Pixel iteration when footage smaller than sequence size?

Hi everyone,
I am having a problem with my plugins when the footage is smaller than the sequence.
For some reason Premiere (and only Premiere, AE is fine in this regard) iterates pixels not from the clip origin (let's say 200,100), but from sequence origin (0,0). Since it only iterates the amount of pixels that is proper clip size (correct), it results in part of the layer being totally cut off (in this example 200 pixels from the right, and 100 pixels from below).
For what it's worth, if the clip has proper aspect ratio, and scale to sequence size is clicked, or if the bigger clip is scaled down, the effect is applied properly.
I have tried using various offsets, but I could not get it to work. Obviously I'm missing something. I am using AE SDK.
Thanks for any help.
Bart

OK, I got this mostly figured out with one exception. The following code:
ciP.crop_topF = params[CROP_TOP]->u.fs_d.value * in_data->height / 100 + in_data->pre_effect_source_origin_y * ciP.downsample_y.den / ciP.downsample_y.num
works fine for every downsampling ratio except for the full resolution, when the value is moved by fixed amount, independent of source origin, crop position, etc. Curiously, similar formula for x works fine, although it is later scaled by pixel ratio.
What values of are used for full resolution? What might be the reason for such behavior?

Similar Messages

Image size of iPhone 5S is smaller than screen size

When I click any picture with my iPhone 5s, the image size is always 20-30% smaller than screen size. Its like a picture clicked from iPhone 4, is this an issue or is it designed in that way?? Coz Images clicked in potrait mode are always cropped 20-30% and I am not liking it..

If auto adjust to fit with the Default Full Zoom extension isn't working then the pages may be using absolute values for elements and in such a case you would have to zoom the pages manually.
Can you post a link to a few pages where it isn't working properly?

Causes of ORA-01200: actual file size of x is smaller than correct size n ?

Hello everyone
We are running Oracle 11.2.0.3 64-bit E/E on Oracle Linux 6.2 with UEK R2 on X64.
Using Grid and ASM 11.2.0.3 and OMF names.
The database files are alll on SAN, the SAN vendor name not disclosed here to protect the innocent/guilty 8^)
I have a Test database MYDB (in NOARCHIVELOG mode) and after a normal server reboot, not a crash, the following error occured on Oracle database startup.
srvctl start database -d MYDB
PRCR-1079 : Failed to start resource ora.mydb.db
CRS-5017: The resource action "ora.mydb.db start" encountered the following error:
ORA-01122: database file 1 failed verification check
ORA-01110: data file 1: '+ASMDATA/mydb/datafile/system.256.787848913' <<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------------------- Corrupt file on ASM disk, system tablespace this time
ORA-01200: actual file size of 94720 is smaller than correct size of 98560 blocks <<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------------------- ERROR message
The ASM disks are all up and disk groups are mounted OK. The ASM protection level is EXTERNAL.
My understanding that the only proper recovery from the above error is to use RMAN Restore Database/File/Tablespace.etc (and then RMAN Recover, when in ArchiveLog mode).
I do have RMAN disk backups, so I don't need to "patch" the database to recover.
This is not my question at this point in time.
My Question is this : what are the most likely causes of such error?
Oracle Database bug? OS bug? Disk driver error? Server hardware failure (bus, memory, etc)? Or a SAN bug?
I expect that Oracle 11g R2 will always come up with the database "clean" if the server reboots or if server crashes (i.e. due to complete power failure) provided the actual storage is not physically damaged.
Our SAN vendor (no names!) says they are of the opinion that it's most likely Oracle database or Oracle Linux 6.x/UEK software bug, or probably Oracle ASM 11.2 bug.
We have opened a support call with Oracle.....
My personal experience dealing with similar database errors on more recent releases of Oracle (9i R2, 10g R2, 11g R2) and also MS-SQL 2005 and 2008 R2 suggests this kind of a problem is most likely related to errors/bugs in storage/drivers/firmware/BIOS and SAN and not likely to be a 'database' or O/S bug.
Perhaps you, good people on this forum, can share their experiences, as unbiased as you can?
Many thanks

Ive seen Ora-1200 twice I think over the years, both times there was disk problems which led to write issues which caused file problems, youve reported no such issues on your side though so if thats actually true, Im thinking bug.

Error Code - client cache is smaller than the size of the requested content

Even though we have increased the size of the ccmcache via Control Panel > Configuration Manager, we still get the Error Code 0x87D01202 (-2016407038) "the content
download cannot be performed because the total size of the client cache is smaller than the size of the requested content" The CCMEXEC Service and computer have both been restarted, after increasing the ccmcache size. Which local log
file under C:\Windows\CCM\Logs should we check for more information ?
Thanks

so when you re deploying the client go into your settings and set the variable below:
smscachesize=10240
note:
SMSCACHESIZE
Specifies the size of the client cache folder in megabyte (MB) or as a percentage when used with the PERCENTDISKSPACE or PERCENTFREEDISKSPACE property. If this property is not set, the folder defaults to a maximum size of 5120 MB. The lowest value that you
can specify is 1 MB.
Note
If a new package that must be downloaded would cause the folder to exceed the maximum size, and if the folder cannot be purged to make sufficient space available, the package download fails, and the program or application will not run.
This setting is ignored when you upgrade an existing client and when the client downloads software updates.
Example: CCMSetup.exe SMSCACHESIZE=100
Note
If you reinstall a client, you cannot use the SMSCACHESIZE or SMSCACHEFLAGS installation properties to set the cache size to be smaller than it was previously. If you try to do this, your value is ignored and the cache size is automatically set to the last
size it was previously.
For example, if you install the client with the default cache size of 5120 MB, and then reinstall the client with a cache size of 100 MB, the cache folder size on the reinstalled client is set to 5120 MB.
Twitter: @dguilloryjr LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/dannyjr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/dguilloryjr

ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 43776

Hi,
I am getting the following unexpected errors while going to create CONTROL files after successful completion of offline/online oracle backup RESTORE (of PRD system) on Quality system. We are following Database specific system copy method to do the same.
All the required pre & post restore activities for the same were carried out. Even the same RESTORE activities are performed with different different online/offline backups of PRD system to do such system copy. But, the thing is stuck at control file creation step with the following same error which is seen again & again after every DB restore operation.....
SQL> @/oracle/AEQ/saptrace/usertrace/CONTROL.SQL
ORACLE instance started.
Total System Global Area 4714397696 bytes
Fixed Size                  2050336 bytes
Variable Size            2365589216 bytes
Database Buffers         2332033024 bytes
Redo Buffers               14725120 bytes
CREATE CONTROLFILE REUSE SET DATABASE "AEQ" RESETLOGS ARCHIVELOG
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01503: CREATE CONTROLFILE failed
ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 437760 blocks
ORA-01110: data file 4: '/oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1/sr3.data1'
At OS level the file size of sr3.data1 is found 3586129920 bytes (= 437760 * 8192 bytes).
host1:oraaeq 20> cd /oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1
host1:oraaeq 21> ll
total 7004176
-rw-r--r--   1 oraaeq     dba        3586129920 May 11 02:26 sr3.data1
The above mentioned error is coming for all 294 data files. The reported file size difference is only of 1 Block in all data files. The DB block size is 8192 bytes.
Environment: (for SAP QUALITY & PRD systems)
OS: HP_UX ia64 B.11.23
SAP System : SAP ECC 6.0
Database: Oracle 10.2.0.2.0
Your help for this reported issue will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

Hi,
Thanks for your response.
We already have tried the same whatever you have mentioned as suggestions in ur last post .
We already tried to extend all 294 data-files as mentioned in that oracle forum link.
Its not the recommended way to play with data-files in such a way as it can lead to other unnecessary errors.
We have seen the following errors after successful creation of control file by manually extending all those 294 files (it was around 10hrs job).
Specify log: {<RET>=suggested | filename | AUTO | CANCEL}
auto
ORA-00332: archived log is too small - may be incompletely archived
ORA-00334: archived log: '/oracle/AEQ/oraarch/AEQarch1_268984_629943661.dbf'
have you tried also restoring init<SID>.ora file from PRD to new system.
I think its not having relationship with control file generation. Both systems are having same init files with respective SIDs.
Did you find any other points in your further investigation ?
I am thinking to perform Fresh SAP System Installation with same SID (AEQ) and then will try to do Database Restore again with last offline backup of AEQ system.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

Java Applet Smaller than actual Size

Hi:
I have a very strange problem with commercial java applications and IE 6.X Web Browser. I'll appreciate if some one can help me. Following is description of the problem:
1. If I run a commercial java application, which certainly uses jre and I have no access to the code, some applets are smaller than their actual size and I cannot resize them, 'cause resize is disabled in the code. This causes a problem, 'cause I can't see the full applet.
2. The pop up IE 6.X browser windows has the same problem.
3. I noticed this after installing the latest version of jre 1.4.1, and then I uninstalled it, tried another version, but can't solve the problem.
I'll appreciate if some body can help me solve this problem.
Thanks
Nadeem Ahmed

Hi,
some applets are smaller than their actual size and I
cannot resize them, 'cause resize is disabled in the
code.I don't understand : an applet is running in an HTML page and cannot be resized. The size of the applet is specified in the HTML "applet" tag. The only case in which the applet can be resized is if the size of applet is in % of page width (i.e. "width=100%")
Xavier

I'm trying to get the image to print correct size. i've tried center image, fit to media image, and they all come out the same size...smaller than the size in "image size". is this an Epson problem or Photoshop problem. Thanks!

I just got a new printer...Epson R3000...but have had this problem before. It's probably a simple fix, but I can't figure it out. I'm asking for printing on 8.5 x 11 and the image comes out 6.5 x 9.5 every time. Help please! And thanks!

The Epson site stated that the R3000 printer can print borderless however the quality will suffer in the expanded print area. Borderless is not supported on some heavy paper. To me the means your better off limiting you images size to the standard print area. There will be magins about 1/8" on the four sides so the print area on 8.5"x11" paper is 8.26" x 10.76"....
Take note of the print size set by the epson driver it may change depending on the paper type set. Note my first epson 4800 setup where I set 8.5" x 11" sheet paper from tray into the printer setting the driver set a smaller size for the paper which was reflected into the Photoshop Print preview. It shows paper is 8.499" x 10.999 with a small unprintable area across the top....
Paper
Use paper under normal conditions:
Temperature: 59 to 77 °F (15 to 25 °C)
Humidity: 40 to 60% RH
Note:
Since the quality of any particular brand or type of paper may be changed by the manufacturer at any time, Epson cannot guarantee the quality of any non-Epson brand or type of paper. Always test a sample of paper stock before purchasing large quantities or printing large jobs.
Single-sheets
Size
A4 (8.3 × 11.7 inches)
A6 (4.1 × 5.8 inches)
Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)
Legal (8.5 × 14 inches)
4 × 6 inches
5 × 7 inches
8 × 10 inches
11 × 14 inches
12 × 12 inches
Half Letter (5.5 × 8.5 inches)
B (11 × 17 inches)
A3 (11.7 × 16.5 inches)
Super B (13 × 19 inches)
Paper types
Plain paper
Special papers distributed by Epson
Thickness
0.003 to 0.004 inch (0.08 to 0.11 mm) in the sheet feeder
0.012 to 0.051 inch (0.3 to 1.3 mm) in the manual feed tray
Weight
17 lb (64 g/m2) to 24 lb (90 g/m2)
Printable Area
Note:
When printing borderless, quality may decline in the expanded printable area. Borderless printing is not supported with poster board.
Sheets
Top: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
Left: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
Right: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
Bottom: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
Roll Paper
Standard margins
Borderless printing margins
CD/DVDs
Caution:
Avoid printing in the clear plastic areas of your discs to prevent staining the disc with ink.

The masks require footage to match sequence size or they will work with a different scale.

It is normal now to shoot in 4K for 1080 timelines, will speedgrade be able to use masks disregarding the difference between timeline and footage size?

I asume you take a 4K and using Premiere's effect panel, applying the motion effect as position and scale to fit into a 1080 sequence and then Direct link to Speedgrade, apply a mask and it misses its target.
The work around is to lower the motion effect in Premiere's effect panel. But you cannot lower the motion effect, you need to apply the transform effect.
What I mean by that is :
- do not apply the motion effect
- apply the transform effect (it has same position and scale as the motion effect and can be re-arranged in Premiere's effect stacking order)
The transform effect is found in Premiere's effects panel under Video Effects \ Distort \ Transform
and apply your Lumetri from Speedgrade above that so your masks line up to target.

Apple TV screen is smaller than TV size

Hello. We just installed a sound bar on our TV and now the HDMI cable for the Apple TV is plugged directly into the receiver, vs the TV. Now the Apple TV screen is a smaller box centered in the middle of the TV, about half the size as the actual TV. Any idea how to fix this?

Check your TV settings.

Iphoto exports photos smaller than actual size

this problem just recently started, and i haven't changed anything (settings, os, way i import photos, etc...). basically when i upload photos on line, or open them up in another program by opening them through this process:
file - open - photos - iphoto library - data - *folder name* - *image title*
the photos all come out to be about 3x2 inches or so. most of them should be around 6x4 or so... i would just like to find a way to upload/open a file from iphoto, without having to take the photo out of iphoto, save it at a different file name into a different location, and having to open it up from that location. it adds too much work and uses up too much hard disk space, because i upload a lot of photos online.
anyone know?

The problem is that you're not exporting at all; you're grabbing the file from the iPhoto library. Since you're going into the Data folder, you're getting the thumbnail that iPhoto creates to make viewing your library efficient.
The correct way to do this is to choose the photos you want from within the iPhoto application (not the library folder in Finder). Select File > Export > File Export, where you can create a folder on your desktop for the exported copies. In the export dialog you will also have the option to rename the copies or resize them for better performance in email or websites. When you have used the exports you can delete them; iPhoto keeps your original files safe inside the library.
Okay, I know you said you want to leave them in the library. But you can save disc space by deleting your exports after you've finished uploading them.
The reason I'm reluctant to tell you how to do it your way is that one of the most common causes of iPhoto damage is when people mess around inside the iPhoto library folder in Finder. Any changes made while you're in there will break the link between your file and the iPhoto database. At worst, you can corrupt your whole database and have to start over with a fresh library.
That being said, you should know that the full-sized photos are contained in either the Originals folder (unedited photos here) or the Modified folder (edited and rotated photos here). The advantage to exporting is that iPhoto knows which one to copy; to find it yourself you have to go looking around a bit.
And, just to be safe, you can use Finder to make a duplicate of the file Library6.iPhoto, located just inside the iPhoto Library folder. (It's a relatively small file.) Keeping a current copy of this file will allow you to easily restore your library in the event of database corruption. I make a new duplicate every time I close iPhoto and keep the 2 most recent copies as back-up.

Photoshop images for chroma key background smaller than frame size??

Hi Guys can anyone help.
New to Final Cut Express. Putting together a project with Chroma Key and creating backgrounds in Photoshop. Creating PAL D1/DV 768x576 images. importing into final cut and image will not fit frame. I'm obviously doing something wrong. Any suggestions please? Thanks

Those numbers are for square pixel image sizes not for D1 pixels. Use those numbers for a flat image or one without transparency using square pixels.

Index size increases than table size

Hi All,
Let me know what are the possible reasons for index size greater than the table size and in some cases index size smaller than table size . ASAP
Thanks in advance
sherief

hi,
The size of a index depends how inserts and deletes occur.
With sequential indexes, when records are deleted randomly the space will not be reused as all inserts are in the leading leaf block.
When all the records in a leaf blocks have been deleted then leaf block is freed (put on index freelist) for reuse reducing the overall percentage of free space.
This means that if you are deleting aged sequence records at the same rate as you are inserting, then the number of leaf blocks will stay approx constant with a constant low percentage of free space. In this case it is most probably hardly ever worth rebuilding the index.
With records being deleted randomly then, the inefficiency of the index depends on how the index is used.
If numerous full index (or range) scans are being done then it should be re-built to reduce the leaf blocks read. This should be done before it significantly affects the performance of the system.
If index access’s are being done then it only needs to be rebuilt to stop the branch depth increasing or to recover the unused space
here is a exemple how index size can become larger than table size:
Connected to Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.3.0
Connected as admin
SQL> create table rich as select rownum c1,'Verde' c2 from all_objects;
Table created
SQL> create index rich_i on rich(c1);
Index created
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1179648 144 9
INDEX 1179648 144 9
SQL> delete from rich where mod(c1,2)=0;
29475 rows deleted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1179648 144 9
INDEX 1179648 144 9
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+100000, 'qq' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1703936 208 13
INDEX 2097152 256 16
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+200000, 'aa' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 2752512 336 21
INDEX 3014656 368 23
SQL> delete from rich where mod(c1,2)=0;
58952 rows deleted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 2752512 336 21
INDEX 3014656 368 23
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+300000, 'hh' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 3014656 368 23
INDEX 4063232 496 31
SQL> alter index rich_i rebuild;
Index altered
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 3014656 368 23
INDEX 2752512 336 21
SQL>

Filters are not working on resulting image smaller than 8191x2048

I have created AIR application using SDK 3.5 over the Flash Builder 4, and I am targeting AIR player 1.5.3. I have large text where user can apply outline. And to apply outline I am using Glow Filter, but somehow it is not working for texts which are too large but smaller than required size which is 8191x2048.
I am wondering why it is not working even if it is mentioned in Adobe Official site.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/filters/GlowFilte r.html
"A filter is not applied if the resulting image exceeds the maximum dimensions. In AIR 1.5 and Flash Player 10, the maximum is 8,191 pixels in width or height, and the total number of pixels cannot exceed 16,777,215 pixels. (So, if an image is 8,191 pixels wide, it can only be 2,048 pixels high.) In Flash Player 9 and earlier and AIR 1.1 and earlier, the limitation is 2,880 pixels in height and 2,880 pixels in width. For example, if you zoom in on a large movie clip with a filter applied, the filter is turned off if the resulting image exceeds the maximum dimensions."
If I remove the glow filter then it works.
Can any one suggest/advice, how the filter limit is not extended even if I am using proper SDK and AIR player.
Any help will be highly appriciated.
Thanks,

I have set -target-player=10.0.0 in the command line argument in the Flex compiler setting but still we are facing same issue for the not generating full text more than 4000px if we have applied Glow filters on the Text but if we removed the Glow filters from the text. Full text is displayed.
Our text dimention is : 1850x7200(with glow filters), This is below the 16,777,215 limits of Bitmap text. But still we can't generate the Full text.
Regards,

When I try to print a photo downloaded from Facebook in iPhoto, I can't get the size I specify to print correctly. Example: 5x7 prints smaller than 5x7. What do I do to solve this problem?

When I try to print a photo downloaded from Facebook in iPhoto, I can't get the size I specify to print correctly. Example: 5x7 prints smaller than 5x7. What do I do to solve this problem?

Those pixel dimemsions have aspect ratios that are not the same as a 5 x7 print:
1360 x 1360 = 1.0
790 x 640 = 1.23
2048 x 1366 = 1.5
An 7 x 5 image = 1.4.
So you'll need to crop the images to 5 x 7 before printing. The first two images are a little light in the pixels to produce a high resolution 5 x 7 print.
Happy Holidays

When I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

when I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

Are the image all the same size the % files open into a document seems to vary with the number of pixels the image being opened has. Check the Image size.

Pixel iteration when footage smaller than sequence size?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for