In focus when added out of focus on TL

[mikecox]

Why am I getting these results?


I've tried changing the size but this one is the recommended 2000 long at 100 ppi. I have seen where changing the resolution doesn't have an effect so I gave up on that option. I thought maybe enlarging it but that didn't seem to help either.

[Dave McElderry]

Viewing it on the timeline isn't a good indicator of the final quality. You'll have to see the project after it's been output to your final medium, for example burning to DVD. or Blu-ray. Chances are that it will be a lot better than it appears.

[mikecox]

Viewing it on the timeline isn't a good indicator of the final quality. You'll have to see the project after it's been output to your final medium, for example burning to DVD. or Blu-ray. Chances are that it will be a lot better than it appears.

I burned the video to a DVD and it didn't look any better.

[Bob]

You didn't say what your project size was, but I'm assuming 1920x1080. It also looks like your photo is sized so that the vertical dimension is 2000 pixels. You are also displaying the full image in the timeline. That means that you scaled down the image 54% in PrE. It's no wonder it looks bad.

Sizing images larger than the video frame size is only recommended when you intend to pan and zoom the image. Even then, you seldom need to zoom more than 10-15%. Also, PrE's scaling is not as good as what you can get in a photo editor which has better algorithms available to you. If you don't intend to pan and zoom that image, you can scale it to the exact frame size in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements and get better results.

One more tip. Uncheck the "scale to frame size" option. Or, better yet, turn it off in the preferences. "Scale to Frame size" rescales the image to fit the frame size before any other transformations. That smaller image then becomes the base size of the image. If you subsequently scale up the image to zoom in, you will be enlarging this much smaller image. In effect, you will be scaling greater than 100% and it will look very bad.

[mikecox]

Thanks for that very meaty response; let me parse it...

You didn't say what your project size was, but I'm assuming 1920x1080.

Yes, it is; I never change it. Under what circumstances would you?

It also looks like your photo is sized so that the vertical dimension is 2000 pixels. You are also displaying the full image in the timeline.

I set the size of all my images to 2000x1500; I think I heard that from Steve. but I forget the context now
Should I be using 1920x1080?

That means that you scaled down the image 54% in PrE. It's no wonder it looks bad.

Hmmm, Would you explain how that happens?

Sizing images larger than the video frame size is only recommended when you intend to pan and zoom the image.

In fact that is what I indented to do, in almost all my images I am zooming and panning, and it seemed to be working just fine, until I got to this deck plan image.

But, because the red dot moves down the length of the image, and because that dot in on a layer above the deck plan; and is animated with keyframes, I couldn't zoom in on the deck plan without throwing the dot off. So I decided not to zoom the deck plan. But even without zooming it looks awful.

Uncheck the "scale to frame size" option. Or, better yet, turn it off in the preferences.

Ok, done. Good tip I went back to this image and, after unchecking the "fit to frame" I resized it to fit the frame. I don't intend to zoom it but I see now how much better the result would be if I did.


As for the deck plan; at one point it was looking good, so I captured the whole dot animation as an AVI file and replaced the layered clips with the AVI file; thinking I'd zoom that. But the AVI image was blurred!! So, back to square one!

you can scale it to the exact frame size in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements and get better results.

Would that be 1920x1080? Since I want to pan wouldn't 2000x1500 be better? I got that latter value from Steve, I think; as a kind of standard size for all images for the timeline. He also explained that 100ppi was the only relevant resolution; because increasing it does nothing. That's frustrating me because I can't seem to get the deck plan to come into focus. It's especially frustrating because all the other clips are in focus, even the one in the attachment. Why it the deck plan so contrary

I thought maybe it was because it was a screen shot from the web, but I added the text in Ps and it is also blurry

[Steve Grisetti]

Mike, your graphic seems to be very tall and narrow, which means that isn't the same shape as a video frame. Is that right?

It also means that you more likely sized it to 1500x2000 rather than 2000x1500 (taller than wide). Is that also right?

[Bob]

Bob wrote:You didn't say what your project size was, but I'm assuming 1920x1080.

Yes, it is; I never change it. Under what circumstances would you?

Normally, you would select a project setting that matches your video footage. Here, you showed no video footage, only static photos. Photos can easily be incorporated into virtually any project setting and the setting is often selected based on the intended use. It's not unusual to use a different project setting when the intended output device has a different aspect ratio. For example, back in the days when most televisions were standard definition 4:3 ratio, studios would release dvds of wide screen movies in multiple formats. One, may be a widescreen (16:9) version. Another may be a letterboxed (4:3) version. Another, may be a full screen (4:3) version. The first two could be produced from the same project. The third was generally produced by placing the 16:9 footage in a 4:3 project, scaling the vertical dimension to fill the screen and then panning the horizontal position to keep the actors and important objects in the scene. This is called pan and scan.

Bob wrote:It also looks like your photo is sized so that the vertical dimension is 2000 pixels. You are also displaying the full image in the timeline.

I set the size of all my images to 2000x1500; I think I heard that from Steve. but I forget the context now
Should I be using 1920x1080?

As Steve and I indicated, it looks like your deck image is sized to fit 1500x2000 rather than 2000x1500 which would make it very tall. Your video frame is only 1080 high. To look like it fills the frame as it is shown in your screen capture, it would have to be scaled down significantly. Depending on how you resized the image, it's possible for the dimensions to be flipped like this. It's perfectly fine to have the image 2000 pixels tall if you are planning to pan the image and you need that size. Just be aware of the dimensions and orientation of your images and use them appropriately.

1500x2000 is a guideline, not a requirement. It's intended to reduce memory usage in the program to prevent associated problems while providing for a certain amount of pan and zoom capability. If you need more room to pan or zoom, change the image size. If you are not going to pan and zoom, there is nothing wrong about making the image match the frame size.

[mikecox]

1500x2000 is a guideline, not a requirement. It's intended to reduce memory usage in the program to prevent associated problems while providing for a certain amount of pan and zoom capability. If you need more room to pan or zoom, change the image size. If you are not going to pan and zoom, there is nothing wrong about making the image match the frame size.

Ok, I have been doing some experimenting. First, I discovered that the "deck plan" image got downsized at some point. I have been noticing how my image size and res have been changing; in Ps, and I don't remember changing them

So I've gone in and created two new images; one 2000 wide, the other 2000 long; here are the results...which I see as quite promising



Clearly, the reason I've been having such a problem with Blur is because the image was so small!

I think we can put this one to bed

Thanks for all your help with this; what I've learned will come in handy as I proceed with this project.

[Steve Grisetti]

Hooray! Love the success stories, Mike!