trim are in my shows, unless it is a specific effect requested. If an image does not meet my minimum specs, the client makes a decision on whether the image is in or out. If I make that decision, it's out.

Larry

[cjdnzl]

Late to the discussion, but here's my answers:

<snip>

What size slide show should I make?

I would make the show's resolution at least 25% larger than the resolution of the tv monitor screen or digital projector to be used. I don't utilize much pan or zoom in my shows. I use it, but keep it subtle. If heavy movement is requested, I customize per image. If the show is for a client, I ask them to find out the monitor's size and resolution in advance as that will be the basis for the show. If they do not know, I suggest making the show based upon a 16:9 ratio and tell them it may or may not match the screen when played.

<snip>

Larry

I am interested as to your thinking on why you make the resolution 'at least 25% larger' than the monitor/projector/TV display resolution? Doing this means the display equipment must downsize the image pixel count to fit. A 25% larger image has to be downsized by 20% to regain the correct size, a 4:5 pixel (not aspect!) ratio, by no means an integral division. The final image quality is then totally dependent on how the equipment does the downsizing - not a risk I would want to take.

The multiplicity of display dimensions does present the show maker with problems, and I personally find that using images sized by good software to the dimensions of the projector, 1024x768 or whatever, realizes the optimum image quality.

Colin

[lathompson]

Colin,

I can't really answer your question with authority as I have always assumed that over sizing was simply better than under sizing. I have never considered that the image would be jeopardized by being slightly larger than needed. That a playing device would degenerate an image that is larger than needed and make it a lessor image is something of a surprise to me. So, you're suggesting that I should make my image exact? I have no problem doing that if necessary. That's very interesting. Does anyone else share that thought?

The idea of making them 25% larger than needed was to simply be safe. Colin, your statement is interesting.

Larry

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Colin,

I can't really answer your question with authority as I have always assumed that over sizing was simply better than under sizing. I have never considered that the image would be jeopardized by being slightly larger than needed. That a playing device would degenerate an image that is larger than needed and make it a lessor image is something of a surprise to me. So, you're suggesting that I should make my image exact? I have no problem doing that if necessary. That's very interesting. Does anyone else share that thought?

The idea of making them 25% larger than needed was to simply be safe. Colin, your statement is interesting.

Larry

Hi Larry

I think the 1024x768 which was the PTE standard eminates from broadcast television size. The native resolution of my laptop is 1280x1024, my projector is XGA and the native resolution of my laptop has to be set down to 1024x768 for it to pick up the picture signal. I size my slides to 1024x768 and they show fine on both the laptop at native resolution & the projector. The excellent quality of the PTE software gives the results, which is why it is so popular.

Yachtsman1

[cjdnzl]

Hi Larry

I think the 1024x768 which was the PTE standard eminates from broadcast television size. The native resolution of my laptop is 1280x1024, my projector is XGA and the native resolution of my laptop has to be set down to 1024x768 for it to pick up the picture signal. I size my slides to 1024x768 and they show fine on both the laptop at native resolution & the projector. The excellent quality of the PTE software gives the results, which is why it is so popular.

Yachtsman1

1024x768 is one of the sizes chosen for computer monitors and data projectors with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Standard PAL 4:3 TV has a pixel count of 720x576, which was never a monitor size. NTSC is similar.

The first VGA (video graphics array) monitors were 640x480 pixels, unbelievably coarse by today's standards, soon lifted to 800x600, and then to 1024x768 which became the standard for 15 and 17 inch CRT monitors. A number of digital projectors were built for 800x600, and the better ones for 1024x768. With the advent of LCD wide screens the lid came off pixel dimensions, and now we have screens and projectors as large as 1900x1200, or perhaps even more.

The best image display is obtained when the image dimensions match the screen or projector dimensions if you run borderless shows; if you use borders then the image/border combo should fit the screen/projector dimensions. Doing this sets up a 1:1 pixel ratio between the image and the display device, or in other words the image maps directly onto the screen/projector with no resizing, IMO the optimum arrangement.

Colin.

[lathompson]

Actually Colin, I confused my answer to the first question by saying my slide show would be made 25% larger. I meant to refer to the size of the photo images used in a show. My show sizes are chosen from the choices given in PTE. Unless I'm given another dimension. You have opened my eyes however. I have ignored some very basic projection information thinking it didn't matter. After all, I don't use a projector, I just do shows for people that do. I guess I've been lucky so far.

I must begin to emphasize the importance to my clients. I have simply relied upon my client to tell me what he wants and to date, that has apparently worked out. I get repeat orders quite often. But then, many of my customers are basic consumers with no AV knowledge at all. They are putting on special shows at their weddings and anniversary parties..... that's a different thing and many have simply relied on my suggestion of 16:9 because they don't know if their venue will even have a projector, much less understand it's properties in advance. Half of those clients don't even know what a digital projector is.

Yes, this is very interesting! I think I'm going to embark on a journey into the world of the projectors now!

larry

[Laszlo K]

Laszlo

Thank you for the reply and after the amount of typing you did I am almost reluctant to say that you have misunderstood the thread. I do know what I am doing and I also lecture on topics such as PTE and Photoshop.

The issue of size did not refer to the length of the show at all, but the image size. I already know the answer to the question I posed, but I was interested in the views of other serious users.

If you read my posts again, you will see what I mean

I guess I did.

But on subject concerning image size? On my desktop I use full resolution but I have a tank and it can easily handle it. For any other display of my projects I use the Max of 1024 on the long side and the image saved in the JPEG option at 1 to 1 ( minimal compression ). With that some laptops will have a hickup here and there. Disableing the onboard display will help a bit. And if I have to send it to a possible unknown than I will re-save the JPEG at a higher compression to create a smaller file and still have the size to cover the display at 1024.

Like this, even midiocre computers have a lot easier time to play the project.

This might be another angle and hope on topic, since I have not read anyone taking the individual JPEG file compression into concideration

Laszlo

[Barry Beckham]

This might be another angle and hope on topic, since I have not read anyone taking the individual JPEG file compression into concideration

Laszlo

Laszlo

Personally, I don't think compression is an issue that is very important and I also feel that many get wrapped up in it because they have been told that quality can be lost. Perhaps it is a deficiency on my part, but save a jpeg at level 6 and 12 and I can't see any difference and nor can anyone else who I have asked.

I have never used a compression higher than 6 for any of my slide shows and image quality is not an issue that I compromise on. If there was the slightest evidence that a image saved at level 12 appeared on screen better than level 6 I would change immediately.

If there is a change, I can't see it

[fh1805]

Barry,

Like you, I don't think the JPEG compression makes any visibly perceived difference. However, just to clarify one point: when you say "... on screen...", do you mean on your computer monitor or when projected onto a screen. If the latter then, typically, how large is the screen onto which you project?

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

OK, maybe PS Quality 12 is a little OTT but, anyone not being able to see a visible difference between a quality 12 and a quality 6 image side by side at actual pixels needs to pay a visit to a decent optician.

If, on the other hand, quality 6 does it for you, then you should carry on saving at that quality.

Also, if the guys who save at quality 12 have systems which will handle it, that's OK too.

DaveG

[Laszlo K]

This might be another angle and hope on topic, since I have not read anyone taking the individual JPEG file compression into concideration

Laszlo

Laszlo

Personally, I don't think compression is an issue that is very important and I also feel that many get wrapped up in it because they have been told that quality can be lost. Perhaps it is a deficiency on my part, but save a jpeg at level 6 and 12 and I can't see any difference and nor can anyone else who I have asked.

I have never used a compression higher than 6 for any of my slide shows and image quality is not an issue that I compromise on. If there was the slightest evidence that a image saved at level 12 appeared on screen better than level 6 I would change immediately.

If there is a change, I can't see it

My point is that quality may not suffer visibly, unless you got very good eyes, but computers with less than required power can also play the show well enough with our sometimes quite complex special effects to please most audiances, but the more critical ones, by having smaller file sizes and the same time keeping the pixel size to cover the frame.

Laszlo

[Ken Cox]

years ago we [ some members on forum]ran a test of somebody's garden shots that were saved under diffenent compression -- there was a definte loss of quality in the foreground grass areas especially

I also thought that Barry was involved in the test

i can see the pictures in my mind but i cant locate the link in my collection

i could add a link about image size circa 2005 that is very good,but it may detract from the thread

ken

[JRR]

I would agree with Barry and Peter that in general few people, if any, will see the difference in a quality 6 vs quality 12 jpg file. That applies when the image has lots content, detail etc in it.

But I have found that is not necessarily the case when an image lacks detail and has areas of one colour. Wispy clouds, light smoke haze, clear blue sky at times etc can be problematic.

I would fully agree that images such as these are the exception, but I have over time opted to err on the safe side and save my files (1280x960) at whatever quality gets me at least 800kb.

I don't deny that may "waste" storage space on many images, but I would rather be safe than sorry.

I have prepareed three images, all the same. All have been saved from the same RAW file separately so as to not introduce a possibility of degradation in re-saving a jpg.

The file was converted in Adobe Camera Raw and the size was changed from 3504x2336 (from the camera) to 1280x853 before saving in each case.

I saved as a quality 6, a quality 10 and a quality 12. Their resultant file sizes were: 128kb, 352kb and 926kb respectively.

There is a definite degradation in the top one third of the quality 6 image, a much less degradation in the quality 10, but there is still some minor amount in the quality 12.

I viewed these images on my monitor, I am sure if I put them on a 10 foot wide screen via my projector, the degradation would be MUCH more apparent.

I have put the images in a manual PTE show. The zip file, which also has the three files separately is at:

mediafire

I have loaded the quality 6 one below (can't figure out how to load the other two on the same post

[Ken Cox]

Jim

i expanded them 3x and viewed the branches - the branch i centred on with my eyes all showed the same amt of jaggies

thks for demo

ken

[JRR]

Ken:

I didn't look at them over 100% and I was only looking at the pixellation in the blue sky....

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

I mean both actually and perhaps DaveG is right and I need a visit to the optician, but I say again I don't have any issues with image quality and get asked over and over again how I get my images to clear and sharp in my slide shows, so I must be doing something right

Lets be honest, if a fraction of the effort put into this subject was redirected into image content and other AV quality issues AV's all round would be far better.

If we tell newer users of PTE to save a Jpg at level 6 they will not be confused by all the differences in opinions and they will make a great slide show.

I suppose there could be one explanation and that is if you reduce the quality from a very high end camera (22Mp) in Photoshop down to match the pixels of a lower end camera (6Mp) the images are not the same. You get better quality from the high end reduced size camera.

However, I don't think it changes my thoughts at all and I will continue using level 6

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Is not an image saved at level 6 on a 22mp camera bigger than one from a 12mp camera? What about the adverse effects found when using too large a file, moire for instance. when animating a highly detailed image such as grass, the sea, brick walls, railings.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

Barry is correct when he says that CONTENT is the important thing, but I would like to pose the following question:

When anyone (not just Barry) says something like "I have been praised for the quality and sharpness of my work" - what would the reaction have been if they (the people who did the praising) had seen the quality 12 version instead of the quality 6 version?

I'm involved in a similar discussion at the moment regarding the showing of competition work in a compressed format instead of at actual pixels. Everyone seeing the work says "marvellous work" but they haven't seen the originals!

If they had seen the originals at actual pixels they might have said "B****y marvellous work" and justice would have been done to the original authors.

I always feel that it's a bit of a put down when I'm presented with work which could have improved on issues like image quality - "It's good enough for the punters"

(My words)

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

Is not an image saved at level 6 on a 22mp camera bigger than one from a 12mp camera?

I have no idea, never had reason to find out to be honest. All I know is that if you start out with great quality, that quality is still evident when the image is reduced in size. I noticed that years ago when a friend bought a really top of the range film scanner. You could see the difference in his images even at 8in by 6in email images.

With regards the Moire effect, that is a battle that each individual has to deal with and I do seem to experience it quite a bit whenever I animate an image. That is why you don't see too much animation from me. As you probably know there are lots of ways to deal with the moire effect, but they all effect image quality in some way. I have had many occasions where an animation seemed appropriate, but I had to give up the idea, because I could not get rid of the moire effect and was not prepared to accept a soft image just to use animation.

Of course the best way to defeat the moire effect is not to animate

DaveG

I have just created a crop from an original image and saved it at different Jpg compressions 12,6 etc and I cannot see any difference and I am looking at images from a 22mp camera on a brand new flat screen. I have three other people here with me and they can't tell either, so that rules out my eyesight.

Don't you think there is an obsession with this potential loss of quality? I happen to like and agree with your particular obsession, because I rather think it is the same obsession as mine. Image quality ! It is essentail in my view to what we do, but how come that in about 15 years of working with Photoshop I have not seen evidence of this loss of quality?

We save our images for a slide show, they will not be enlarged, they will not be printed, what we see is what we get. I even tried to re-create this loss of quality once by repeatingly saving the image and couldn't do it. For general advice to those who ask, why not keep the answer simple. Save a level 6 and you will retain a good balance between image quality and image size for the slide show. Many of the problems experienced by newer users are caused by the images being too large, which we have seen in this forum.

I am not suggesting that it is wrong to save images for a show at Level 12 and for those who know what they are doing and they PC will handle the files fair enough, but I do believe that it would cause more problems than it would solve if that is passed on as the best advice for all. I am sure that time will change this and in a few years we will be dropping 20meg files into our slide shows, well perhaps

[davegee]

Barry,

You raise an extremely interesting point.

Does an image from a full-frame 22mp DSLR suffer less from JPEG artifacts than an image from a 12.3mp APS-C DSLR?

Anyone prepared to donate a full-frame 22mp RAW image for testing (or know where there is one available for download)?

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

Ken:

I didn't look at them over 100% and I was only looking at the pixellation in the blue sky....

Jim

i could not see any pixellation in the sky - that is why i chose the branches

this morn i sent signal to tv via svhs feed and Q6 branches are pixelated at 3 x - pretty hard to see any difference on 10 and 12

this is a worst case condition as one rules out the hi quality of the monitor -- when i started doing picts on computor i used this method to see what i could get away with - we did not have the space on hard drives we have today

ken