What's the best way to run this project?

[v2rahn]

Hi,

I am using a G400TV and MSPro5.2.

I want to make a presentation for output to VCR that is basically made of scanned photos on moving paths put in overlay tracks. It's for PAL, but my basic problem is identical for NTSC. The issue I try to resolve is related to the different aspect ratio of the pixels of TV and PC. For example a still shot from an AVI file is about 10% higher than it should be, making all faces look lengthy and circles look like standing ovals.

Question: What is the bast way to avoid distortion on the final product while minimizing quality loss?

There are basically 3 button to turn on (unless you experts come up with more), but I am not sure about the exact consequence of each of them:

(1) I have all images in much higher resolution than needed for the video. So when setting the image size in MSPro I could easily set it to 100h x 110v instead of 100x100 in order to compensate distortion when putting it on tape.

(2) When setting up the project it tells me that PAL full res would be 768x576 (i.e. 4:3). But PAL avi files have the usual 704x576. Who can clarify this?

(3) When outputting the project to file which then goes to tape, I have to select 704x576 I guess, at least if I want to use the Matrox MJPEG compression. So this looks like it gets resampled once again. Or does it resample from the original image instead of from the one calculated from my project?

I just have another few days left before I have to start that serious project, so any experience or comments would be highly appreciated. What's the best way to do this?

Many thanks beforehand !

Stephen

P.S.: I rely on you! As I make PAl here in NewYork and can only watch it on a TV through an analog PAL->NTSC converter, I will be able to judge the real quality only when presenting the thing in Europe next month - then it's too late.

[Dr Mordrid]

First, much of this is covered in the Ulead Learning Center. It's the third item, "Still Images and Moving Paths", and can be found here;

http://www.ulead.com/learning/msp.htm

Read it all, but check page 4 in particular.

Now for the rest;

1. In the Moving Path dialog size it using the Size controls.

2. 768x576 is the full frame size that CAN be used, but few do. Most cards use either 720x576 or 704x576. Matrox cards capture at the latter frame size. The excess is overscan, which is not normally displayed anyhow.

3. 704x480 is what the Matrox cards capture so no resampling will be done if you export to this frame size and with the proper codec and audio settings. These settings should also be used in the project settings. SOME resampling will be done, however, to those frames where you have applied an effect, filter or title. This is normal.

Dr. Mordrid


[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 28 June 2001).]

[v2rahn]

Dr. Mordid,

you're faster than light, increadible! Definitely thanks, I have read not only your post but the Ulead page you propsed.

Now I know what I should do: Adjust each image's aspect ratio by 11/12.

What do you think about this trick: Put the project size to 768w = 704*12/11 and place all images with uncorrected aspect ratio 1:1. Then only when saving the project to file/tape, I select 704 width. Then MS should resample the width of everything to 11/12, doing to all images what they need without me having to adjust them one by one. That would save a lot of effort and time, seen the fact that I will have hundereds of images in the project! It shouldn't really matter that any titles get a little bit narrower as well.

Will this work and produce the same quality of output, or is there something wrong about this trick, either in theory or in practice??

I'm really curious to know!

Stephen

[Dr Mordrid]

The Matrox codec won't accept a project size different than its permitted sizes. The clips may load, but won't render previews. As such you should stick with 704x576 and go from there.

Dr. Mordrid


[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 28 June 2001).]

[v2rahn]

O.K., so the Matrox codec doesn't work if I have to resample from a non-supported (768w) to a supported (704w) size.

Is there any other (software) codec that would to the job with comparable quality? I would rather save time editing than rendering where I don't have to be present.

Thanks for your good and speedy replies!

Stephen

[Dr Mordrid]

Why are you so intent on using 768 wide? YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Dr. Mordrid

[mikiem]

Assuming you want the highest quality in the least amount of time & work, you might want to drop your image resolution, checking valid colors while you're at it. Resampling the images in software might also add just enough blur to make any lines &/or patterns more presentable on the TV monitor. It also might be a good idea to keep the TV safe regions in mind, ie: centering the portions you want to make sure get seen when the path takes the individual image front and center.

If you're concerned with the time it might take fooling with the idividual images, batch process them -- most graphics apps can handle that today.

Overscan is an issue that could consume quite a few lines -- in the end all it'd amount to is as Dr. Mordrid said: why go above the frame size you can output to tape? You may have in fact the opposite problem... If you haven't edited your production to account for the TV safe area, you might have problems already with the TV screen not showing all you want it to -- increasing your output frame size (if you manage to output it) will only make the problem worse. If you re-render everything to the smaller frame size after composing, it's like buying a 2 liter bottle of Coke, & throwing it out after pouring a glass.

If you're concerned about the actual pixel aspect ratio, I personally like the way Sonic Foundry handles them (though they don't/won't do a lot that you'll find in MSP). Download a trial.

RE: actual frame/picture aspect, you can distort the image or the frame, as long as you account for whatever before output. You'll likely find a lot of info on this, different methods and such, if you search the web looking for topics like widescreen or HDTV production -- different subject but similar problems. Ulead's way would likely be the simplest.

Finally, and other folks who are more familiar with PAL please jump in anytime , it might be wise to do at least a test render at NTSC to get an idea of what the final quality levels are going to be, as well as maybe spot any glitches.

MSP, Premiere, Vegas etc. are all capable of compositing, and doing it quite well. On the other hand, they will usually not equal 100% the quality of a dedicated compositing app. As your not outputing D1 or anything it probably won't matter, but at least a test render as above will make sure the result is up to your standards while you still have time to do something about it.

mikie

[v2rahn]

Thanks a lot!

This evening I will perhaps be able to try those things out (I mean put it on tape in PAL and NTSC), but at the latest I'll get to it over the weekend.

Of course I never wanted to output 768width to tape, even if the Matrox codec could do it. It's just intended to get the rescaling done all in one, instead of image by image. Mikie, you are right, a batch conversion would do as well.

We'll see what I get the next days. I'll keep you updated!

[v2rahn]

Hello,
after some silence, let me finaly finish this thread. I promised to tell you how it worked out. What I did: Compose a MSPro5.2 project designed for PAL output to tape in 768 pixel width. With 576 height that gave a handy 3:4 ratio on my screen. As a consequence, all images I pasted (and titles etc as well) showed on the PC exactly the way they looked later on the TV, not distorted, and I did not have to resize all my images in the first place. Only when creating the output I choose 704 width, and the result on TV looked very o.k. For the preview, I do not use the Matrox codec anyhow, because I can not view it instantly, which is what I prefer.

So thanks again for all your advice that made me understand the whole topic and find my way, even if it's not the conventional one. For me, it works perfectly.

Stephen