DPI in Motion?

How do i change the DPI in Motion? I want to use motion for making a still image but because motion is for video primarily, i'm assuming the dpi is 72. I need a still image for print but i don't know how to change the dpi or even if you can. I'm a little fuzzy on the details about how resolution and dpi differ. Could i just make the resolution about 4 times what the printed size will be and then scale it down for print? Thanks for the help.
-Tyler

hi,
you are right video does not deal with dpi. Motion has no concept of it. As you suggest make the motion project as big as you can, or at least as big as your graphics card will allow.
hth
adam

Similar Messages

Best DPI for Motion, and more!

Question in response to thread below...Thanks.
Hey folks!! What size do these images have to be to start? I'm working with 14th 15th cen. text/illustrations and I only get to scan them once. Can you recomend the best settings for scaning.
Also can someone recap this thread? I'm a little confussed... I feel very comfortable in FCP, I've not really used Motion yet but it seems the obvious choice. I'm on a G5Q so I don't think it will run slow/bad. I do like seeing what I'm doing without rendering. Does this take a long time in FCP?
Finally, I recently saw that Riding Giants movie and really liked some of the techniques they used. Are these effects, effects that you can apply in Motion? What other programs can pull this off? I have lots of ancient documents with images that I want to sort jump out off the page and onto the screen. I've heard about this "motion matte camera", how is this different than using a program like Motion? I've heard that AF can be used to creat the 3D layered images. 3D sounds cool as long as it is not overdone. Isthe 3D effect a really tough thing to accomplish given that layers need to be created?
Many thanks! Alex

Normally I use FCP to keyframe the animation ... for example, here's what I did earlier this week to make the headline jump off a newspaper clipping:
The client had a newspaper clipping which I scanned (I forget the exact resolution). In Photoshop, I cleaned up the image a bit (old newspaper blotchiness, etc), then using the Select->Color Range command, I selected the black print only. Next, I feathered the selection about 1.2 pixels or so and copied the selection.
Next, I started a new PS document with a transparent background and pasted the selected text onto it. Saved both and imported them into FCP. With the original newspaper image on V1, I animated it (Viewer window, Motion tab) to make it look like it was falling away from the camera. Once it reached a certain point, I placed the new PS image (text only) on V2, scaled it to match the text on the newspaper image below, then quickly scaled up the text image only (V2). I also used a little distortion (keyframed) to give the movement a little 3D effect.
Its kinda hard to explain in writing, but the end result was that it appeared that the text jumped off the page at the viewer ... kind of an 'in your face' type of thing.
And then there are other times I'll scan an image twice; once for what I'd normally use, and the second time, I might scan a smaller area of the image at a higher resolution. One example I've done using this method was a rather large portrait collage of a medical school graduating class. My client was one of the doctors and the project was a docu-tribute to him.
The original photo was one of those that has an oval matted head shot of each graduate that you often see framed and hanging on the wall. The photo was about 16" x 20" so I actually had to do 4 scans (one for each quadrant) and then stitch them together into one document in PS - but I'll count that as one scan for this example. The second scan was of just the one particular graduate, so the scan was of a much smaller area - about 1.5" x 2". Needless to say, I used a higher resolution setting for this scan.
In FCP, I placed the full image on V1; fading in with a slight scale up over the duration. At the point in time I wanted the smaller image to "lift off," I placed it on V2 and scaled it to match the size and movement of the image below. As it "lifts off," I increased the rate of scale while at the same time slightly reducing the opacity and ramp up a bit of Gaussian Blur to the image on V1 as it remains in the background. Then they both transitioned to the next scene together.
Make sense?
After Effects is probably a much better tool for this type of thing, but I'm just now trying to get myself reacquainted with that program.
-DH

More on DPI, worth reading if you scan and stuff with stills

Even seasoned professionals can't agree on this topic. I'm taking these statements out of context from a listserve and I am posting them without attributing the quotes to real people except to say they are pros. They should know what they're talking about. Yet they don't. Neither do I anymore.
The first salvo:
The 72dpi thing is a myth. The number of pixels is the number of pixels.
72dpi is a print term. The size of the image determines the number of pixels
that will be in each inch of the print.<<<
The counterattack:
<div class="jive-quote">I wouldn't call it a myth, especially since this question specifically
relates to print resolution. DPI is a printer term, but it is also more or
less equivalent to PPI (dots vs. pixels). Pixels are the real resolution
and the "pi" part is merely how many of them you spread over an inch.
This info is metadata reference embedded into the graphic file, so if
you open an image exported from 1080i video as a graphic file, Photoshop
and most other graphics apps will ID this as 72 dpi. At this relationship,
1920x1080 will print an image that is 26.667 inches x 15 inches. If you change the dpi setting under image size, WITHOUT resampling the image, from 72 to 144, then the printable dimensions are cut in half to 13.33 x 7.5 inches. Obviously the smaller you make the image, the more pixels/dots are crammed into an inch.
More dots equals higher APPARENT resolution.
So, although not a true "absolute" value, dpi is still a valuable rule of thumb
for comparison. 1920x1080@72dpi would have less visible "quality" than
a theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed), when both are printedto fill an 8x10inch image area.
If, for instance, you wanted to have a 3D artist create CD cover art (approx 4in.x4in.)they would have to create/render a file that is 1200x1200 (or even biger yet).
Even if this opens in Photoshop as 72dpi, when you change this setting (without resampling) to 300 dpi, the image will correctly print at 4x4in. instead of 16.6x16.6 inches.<
The last rejoinder:
<div class="jive-quote">So, although not a true "absolute" value, dpi is still a valuable
rule of thumb
for comparison. 1920x1080@72dpi would have less visible "quality" than
a theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed), when
both are printed
to fill an 8x10inch image area.
Unfortunately that's not true. As mentioned earlier correctly: a
pixel is a pixel - though dpi is not a 'myth'.
A 1920x1080@72dpi and 1920x1080@300dpi do have a 1920x1080 absolute
count of pixels - so the same resolution/quality. If both of the
mentioned images will be printed out to an 8" wide picture the amount
of pixels available is 1920 (horizontally) in both cases - so no
quality difference, at least when using the same printer.
Changing the dpi will either scale the visual size depending on your
device or the printed size ( also depending on the printer's
capabilities/resolution). Printing the big wallpapers/advertisements
is actually done at around 45 dpi - while it's always a good idea to
have a multiple of the print resolution as source resolution, we
could say we take 90 dpi for a better quality. In the above example
the resulting image size will be around 21" width - in case we map
the available dots directly we'll get 42".
That's what dpi means, dots per inch. If you display/print 1920 at 72
dpi you will get a width of 1920 dots / (72 dots / inch) = 26.67
inch, if you display/print 1920 at 300 dpi you will get a width of
1920 dots / (300 dots / inch) = 6.4 inch. That's quite simple math,
and if you keep the unit types during the calculation, it will show
you whether the calculation is done correctly - dots / (dots / inch)
= dots x inch / dots = inch.
Talking about video and dpi might make sense when it comes to
(control/broadcast/LCD) monitors: so comparing a cheap 14" 320
horizontal lines consumer one to a 14" 800 line studio monitor would
make ~29 dpi versus ~72 dpi. Comparing the same 14" studio monitor to
a 20" 800 line one, will result in ~72 dpi versus 50 dpi. In any case
the source pixels from the image are mapped/interpolated to the
output device's resolution.
It's the same with timecode: if you got 150 pictures, you got 150
pictures and the won't get more or better if you let them run on 1
frame/second, 60 frames/second or 120 frames/second - only the time
it needs to display them does change. But recording with a high-speed
camera at 120 frames/second will give you a much higher motion
resolution than recording with 60 frames/second - and the double
amount of pictures.<
Wait, there is MORE:
<div class="jive-quote">I'm afraid you misread my explanation and qualifiers.
Note the "theoretically" and "if it existed" in:
"theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed)".
In Photoshop you can create both a 1920x1080@72
and a 1920x1080@300. As I explained, the dpi is merely a
metadata reference for the printer. What this value is set at
DOES change the SIZE at which an image is printed at, but
NOT the resolution. Since the same number of pixels squeezed
into less space APPEARS sharper to the eye, 1920 printed
in half the size will look like it has higher resolution than
if it is bigger (viewed at the same distance). In Photoshop,
the dpi value is really just a cross-reference between actual
pixels and the physical dimensions at which these should
be displayed.
The final installment:
We are saying the same thing really, but since the point of
this thread specifically relates to printing a still, the dpi
measurement as a point of reference is still valid. Basically,
what the client really wants to know is, 'at what point does
this printed image start to look unacceptable?' Of course,
that depends on the size at which it is to be printed and
the target medium (such as newspaper versus glossy paper).
bogiesan

The 'DPI Doesn't Matter' comments are generally directed at statements like: " I imported this 300dpi image into FCP and it's wonky. Why does it look like the dog chewed it?"
Yes, scanners measure resolution in DPI. So, to clear things up ... (yea ... right!), Below is the formula which describes the relationship between pixels, physical size (in inches) and DPI. This is an elaboration of Patrick's post.
physical size x DPI = pixel dimension
If you have a 10" wide image and scan it at 300 dpi you will have a 3000 pixel wide digital image. A pretty large image. But what if you want to end up with a 750 pixel wide image?
The equation is transformed into:
pixel dimension/physical size = DPI
so, continuing the previous example, you want a 750 pixel digital image and original media is 10" wide. 750/10 = 75. Set the scanner at 75dpi, verify the resulting file will have a pixel width of 750 and you are good to go.
Just to make things less clear - some more sophisticated scanning software (Silverfast Ai, for example) will also let you put in a multiplier (the Q factor) to the dpi setting which in essence is an oversampling ratio. Set that to 1.0 and your numbers will be as you set them.
Again this is simply to get the file into a pixel dimension that will work in FCP.
x

Acceptable File Size and Resolution for Still Photos in Keyframe Motion

Hello Hello
I know that FCE HD (as other Video Editors), will automatically fit a still photo's size to it's default capability of 720 x 480 Correct?
Well, in regard to making the best possible ZOOMS, and Pans from Still Photos, is it neccessary to re-size all your photos (from an external editor like photoshop), to a specfic size?
According to an older book for FCE, it sez that actually photos re-sized to 720x534 with a resolution of 72 are best. *The proper proportion for NTSC.
And I noticed that when I inserted larger JPG still sizes (like about a meg), on the FCE timline, and when applying Panning, or Zooms, some of the rendered images with motion didn't pan or zoom smoothly.
Is that because those file sizes were TOO large?
Well I have soooo many stills that need to be imported into this particular project that it would be a lot easier for me to just generally reduce these stills (by percentage).
And is the magic resolution amount supposed to be 72?
Because if that's the case I can re-size all my photos to 72, and try to keep the file sizes down to say 300 KB's or so.
Sound like a plan?

Thank you guys
"basically, you should try to make your images large enough so they never have to be scaled beyond 100% in the motion tab in fcp."
Actually as I mentioned some of these file sizes are very large. About 800-900 KB's - and what as a result, what I've noticed is that I actually had to DECREASE the viewing area in both the Browser Window, and the Canvas Winbow just to be able to see the whole image.
Ok - so the 72 DPI is not as important as the dimensions of the photo. But as I said I have soooooo many of these that it would take me forever to manually re-size them all not to mention the fact that re-sizing some of them (odd shapes),would throw the images out of balance.
So again I ask - if there is NO motion applied to the photo, file sizes of about 200 to 350 KB's appear just beautifully ....
BUT
If I need to PAN or ZOOM, is it ok to laod a 1 MEG sized JPG onto the timeline and start working with Keyframe?????
In fact in some cases I'm actually using these larger file JPS's (1 meg or more), so that they TOTALLLY fit the canvas window (cropping them by enlargment)
*With some clipping of the original image of course ...
Why do I do this?
So that you don't see the usual border with horizontal images, or vertical images - know what I mean?
Thanx

Using still image in FCP and Motion

I'm using still images in Motion (and FCP) and exporting them to Quicktime movie files. What's the best size and resolution for the images and are JPGs or TIF best? I'm exporting for 720 X 480, and currently my JPGs are 4 x 6 at 300 dpi with a pixel width and height of 1312 x 2000. I'm adding some behaviors to the images in Motion (motion paths and shrink/grow).
My FCP project is setup as a DV NTSC 48kHz, 720 x 480, editing timebase=59.94, timecode Rate=same as editing timebase, compressor-DV/DVPRO-NTSC, quality 100%.
When I export to Quicktime the movies are very low quality--lots of noise and moire pattern etc.
How do I get the best qualtiy using still images? Is it my FPS setting, image pixel size, compressor setting? Also, do the movies need to be deinterlaced?
The preview in the FCP browser and canvas looks a little better but I do notice noise (moire patterns) along the sharp edges of the still images.
I've seen QT movies of these very same images (done by someone else who is no longer around) and they are much better quality.
Does anyone have an appropriate workflow for this type of project? The final movies are to be shown on a flatscreen monitor from a local computer, so the file sizes can be relatively large (300mb).
I can post an example of he movie files if that might help.
Thanks.
Pedro

David, your a genius!!! You posted your reply on my birthday, and I missed it until today!
Fotomagico is devastatingly easy to use and absolutely makes me want to cry at the amount of time I wasted creating photo slideshows in FCP!
I opened Fotomagico up and created a slideshow, one that I had already created in FCP and had take me FIVE HOURS to create... in TEN MINUTES!!!!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaah.
I couldn't believe it. I thought there had to be a catch or something. This was too easy the quality can't be there... but it was. It's amazing and I can't thank you enough for all the future hours you have saved for me.
Al Romero

Editing stills with motion effects, performance questions.

I am editing a video in FCE that consists solely of still photos.
I am creating motion effects (pans and pullbacks, etc) and dissolve
transitions, and overlaying titles. It will be played back on dvd
on a 16:9 monitor (standard dvd,not blueray hi-def). Some questions:
What is the FCE best setup to use for best image quality: DV-NTSC?
DV-NTSC Anamorphic? or is it HDV-1080i or 720p30 even though it
won't be played back as hi-def?
How do best avoid squiggly line problem with pan moves etc?
On my G-5, 2gb RAM, single processor machine I seem to be having
performance problems with playback: slow to render, dropping frames, etc
Thanks for any help!

Excellent summary MacDLS, thanks for the contribution.
A lot of the photos I've taken on my camera are 3072 X 2304 (resolution 314) .jpegs.
I've heard it said that jpegs aren't the best format for Motion, since they're a compressed format.
If you're happy with the jpegs, Motion will be, too.
My typical project could either be 1280 X 720 or SD. I like the photo to be a lot bigger than the
canvas size, so I have room to do crops and grows, and the like. Is there a maximum dimension
that I should be working with?
Yes and no. Your originals are 7,000,000 pixels. Your video working space only displays about 950,000 pixels at any single instant.
At that project size, your stills are almost 700% larger than the frame. This will tax any system as you add more stills. 150% is more realistic in terms of processing overhead and I try to only import HUGE images that I know are going to be tightly cropped by zooming in. You need to understand that an 1300x800 section of your original is as far as you can zoom in , the pixels will be 100% in size. If you zoom in further, all you get are bigger pixels. The trade off you make is that if you zoom way out on your source image, you've thrown away 75% of its content to scale it to fit the video format; you lose much much more if you go to SD.
Finally, the manual says that d.p.i doesn't matter in Motion, so does this mean that it's worth
actually exporting my 300 dpi photos to 72 dpi before working with them in Motion?
Don't confuse DPI with resolution. Your video screen will only show about 900,000 pixels in HD and about 350,000 pixels in SD totally regardless of how many pixels there are in your original.
bogiesan

Still image with motion has flicker pulsating problem

I use FCP 5.0.4
I have read the many threads about this subject and am still not able to succeed in getting rid of the flicker/pulsating in a still image with motion.
I would say about 25% of the stills with motion have the jitters; all the rest look great.
The first thing I tried was
Effects:Video Filters:Video:Field Shift:none
as well as
Effects:Video Filters:Video:Flicker Filter min, med, and max.
Maybe 5% were corrected with this, but the other 20% still had the jitters even after using a combination of the above or by themselves.
I just burned a test DVD using a variety of the persistently jittery stills from my current project and although the jitters change a bit, they were still there so all of these failed:
1. Effects:Video Filters:Video:De-interlace Upper (odd)
2. Effects:Video Filters:Video:De-interlace Flicker Filter minimal
3. Effects:Video Filters:Video:De-interlace Flicker Filter max
4. Effects:Video Filters:Color Correction:Broadcast Safe conservative 115
5. Effects:Video Filters:Video:Flicker Filter max
6. All the tricks together which means
Effects:Video Filters:Video:De-interlace set at Upper (odd)
Effects:Video Filters:Video:Flicker Filter max
Effects:Video Filters:Video:Shift Fields: none
Effects:Video Filters:Color Correction:Broadcast Safe conservative 115
I know this issue has been kicked around a lot and i know some folks are not happy that it has to be kicked around at all. But I am doing something wrong because my DVDs look very un-PRO. Would anyone like to talk me through this nightmare preferably with as many details as possible since I am obviously missing something critical.
Thanks in advance.

There is no 'secret formula'. It just takes thinking through the issues.
1. Set the image size for each image that makes sense within the context of your project. Going significantly larger than the displayed area of that image (including movement) is just asking FCP to do additional work to resize the image. FCP is less sophisticated at resizing images than Photoshop. Use Photoshop and your planning of the movie to get the images to the appropriate size.
2. Wasted effort and totally irrelevant- you could set it to 7200 dpi if it makes you feel better.
3. Good idea - be sure to knock down areas of pure or very bright white. These are the elements that will give you the most trouble.
4. Don't do this unless you want to throw away HALF the picture information. Deinterlace deletes half the picture and then photoshop recreates it through interpolation of the remaining half of the picture. Why do this?
5. Make your determination based on what works. If you have properly exposed and sized the material, the need to blur is greatly reduced. ONLY do it on the images that need it. Why degrade every image if you do not need to do so?
6. See number 5
7. Lay out your time line early, view the work on an external broadcast monitor and only mess about with the images that require it.
In the psycho business they have term for much of the referenced post - it's called superstitious behavior. Basically it comes down to "It worked before so we recommend it to everyone without regard to their situation" ... here's another example:
Many years ago in my architecture practice, we had one of the early 512k macs (upgraded from the 128k!) I needed to show one of the interns how to create a project budget spread sheet in Excel. Inadvertently I clicked on Word, said "oops", closed it and opened Excel and we went to work.
A week later I was walking by the computer and overheard the same intern explaining how to work with Excel to another architect. "First you open Word, close it, THEN you open Excel", she explained. When asked by her 'trainee', why do you have to open Word first, wouldn't it just be easier to simply open Excel? Her answer was just perfect, "Well, it works every time, what's wrong with that?" so it goes ...
good luck with your project.
∏

Does anyone know how to make the mouse motion just NORMAL?

Hi folks. Alright I am a new but I love my Mac. The one thing I just can't get past is the feel of the way the mouse works. It is tooooo smooth. I feel like when i go slow with the motion, it covers less ground as I move, then when I speed up my motion, it feels more in time with the motion. I realize this is pretty hard to explain but does anyone know what i am talking about? Sure it is more precise but I really hate it. Help?

David DeCristof:
I have been looking for a solution to this for quite some time, and I want to personally thank you for using a little humility to recognize that no, Macs don't behave the same way as other (not just Windows) graphical user interfaces when it comes to the mouse pointer.
I downloaded and purchased (well worth the funds for me) "USB Overdrive" and now I have a pointer that moves around the screen like I'm moving my hands around the screen. So natural this way. So thank you very much for mentioning those haxies or preference applets or whatever you want to call them.
Now my Mac is 10 times better!!!
As an old Amiga user, and then Windows user, it has been so disorienting to work around the desktop with Mac OS's non-customizable motion preferences. It often had left me asking myself just what part of the OS is "more friendly?" Sure, it's a rock solid OS, but friendly? C'mon.....Sheesh...You mean after I find a THIRD PARTY HAXIE to make it that way?
Well, now I have nothing to complain about.
By the way, my Speed setting is at 160 dpi, and the Accelertaion is set at 90%, in USB Overdrive. And this feels just right for me.
Now if only I could make my pointer WHITE instead of BLACK, (yes I guess I'm racist...) and make it about four times bigger without making it look like a lego...
Color this thread A N S W E R E D, baby!
17" Mac Book Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

1080 + photoshop + motion = headache

alright i am making a 1080 hi def video and i want to add a photoshop file to it. i made a 1920 X 1080 canvas in photoshop with 72, and i also tried 300....(both didnt work in the end but here is what happens).....when i drop it into motion, it looks fine...but when i export it to a full quality quicktime movie and play it back in 1080, it looks way crummy...what's going on? it is on RGB too.

DPI has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with video. Pixels is all that matters. Any way you can post a still of your video and an original still to see the difference?
Patrick

How can I make a stop motion animation using Premiere Elements 13?

I am trying to make a stop motion animation with a series of still shots. So far I have managed to speed up the shots so that I have one frame per second but this is still not fast enough and I can't work out how to make them go any faster!
I am working on a class project with my 8/9 year olds and the project has stalled at this point because I can't get past this hurdle. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

yogawithlexi,
Welcome to the forum.
Im also needing to just edit the photos but adding text. Nothing fancy. I just want to make some flyers.
For editing photos, to be output to the printed page (whether by a commercial printing service, or a desktop printer), I strongly recommend Photoshop Elements (PsE).
If you need to output to a video file, then Premiere Elements (PrE) can possibly do what you want, but not for the printed page - at least not easily, and with the ultimate results. First, Video is not dependent on DPI/LPI (Dots Per Inch, or Lines Per Inch), where printed material will be. Also, while PrE can output a Still Image, the quality, when printed, will be far less, than what one can obtain with PsE.
Do you currently have Photoshop Elements on your computer, or only Premiere Elements?
Good luck,
Hunt

Has anyone used Motion for 'still graphics' (300dpi)?

I used Motion a lot several years ago on a film. Great app. I'm producing a series of Ebooks right now, with many graphics. I'm using Pages, Photoshop, EasyDraw, for the graphics ... but remember how marvelous Motion was.
I'm wondering if it is possible to use Motion just for doing still graphics? And how one might set the resolution to reflect this (something like 300 dpi), ... or can one set any size (a very large 72dpi (given it's designed for motion and video) that can then be translated to 300 dpi after the fact.
If anyone has ever used Motion for simple non-motion graphics, I'm all ears,
Ben

First of all, create a new document in Photoshop: enter your output format (US Letter, A4, whatever) with 300 dpi settings. Then change your units from to pixels and that is the size that your motion project should have.
Remember though, that Motion outputs only in RGB that has a much wider gamut than CMYK, which is the colorspace of print. So you might still have to color proof your image in Photoshop.
Also, depending on your graphics card, Motion has a limit of image sizes it can work on: 2K, 4K or 8K in the current models. For large print formats that could be not enough.
I would never use Motion for print jobs. However I can imagine that I could export (with transparency) some effects like stills from animated particles, 3D replicators and import them into my photoshop composition. So Motion could be used more like an extra tool.
Michal

PDF dropped into Motion problem

I created some graphic text in Illustrator, using the Extrude/Bevel effect, and saved it as an .ai file. Then I dropped the graphic into Motion. In Motion the image remains sharp even when large on the screen. The problem (and I wish I could attach a file to show it instead of describing it, but here it goes) is that in the curved areas of the text, in the smooth gradient blend in the extruded part of the text, there are horizontal lines going from the face to the back of the text. These lines appear to be banding from the blending steps, but they look smooth in Illustrator.
Any ideas? Has anyone successfully brought text extruded in Illustrator into Motion? Motion's Extrude Filter seems a little fuzzy, so I'd prefer not to use it. Seems to rasterize the graphic when it applies the filter.

Thank you. I had fixed resolution off. The image looked very sharp, even when enlarged. But, the lines (which are sharp) are in the curved parts of the gradiant. I Changed the bit resolution to 32-bit (it was 8-bit), but that didn't make a difference.
I tried this experiment: Instead of bringing the .ai into Motion and letting Motion convert it to a PDF, I rasterized the graphic in Illustrator first, then saved it as a PDF with 1200 dpi. This worked getting rid of the lines and the image looked very sharp when enlarged in Motion. BUT, the file size is 97 MB (compared to 1 MB) and the graphic gets unsmooth when it is smaller on the screen. So, this is not really a solution.
I'm guessing the problem has something to do with Motion's .ai to PDF conversion? The original in Illustrator has very mild, exceptable banding (to my eye), but when brought into Motion the bands become this sharp, thin, black lines.

Can I Do Pan & Zoom Motion in iDVD Photo Slideshows ?

I just moved over from a PC to an iMac, and am trying to make a DVD out of a lot of still images. In Roxio Easy Creator, you could select a Pan & Zoom option for the slideshows, which would give the effect of the photos moving around while the slideshow played, it simulated motion and looked really cool.
I s there a way to do this in iDVD ?
Thanks.

There are many ways to produce slide shows using iPhoto, iMovie or iDVD, but they all have one thing in common: they reduce the quality of the photos to that of a movie still frame and sometimes limit the number of photos you can use.
If what you want is what I want, namely to be able to use high resolution photos (even 300 dpi tiff files), to pan and zoom individual photos, use a variety of transitions, to add and edit music or commentary, place text exactly where you want it, and to end up with a DVD that looks good on both your Mac and a TV - in other words end up with and end result that does not look like an old fashioned slide show from a projector - you may be interested in how I do it. You don't have to do it my way, but the following may be food for thought!
Firstly you need proper software to assemble the photos, decide on the duration of each, the transitions you want to use, and how to pan and zoom individual photos where required, and add proper titles. For this I use Photo to Movie. You can read about what it can do on their website:
http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php
(Other users here use the alternative FotoMagico: http://www.boinx.com/fotomagico/homevspro/ which you may prefer - I have no experience with it.)
Neither of these are freeware, but are worth the investment if you are going to do a lot of slide shows. Read about them in detail, then decide which one you feel is best suited to your needs.
Once you have timed and arranged and manipulated the photos to your liking in Photo to Movie, it exports the file to iMovie 6 as a DV stream. You can add music in Photo to Movie, but I prefer doing this in iMovie where it is easier to edit. You can now further edit the slide show in iMovie just as you would a movie, then send it to iDVD 7, or Toast, for burning.
You will be pleasantly surprised at how professional the results can be!

Max Resolution or DPI of still images

Hi,
This is an offshoot of a problem I thought I was having with Encore CS5 and transcoding, but it is also part of the solution.
I was creating about a 30 min project on Premier CS5 with AVCHD and still images imported with a couple of mp3 music tracks. Win 7, GTX 295, 6MB Ram.
I can do whatever I wanted in premier in terms of any jpeg could be imported, scaled, add motion, zoom, effects, whatever..
When it was time to put it on a blu-ray, it would get send to Encore via the dynamic link and would always fail at seemingly random places during transcode and of course, ultimately crash, or come up with an "object not found" and ultimately never burn.
I tried all the suggestions, taking spaces out of file names, burning to a blu-ray folder, and everthing else I could find in the forums.
I also spent 2.5 hours with Adobe logged into my computer and they could not figure out why:
ENCORE CS4 would transcode and burn the exact same project CS5 would choke on and fail.
I had ignored the suggestion in the forum that Premier can't handle large image files.. After all, they seemed to load and work, I couldn't imagine that transcoding would fail on a still image at 4000X3000 and 300dpi, but wouldn't you know it, I resized all of my images to lower res, and bingo, CS5 churned and burned the blu-ray. I did notice after trying, that if it won't render in the work area of PPro CS5, that it would also fail in the transcoding in Encore CS5, but not CS4. If it didn't like a particular image, it would just freeze the render process and lock PPro CS5 right up.. After several image resizes and lots of reboots, it finally all rendered, and then it was fine in Encore CS5 after that.
So this brings me to my point, and I would love an official answer or guideline from Adobe..
What is the max resolution of still images that can be used in PPro CS5 and consequentally be handled in Encore CS5? What about dpi?
Am I correct to assume that 300dpi is useless in HD? Meaning, even in true HD on a tv screen, isn't it still 72dpi? I couldn't figure out if it was the DPI or the dimensions of the image it couldn't deal with. It seemed as long as I was around 2500X1500 and under 200 DPI I was ok.. but more than that was definately a show stopper. However, I would also think a 300dpi picture would be sharper and crisper, so this stinks that premier can't seem to deal with a 8-10 megapixel jpeg or image..
I really can't believe it, I really thought Adobe would be ready for todays images from cameras, I mean I think nearly every camera you can put your hands on now shoots 8-10 megapixels which would put you right there in 4000X3000 and 300 dpi, how could Premier Pro CS5 and Encore choke on those? And more amazingly why does Encore CS4 not choke?
D.J.

Ann,
Thank you for the link to that article, and it sort of explains the limits, but it doesn't explain why an image off of a camera that was a jpg at 4000X3000 and 300dpi , which is about 10 megapixels and about 5MB in file size choked the transcode process, as it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the limits. As soon as I changed the images to something more like 2500X1200 and 180 dpi or less, everything was fine.
Could it have anything to do with cumulation? For example, I had about 20 of these images set up in a slide show sort of way, and added some motion to them in the effects.. Do you think that matters?
Also, the DPI in relation to video, as I said, it sure does seem that a larger image at 300 dpi offers quite a bit more clarity in the final product than something at a lower DPI..Especially in the case where I want to zoom in on the image or use some motion.. Maybe I'm nuts and a 72dpi 1920X1080 image is all I will ever need, but then in that case, it doesn't leave much room to be able to zoom in or out and move it around.. And if you do zoom in a lower quality image, then the quality will really be seen when it becomes part of the video.. Which is why I wanted to start with higher res stuff in the first place..
D.J.

Still photo "zoom" through motion

Hi,
I'm trying to create a "memories slideshow" consisting of still photos that zoom in slowly. I'm encountering a couple problems that I'm hoping to get help with:
1) When zooming in by setting keyframes in each clip's motion tab, I find that it's difficult to get each photo to zoom in at the same speed and direction. Is there a shortcut to doing this easily? I guess the effect I'm aiming for is similar to what iPhoto does automatically with an album slideshow, just more controlled. (Is there any way to just do this from iPhoto and adjust the settings for each clip's duration and zoom?)
2) When I zoom in I find that the images become very blurry, although they are less so when viewed in the program I used to scan them (Lexmark Imaging Studio on a PC). I scanned the images at 300 DPI and saved them to JPEG. I realize these settings may not be optimal - what DPI and file format are recommended if I want to zoom in to, say, 5x?
Thanks.

1) When zooming in by setting keyframes in each
clip's motion tab, I find that it's difficult to get
each photo to zoom in at the same speed and
direction. Is there a shortcut to doing this easily?
I guess the effect I'm aiming for is similar to what
iPhoto does automatically with an album slideshow,
just more controlled. (Is there any way to just do
this from iPhoto and adjust the settings for each
clip's duration and zoom?)
Speed of a move is dependent upon the length of of the move. A move set up to do the "same" thing will be faster if there is a shorter duration between the keyframes. if all of you photos are the same size and aspect ratio, set one up to your liking then save that as a Motion Favorite, then you can apply that to them all. And there is no way to take info from iPhoto and adjust in FCP.
2) When I zoom in I find that the images become very
blurry, although they are less so when viewed in the
program I used to scan them (Lexmark Imaging Studio
on a PC). I scanned the images at 300 DPI and saved
them to JPEG. I realize these settings may not be
optimal - what DPI and file format are recommended if
I want to zoom in to, say, 5x?
300dpi is high for video. Video is 72dpi. But a higher dpi scan means you can zoom further in without the image breaking up. If they are blurry... have you rendered the move? They should look better when rendered.
Doing still moves is a difficult task. If you search the forum you will find many topics on the issue that will provide valuable tips.

DPI in Motion?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for