Zooming limit for photo

Hi
Can anybody suggest, whether there is any way you can identify the optimum zooming level for photos while using kepburn effect, it does the zoom irrespective of the photo size be it a small image or high res image. Because of this when you see the final movie some photos are pixelated and some are really good.
Or the only way is eye judgement, if it looks grainy then reduce the zoom level? I am expecting something like after certain zoom level it wont let you zoom further..!!!???
thanks in advance
Sanjeev

Also please suggest how do I know that I am making 1x
zoom and 4.4x zoom any tips appreciated.
We set the zoom with the zoom slider in the Photo Settings window. It allows us use a zoom from 1.00 to 5.00. The slider zooms in on the original image.
More clarification from Karl Petersen, the last line
in your reply is still a bit confusing for me as I am
amateur here. In the last line you say 'we want to
aoid enlargina the chunk we grab with the Ken Burns
zoom' can you please elaborate on this for me.
I was afraid someone would ask.
When we use the zoom slider we essentially crop the image — grab just a portion of it to display in the clip. The image that's grabbed is always 640x480, no matter what zoom we use and no matter the size of the source image. Hold that thought.
iMovie quality is sacrificed whenever iMovie must enlarge or shrink the content to make the 640x480 clip. We want to avoid that. A little enlarging or shrinking is okay, but not a lot. Creating a 640x480 clip from a 4000x3000 image shrinks it a lot, which isn't good.
Instead of using iMovie's zoom slider to crop, it's actually better to use iPhoto's crop tool — set to a 4:3 aspect ratio for a DV project, 16:9 for wide projects — to crop the image to the content we want, then export that cropped image from iPhoto to a 640x480 image (for DV) that we import to iMovie. That delivers the best quality.
If we do not resize the image before importing it to iMovie, the size of the source image — its height and width, in pixels — suggest the ideal cropping zoom for that image. An image that's three times wider than 640, for example, suggests we use a 3x zoom to avoid sacrificing quality. In fact, a 3x zoom is ideal, for then iMovie doesn't have to resize the grabbed portion used to make the clip.
If, on the other hand, we use a 2x zoom on that same image, iMovie must shrink the grabbed portion to make it fit 640x480. If we use a 4x zoom, iMovie must resize the grabbed portion larger, so it fills 640x480. Both sacrifice quality.
So whenever a source image is larger than 640x480 we should 1) crop it in iPhoto — cropping is optional — then export it from iPhoto to an image that's 640x480; or 2) crop the image with the iMovie zoom slider set to avoid expanding or shrinking the cropped portion of the image. The ideal zoom is (the width of the image) divided by 640. iMovie lets us use a different zoom, of course, but it sacrifices quality.
Karl

Similar Messages

  • Please tell me you can use pan/zoom tool for photo slideshow with photos not cropped to screen?

    I'm new to Mac and Premiere Elements (former PC/Sony Vegas Movie user), and am trying to do a Ken Burns type photo slideshow wherein my photos are left in their normal cropped state.  Right now it seems all photos get cropped to fill the screen size (i.e. 16:9).  I saw where you could uncheck the scale photo size to media (or something to that effect) under the general setting in preferences, but using the pan/zool tool still shows photos cropped to fill screen.  I realize conflicting aspect ratio will result in black bars top/bottom or left/right of frame, and that's ok/what I want.  I'm hoping this is doable?  Thanks, Jim

    jimdrought
    The primary question that I have is what is the end product...DVD-VIDEO Standard on DVD disc, DVD-VIDEO Widescreen on DVD disc or other?
    Let us assume for now DVD-VIDEO Widescreen on DVD disc. The next question that falls into line is the one relating to what you describe as an assortment of photos going into this project...what are the pixel dimensions (what range of...) and aspect ratio. For aspect ratio, are we talking 4:3 or 16:9. How many of these photos are landscape oriented or how many portrait oriented.
    In generalities at this point, I would ask you to look at:
    a. bringing your photos appropriately sized into a Premiere Elements project with an appropriate project preset.
    b. leaving Edit Menu/Preferences/General with its Default Scale to Frame Size with a check mark.
    c. in the workspace, scaling the photos to just fill the space in the Edit Mode Monitor
    d. then one by one pan and zoom a photo with the Pan and Zoom Tool.
    If you use this Tool, you should get good results. One consideration is that the process results in the Timeline photo having a much larger duration AFTER than BEFORE. If you see any pros in using this tool for your purposes, then you might want to explore the technique that I described for applying a pan and zoom effect from this Tool to more than one photo at a time.
    http://www.atr935.blogspot.com/2013/05/pe11-pan-zoom-tool-more-than-one-photo.html
    You also might want to explore fxEffects/Presets for horizontal and vertical pans or zoom. The catch in the presets is that you can apply a pan OR zoom, not a pan AND zoom to each photo.
    Keyframing of Scale (for Zoom) and Position (for Pan) should be explored under Applied Effects/Applied Effects Palette/Motion Panel expanded/Scale and Position properties.
    With more details from you, we could go step by step in any of the above.
    We will be watching for your progress.
    Thanks.
    ATR

  • Is there a size limit for Photo Stream albums?

    I have uploaded about 100 photos from my PC to Photo Stream. I would like to sort them into 3 albums on my iPhone, but it will only let me put a maximum of 7 photos in one of the albums and 4 in another. What am I doing wrong?

    You have max 20GB storage.
    Upload anything you want up to that limit - be it one file or many.
    The only limit after that is the speed of your internet connection since extremely large files can take hours to upload.

  • Auto zoom settings also applied for photo popup, very annoying! when u zoom out in popup, website also zooms out

    http://blog.gsmarena.com/see-how-the-nokia-lumia-928-fares-against-the-samsung-galaxy-s4-in-low-light-conditions/
    sice i have FULL HD screen i have to use page zoom. But check the above page, the photo popups as well are applied zoom. Very annoying and when zoomed out popup, the website as well zooms out.
    Firefox stores the page zoom per domain, fine but how about photo pop ups?
    zooming in a 5 MP, 10 MP camera output??

    Firefox should try to fix a fault with the webpage?
    Have you tried loading those images with Internet Explorer? Or Opera?
    For me, IE 8 shows '''"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"''' - the image loads very large, like with Firefox 21, but the rest of the PHP page doesn't completely load and that error / warning message appears.
    Opera 12 shows the large image with this message. <br /> '''"Could not connect to remote server''' <br />
    Check that the address is spelled correctly, or try searching for the site.<br />http://www.gsmarena.com/ads-blog-728.php3 "
    Sorry - IMHO, Firefox is loading that image (PHP page) as instructed, the fault doesn't appear to me to be a fault with Firefox.
    Why not wait a few hours for some more opinions about this issue. There are a couple of other support helper's on this forum who have vastly more experience with this "web stuff" than I have.
    One "dirty" fix for that which I can share is to use a bookmarklet to make the image smaller on the screen, once the "page" is fully loaded. Simply click the bookmarklet to "halve" the image.<br />
    https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/pagedata.html <br />
    '''zoom images out''' = which will "halve" the image
    That will help you get around changing the zoom factor for the whole domain every time you view an image on that website.
    And if that "half-size" isn't small enough you can edit the "Location" line of that bookmarklet to a "decimal fraction" that is usable for your display.
    This is the full javascript code for that bookmarklet.
    <pre><nowiki>javascript:(function(){%20function%20zoomImage(image,%20amt)%20{%20if(image.initialHeight%20==%20null)%20{%20/*%20avoid%20accumulating%20integer-rounding%20error%20*/%20image.initialHeight=image.height;%20image.initialWidth=image.width;%20image.scalingFactor=1;%20}%20image.scalingFactor*=amt;%20image.width=image.scalingFactor*image.initialWidth;%20image.height=image.scalingFactor*image.initialHeight;%20}%20var%20i,L=document.images.length;%20for%20(i=0;i<L;++i)%20zoomImage(document.images[i],.5);%20if%20(!L)%20alert("This%20page%20contains%20no%20images.");%20})();</nowiki></pre>
    This part of that string, near the end - '''.5''' - is what halves that image. <br />
    %20zoomImage(document.images[i],'''''.5''''');%20if%20( <br />
    Edit that '''.5''' to .3 or .25 and see if that makes the image small enough to fit your screen.
    Here's a little background on '''bookmarklets'''. <br />
    http://www.webreference.com/js/column35/index.html <br />
    http://www.worldtimzone.com/bookmarklets/ <br />
    http://www.bookmarklets.com/

  • One Finger Zoom Plugin For Web & Photo Browser - M...

    concepts.shpe.ro/ZoomRotate.php");return false" target=_blank>http://concepts.shpe.ro/ZoomRotate.php
    One Finger Zoom Plugin For Web & Photo Browser - Multitouch Alternative?
    one finger multittouch for 5800xm and n97 very simple to implement zoom/rotate control by doubletapping you set a control point and when you drag the control takes efect need just one hand to controll (multitouch needs two hands to control - you have to hold the device with other hand
    develope it now and upload it to Ovi store, make it free or donationware

    You can listen to whomever you wish.
    But here's why I'm telling you what I am.
    I've been doing this type of thing with still images from a Nikon D200 and now D300 and intercutting them to a video shot with a HVX200, and now HPX170 and HMC150 for more than three years.
    FCP does not have the controls to achieve a professional result.
    More than that, its ease in/out controls jump the image and provide sparse control over the areas of interest and the zoom/pans, among other things.
    I love Noise Industries products. I've tested this one. It's better than some.
    But the interface isn't conducive to a good workflow, and you need to render to see results.
    I respect David's opinions on just about everything.
    But I have tried just all of them - FCP, AE, Motion, Still Life, Moving Picture, PhotoToMovie, Lyric Media's product, and this one from Niclas's NI collection, etc.
    FotoMagico is inexpensive and produces far better results than anything I've seen. And it is so much easier and intuitive to use.
    And I always watch Boise State football.

  • HT4858 Is there any time lime for how long photos are kept in PhotoStream?

    Can it be used as a back-up service for photos?
    Are there plans to implement some folder structure or picture tagging (that would simplify search)?

    Photo Stream is designed as a sync service between all your iPhones, iPods touch, iPads, Macs and PCs with iCloud. That's because Photo Stream deletes your photos 30 days after adding them, so you can't use it as a backup service for your photos.
    We haven't heard anything at a future photo store service on iCloud, but you can send the idea to Apple > http://www.apple.com/feedback

  • Mac Pro Late 2013 or iMac Late 2013 for photo editing?

    Hi,
    I am currently running with a Late 2009 iMac (i7, 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD) and I am mainly doing RAW post-processing with Lightroom and some steps (auto-stitching panoramas, more complicated layered editing/sharpening/re-coloring) in Photoshop CS 5.5.
    With the RAW images of my Canon EOS 60D and my Fuji X-M1 being >20MB I am increasingly seeing stuttering in the workflow when loading 1:1 zooms, exporting images and rendering previews. I am not sure where it's coming from but after 4 years with the iMac I think it's time for something new.
    I am trying to decide between a fully-loaded Late 2013 iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) or a Late 2013 (although more like Early 2014 ) Mac Pro (6-core 3.5 GHz, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD). Performance-wise for my use it seems in single-threaded situations the iMac might even be faster (based on Geekbench Single-Core 64Bit Benchmarks) but the Mac Pro offers two extra cores - also the memory speed in the Mac Pro is higher.
    So for the first decision criteria I want to make sure I opt for the fastest machine in my use case described above - it's not really clear to me if the iMac would indeed be faster given the low multi-core utilization in Adobe's code.
    The second criteria is the ability to use arbitrary displays/monitors with the Mac Pro versus having the panel included already inside the iMac. To what extend can the iMacs 27" panel be utilized for photo-processing? I heard they can't be calibrated properly and I rarely find information how much sRGB/AdobeRGB coverage the panel has. I am looking increasingly more into color-management enabled workflow to get a decent soft-proof of my photos before I sent them over for printing - this is for home and amateur use only but I had some bad experiences already with images coming out from professional photo studies with completely dark shadows and different teints.
    On the other hand I would also like to use multiple but smaller monitors (24") to make use of multi-monitor support in Lightroom (Library view on second screen etc) and have third monitor to control/monitor the rest of my activities (iTunes, Spotify, Browser, Youtube etc )
    An iMac with two additional 24"/27" displays will always look a bit crappy due to the different heights and visually iritating due to different panels/resolutions. On the other hand it's a much cheaper solution than a Mac Pro with 3 distinct monitors and I heard only good things about the sharpness and clarity of the iMacs screen due to reduced filtering and thinner construction.
    The last criteria is how future-proof the solution is. 4K displays are clearly on the horizon and 2-3 years from now I expect them to be standard over ordinary HD displays. Even today you can use a Mac Pro with a 4K display in high-dpi mode and get a Retina display on your desktop - something I would really look forward to. With the iMac that would mean replacing the whole thing in 2-3 years if there will be a 4K/Retina-iMac at all.
    The Mac Pro seems to bet better in solution longevity given it is still a very capable machine in 4-5 years from now with up to 3 4K displays hooked up and still room for at least 3 Thunderbolt 2 devices. Double Gigabit-Ethernet is nice but also only nice-to-have as it won't speed up point-to-point single-stream data transfers to a LACP-bound NAS.
    So, given all these thoughts... what do you think? Would it be more wise to go with the iMac and replace it in 3 years or with the Mac Pro and keep it 4,5-6 years?

    RAM and some serious PCIe-SSD storage will help Aperture/LR. But I am use to spreading things out, learned long ago the benefits on concurrent and never reading+writing though didn't have todays 1.2Gb SSD to play with.
    Was not to move the thread,  but to ask there also for first hand on how they like the 2013 iMac now. I just don't feel comfortable spending that much when I know Mac Pro is designed for heavy use, better thermals, IS upgradeable, and will last longer.
    Marco seems to have changed site or the article is off line.
    Try this article if you want to understand new Turbo Boost specs:
    http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
    http://www.marco.org
    http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/
    http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster- weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html
    (2013) Mac Pro review (verge)
    2013 Mac Pro review: small, fast and in a league of its own (engadget)
    Tested: New Mac Pro is the speedster we've been waiting for (finally)

  • 24"iMAC optimal screen resolution for photo processing

    I have a 24" iMAC (matte) and do mostly photo editing. What is the optimal screen resolution for photo processing work?
    thanks
    a/d/

    All Screens are 72 dpi (dots per inch- in reference to pixels) no matter what screen resolution you use. The only difference the screen resolution will make is the size of the photo when you are viewing. Higher resolution means the picture will take up less space in you work area, but you will most likely have to zoom in to edit finer areas. Lower resolution will cause the picture you are editing to take up more of your work space and to see multiple photos side by side you will have to zoom out of fron the photos. So, really the choice is up to you.
    When creating the original document, this is where you need to monitor the dpi. The higher the dpi, the clearer your photo will look in print. A high dpi also means more disk space is being taken up by the photo. Generally a good dpi for print is 300 dpi. Anything that is only purposed for a screen based project (i.e. internet logos) should be saved at 72 dpi. Why use disk space and cause your pages to take longer load if no one will be able to tell the difference on screen between 72 and 300 dpi?
    Hope this helps!

  • HT4858 How do I limit a photo from being shared on photo stream (using as screen saver on Apple TV, but don't want family photos shared in presentation)

    I am attempting to use my Apple TV and Ipad for a public presentation and want to show business pictures on the screen saver, but I don't want personal family pictures shown. Is there a way to limit these photos or set up an album for the screen saver on the presentation?

    Put the photos that you wish to use for your presentation or screensaver into a photo stream shared album and then choose that album as your screensaver in your screensaver settings.

  • When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  This always looks better than cropping., When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  This always looks better than cropping.

    When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  I would like a screen shot of my zoomed in photo - is this possible?.  Cropping doesn't give the same effect as zooming in and magnifying the photo.  Any help would be appreciated thank you.  I have an iMac

    To take a screenshot of the zoomed photo, press either the key combination
         ⇧⌘3   for a screenshot of the full screen, or
         ⇧⌘4   to bring up a selection rectangle: select the section of the screen, that you want to save.
    The screenshots will be sent to your desktop; drag them from there to the iPhoto icon in the Dock to import them.

  • Where can I Increase the size limit for attachments

    Good Morning:
    I am working in OCS R2 (9.0.4). Where can I Increase the size limit for attachments in the messages sent. Also can I set this parameters to user level or the change affect every user in the system?
    Thanks a lot.

    babowa wrote:
    The only way to increase the fonts on your desktop would be system wide by going down a notch on the resolution. Some people won't do it because it increases the pixel size so the fonts won't be quite as sharp; I decided I'd rather have that than having to squint continuously. Go to System Preferences > Displays > Scaled > this will give you all resolution options available. No harm in trying - just check the default (top) choice again if you don't like any of the others.
    It's a b*&^ch getting old .  I still use the screen zoom instead of decreasing resolution, but maybe soon ...

  • TOP LIMIT FOR "OR" SEARCH IN METADATA FILTER

    Would anyone know the top limit for an "OR" search in the Metadata Filter.  Like if you are searching with keywords, how many keywords can you choose in the same column?  Could it be 20?  50?  I have an iMac with Mountain Lion 10.8.4 and Lightroom 5.
    Thank You For Any Help,
    Thank You,
    Sandy

    I agree with dj_paige.  I just did a quick experiment with a catalog containing 627 keywords:  In the Metadata browser, I added a Keyword column and selected all 627 keywords.  The same number of photos were displayed as when no keywords were selected, which is the expected result.

  • Unnecessary page limit for Blurb book in Lightroom Book module

    I'm posting this per Julieanne Kost's request following an email exchange regarding this topic.  I am in the process of making a photobook using Lightroom and discovered when I reached page 240 that I couldn't add any additional pages, much to my surprise.  I was surprised because I knew from Blurb's website that the limit for standard paper is 440 pages and mistakenly assumed that this limit would also apply within Lightroom.  I did more research online and found many others being surprised by this limitation after spending hours and days on a photo book.  I will likely work around this by exporting from Lightroom to .jpg and uploading to Blurb, but that will take extra time and effort and reduces the appeal of using Lightroom to create a Blurb book.  I had also tried exporting from Lightroom to .pdf only to find that the .pdf format exported by Lightroom is not compatible with the requirements of Blurb.
    My recommendation in the short term would be for Adobe to warn Lightroom Book Module users up front that Lightroom's page limits differ from those if going directly through the Blurb website.
    My recommendation in the longer term would be for the Adobe engineers to make whatever changes are necessary in the Lightroom code to allow for 440 pages when standard paper is selected (and more specifically to make the page limits match the limits of Blurb's actual books).  If there is any way to impress upon Adobe management the importance of this, I believe it would be greatly appreciated by many Lightroom/Blurb users.

    I agree with that (though a 330 page Blurb book would break the bank :-)
    I would also like to see the LR book module allow at least all the same Cover Templates as Booksmart does - I feel really constrained with both of them but much more so with LR...At least let us Drop a Full bleed finished cover on to the front and back covers!
    Lately, I do all the page making in PS, move to LR to manage the page numbering and then export to jpg and ingest to Blurb to make my books...pretty kludgy, isn't it?

  • Is there a file size limit for images in keynote on a mac?

    Is there a file size limit for images in keynote on a mac?

    If you right click on the file (navigate to it using finder, or if it is in iCloud you should open keynote, File -> Open and you should see a list of your iCloud keynotes) then press command+i, you'll pull up the info tag which will tell you the file size.
    Keynote also has an option to Reduce File Size  (File -> Reduce Files Size) but I do not recommend it at all because it will severely degrade the quality of your pictures. 
    It's also possible to reduce an individual image's memory size in your keynote by right clicking it and selecting Reduce Image File Size).  This is more time-consuming but allows you to see if the degraded photo quality is still good enough, and you can always undo it.

  • Dedicated video card important for photo editing?

    I am in the market for a new mbp, for photo editting (Lightroom, and photoshop occationally), debating between the 13" with an external monitor or 15".  I am sure the cpu power of the 13" should be enough.  What about the video card.  Is the integrated video card on the 13"s good enough?  I don;t play video games.
    Thanks!

    I would actually be more concerned with the CPU power on the 13''. Though it will run CS6, the dual core processor will limit performance more than the integrated graphics. The integrated Iris on the 13'' is good enough, but processing speed may be an issue if you are doing heavy editing/ running concurrent processes. You may want to go with the baseline 15'' without the discrete GPU, with even better integrated graphics (Crystalwell), and, most importantly, with the quad core i7 configuration.
    Comparison of the multicore 64bit benchmark test scores from Geeksquad show that CPU performance between the mid 2013 Air and Late 2013 13'' MB Pro are almost identical:
    Macbook Pro Retina (13'' Late 2013): 6206
    Macbook Air (13'' Mid 2013): 6140
    Compare with....
    Macbook Pro Retina (15'' Late 2013): 13429
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Maybe you are looking for