FORUMS: list search recent posts

stills in browser

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Alan
stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 1:37:29 am

I’m doing a project in which I have a lot of imported stills. Canon 5D raw. I would like to color correct them before editing them to a time line. Yes I would do some more correcting later (matching mostly) but which ones I use and in which order will be partially determined by how good they look after correction and cropping. Is there any way of accessing color correction in the browser? If not, I guess as a work around I could put them all in a new timeline and work with color, delete the ones I'm rejecting, save the ones I like as single shot compound clips. But really I want to pre-edit them without adding layers and layers to the organization in the browser.

Right clicking them in browser to
‘Open in timeline’ is grayed out regardless if the clip has been used or if no range or one range is selected. Video in the same library it is not grayed out. And this also feels like an unnecessary destructive step as well. I guess the better alternative is to pre edit them in another program before importing. But I'm not editing these as stand alone stills for print. Ultimately they will be part of a 16x9 video and need to marry well with the video elements. Within the 16 x 9 frame they can be cropped and letter boxed - That I don't mind. Mostly they will not be used as a freeze frame of video look but will be seen as photos. Just the same photos that fit in a 16 x 9 frame - letter boxed of not. The landscape view shots were all shot in 16 x 9.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 2:34:19 am

You don't need to put them in a timeline or anything like that. Just select a clip in the browser and open the inspector (CMD+4). Then click on the color correction and correct away.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:28:18 am

Then what setting do I have wrong? Because I'm not seeing that option in the inspector. On a selected video clip I'm seeing color with the box you can toggle on and off but there is no arrow icon to enter color correction.

On stills, I am seeing info and share tabs at top of inspector that is all.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:40:34 am

Not sure I'd ever want to import a bunch of 22.5 Megapixel RAW stills into X for color correction. At the video raster sizes X is built to handle - it's a little like folding a 22x28 poster up to store in your wallet. I'd do the still work in Lightroom or Aperture. Then export a 1920x1080 frame at 600 dpi - which would give you ample zoom headroom without totally wasting storage space and clogging up the X pipes with stupidly oversized rasters. But that's just me.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 5:50:58 am

[Bill Davis] "Then export a 1920x1080 frame at 600 dpi - which would give you ample zoom headroom without totally wasting storage space"

1920x1080 is 1920x1080 no matter what dpi setting you give it. There isn't any extra zoom headroom there.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 6:44:48 am

I thought higher resolution media allows you to maintain quality even when you crop a shot? Does DPI mean anything on an all digital workflow?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:36:51 pm

Right. (I'm pretty sure Bill probably just misspoke or I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.) In my experience, DPI means nothing in video or motion graphics and is ignored. DPI is nothing more than a command to tell the printer what density to print the pixels involved. If you have 1920 pixels @ 600dpi, then it would print out a picture 3.2 inches wide. It's just a little math. 1920/600=3.2. 1920@300dpi would just mean the printer should print those pixels at a 300 dots per inch density resulting in an image that would be 6.4 inches wide. 300dpi is roughly considered photo quality where the human eye can't discern any pixels. So a standard 1920x1080 still of HD can be printed at 6" wide and have photo quality. You can usually push this into the low 200dpi range and it still be pretty acceptable. Thats for photos you hold in your hand. The bigger something is, like a billboard, the farther away you'll be so it's relative size is smaller and it's dpi can be less. Billboards are not 300dpi. Stand a foot from a billboard and you'll see the pixels no problem. They're huge. That's where Apple is going with it's whole retina thing. They make the argument that the bigger the product the farther away you'll hold it so it's all the same. Classic apple.

Resolution is all about the number of pixels. Until they get placed on a tangible physical object. Then it's about dots per inch. That's why you don't buy a "600dpi" camera. The phrase would have absolutely no meaning. It could mean that it takes a picture that is 600dpi, but only if you print it at 3.2 inch size. It has no bearing on the actual number of pixels in the image. That's why they use megapixels and we use 2k, 4k, 5k.

If you were scanning photos, then you have to do the reverse math. You have to determine the number of pixels you want in your picture and choose the appropriate dpi. Scanning a bunch of 4x6s at 600dpi is overkill (if they're horizontal) because you'd end up with lots of 3600 pixel wide images. But if they're verticals, you'd be in the ballpark for HD because the horizontal would be 2400, giving some room beyond 1920 to play with crop or scale.

In your case, if you wanted to do a little zoom creep, I'd probably use an image of around 2500 pixels wide. That gives a lot of zoom room. Especially in a world where 720p is often mixed with 1080p without much notice.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 5:37:02 pm

Thanks Bret,
Been doing some searches about raw stills. Ripple training has a tutorial on a work flow in which any changes you make in photoshop (non destructive) is added to the same file in FC. But consistently all the articles indicate the need for a different application to send the files to FC. They mention that FC can not manipulate the raw stills directly. However, and again I'm talking without any experience except for the last week, When I put one of these raw files on a timeline, the color correction in FC seems to work just fine. FC does not have as many of the controls I see on these dedicated programs but I am able to adjust exposure, color, saturation, add filters, etc. Did 10.1 add the ability to work with raw stills? Or am I not really taking advantage of all the raw data that is the whole point of starting with raw files? The promise seems to be that since the image isn't baked as it would be with jpegs that you can adjust settings that normally would have had to take place when you shot it.

Not really sure what this implies. If I shot with a certain F-stop, ISO, and shutter speed which are the variables that effect exposure, raw files can have the pixels manipulated in a way a baked image cannot? F-stop also controls the depth of field and I don't see that changing because its raw. Shutter speed can't be changed after the fact, it was only open so long - that is the imaging chip was only exposed to the incoming light for so long. What exactly gets baked if you let the camera process the image as a jpeg? That is left untouched as a raw file? And other than more control in dedicated programs, what can't FC do exactly? I've exported changes I've made in the timeline using save as still and my changes are there in the exported image. I don't own any more capable program except I now downloaded resolve lite. No one seems to mention this as an option other than for color correcting (not processing raw files). If I need to I will get photoshop or aperture or the like. iPhoto has the ability to process raw files but with more basic tools than the pro apps. Still for the time being if I need to is that a reasonable option?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:16:01 pm

[Craig Alan] "If I need to I will get photoshop or aperture or the like. iPhoto has the ability to process raw files but with more basic tools than the pro apps. Still for the time being if I need to is that a reasonable option?"

Pixelmator has some good tools that will take you beyond iPhoto and it's very cheap:

http://www.pixelmator.com/

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 6:17:36 am

I recently read that raw stills gives you more freedom to color correct, but I am just getting my feet wet with color correction so I’m not defending the practice one way or the other. These stills will be used for both FC movies and for stills and prints. I don't own Lightroom or Aperture. I’m not opposed to learning, though I have my hands full at the moment. I have downloaded DaVinci Resolve lite. Hope to start learning that.

If there is a better workflow that will still yield the best image quality, I am more than happy to hear suggestions, which is why I posted to begin with - to learn.

One 13 second clip from our P2 cam is 183 MB; where as one raw shot is 26 MB. And I need to save the still images on my media drive anyway. Or are you suggesting that importing these files slows down FC?

If no professional imports raw stills into their NLE because it wastes space with no possible gain, then I will certainly consider an alternative. That said, until I own and learn another program for stills, I am using FC and will be exporting frames from FC to use as stills and prints. I lot of the shots look really beautiful to me on the Mac and on the broadcast monitor.

Sometimes I can help another poster with something that I have learned that they don't know yet. I don’t do this to show off how smart I am or how stupid the OP is. But that’s just me. Oh wait, I take that back, that’s almost every one else on this forum as well.

Still my original question remains: what is the best workflow within FC to color correct before editing to the timeline?

If I were to edit the stills in another program, my media drive would not save any space, but would FC remain faster or have less trouble with the media?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:48:49 pm

In the photog world the benefit of RAW that the data can all be changed without any detriment to the image. The file can be reopened and readjusted. You're actually changing the display characteristics of the image. You're just saying interpret the blacks darker, the blues more red, the whites more yellow, etc.

If you try to do this to a compressed jpeg, then just like video it has to be "rendered" upon output. Meaning it has to be run through the jpeg compressor again upon saving.

Since we're doing that anyway to whatever stills you bring in, RAW or otherwise, I don't see any point in you brining in RAW. Plus, to edit raw, you have to have specific software that can adjust the raw parameters. FCP has these adjustments for particular formats of video, but I don't believe it has them for stills. So any adjustments to color and such is just a standard color effect, downstream of the raw data anyway. And FCP is recompressing the image to the resolution and codec of the timeline anyway.

Yes, images of that size are very taxing on FCP. Since they're probably 10x the file size of a jpeg, they require more memory and processing power. Because they're twice the resolution they need to be, they require more memory and processing power.

If you have a lot of these, batch processing them first to pngs or jpegs in photoshop at half their horizontal dimension would be a good idea. You can color correct them in FCP if you like if that gives you more flexibility, but I'd do it to the final product just like a video. Not in the browser.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:23:29 pm
Last Edited By Dave Gage on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:29:26 pm

Bret,

As a slight aside to the topic here...

I haven't thought about this since the beginnings of FCPX, but although it can handle many formats, is it still assumed that the default photo format should be a .png? I seem to remember someone saying that since FCPX outputs stills as a .png that this would be the format it "likes" best.

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:43:06 pm

I don't know. But ever since pngs came around and you could save a multilayered psd as a png and the transparency was perfectly preserved (without the need to go into the channels palette and cut your own alpha channel) I've switched to them. Jpg has always seemed to be the least compatible on many ways. It's compressed, so it has overheAd to decompress. And in the past with different AJA and matrox and BMD boards I got different results. Sometimes they wouldn't preview to the client monitor unless placed in the timeline. However, in my last days with legacy, any time I loaded a png in the viewer, it would crash. And it happened just the other day on a machine where I've just run legacy for the first time, making that the 4th system in a row over 3 years that I've seen that behavior.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:52:02 pm
Last Edited By Dave Gage on Jan 7, 2014 at 7:53:32 pm

[Bret Williams] "But ever since pngs came around and you could save a multilayered psd as a png and the transparency was perfectly preserved (without the need to go into the channels palette and cut your own alpha channel) I've switched to them."

Yep, they seem to be trouble free in FCPX for my experience. I was just wondering if the thinking had changed on their use.

I still can't really email .pngs to people that may be on Windows. Whenever I email a screenshot I always convert it in Preview to a .jpg first so I don't have to go through the process again later when they complain that they can't "see" the picture.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 1:54:22 am

Pngs has benn supported as part of the HTML standard for what, 5, 8 years? And so OS systems and browsers have to support it. Someone would have to be running XP I'd think to have a problem.


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 9:02:16 pm

[Bret Williams] "And FCP is recompressing the image to the resolution and codec of the timeline anyway."

Wondered about this. When I highlight a clip on the timeline and get info in the inspector the info is about the original clip with no mention of any compression or timeline codec. Where can I see that metadata?

The slight advantage I see in FC when I color correct the raw image over its jpeg version is with raw I don't start with any baked in decisions. If I toggle between them I can see the difference. In the ripple training, the actual image changes in photoshop were not destructive; it was added like a filter.

[Bret Williams] "So any adjustments to color and such is just a standard color effect, downstream of the raw data anyway. And FCP is recompressing the image to the resolution and codec of the timeline anyway."

I don't have any orange lines on the timeline.

I tried a simple timeline with one p2 video clip, one jpeg, one raw of the same shot and shared as a master file. It exported as a 1080p movie and did so very quickly, no obvious rendering at all.

It played back fine in QT. The stills were not corrected in any way and the raw was only a little different.

When I first imported the stills, FC did slow down until the background task was complete. I am not having any trouble with working with these raw files. They seem to be treated just like anything else I'm working with and the file sizes are certainly not any bigger than my video clips. They are about 5-6 times the size of the jpegs from the same camera which I shot with in case raw wouldn't work in FC. Since FC color correction can be toggled on and off I don't see anything being changed to the original files. In the finder the dates are still the dates when the shots were taken. I'm going to ask black magic if resolve can process these. I wish adobe didn't have this cloud subscription thing. The ripple training on raw is very user friendly and I'd love to add some of the touch up ability of photoshop to my edits. Not really wanting to go that cloud route.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 4:23:08 pm

[Craig Alan] "I'd love to add some of the touch up ability of photoshop to my edits. Not really wanting to go that cloud route."

As I mentioned before, Pixelmator is a good cheap alternative to Photoshop which includes probably all the features you'd need for touch-up for video.

Its Curves (identical to Photoshop) are a very powerful way of colour correcting and you have Levels as well. You can do all the expected dodge and burn, clone, blur, sponge, patch healing, sharpening, etc, etc, that you could want. And of course you have Blend Modes for elaborate compositing type enhancements.

I'd be surprised if you didn't find everything you needed there. Plus there's a free 30 day trial so it's well worth giving it a run for its money.

http://www.pixelmator.com/try/

(Having said that, I don't use it much myself and certainly have no vested interest in it, and I still prefer Photoshop for the really super-tricky stuff.)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 4:45:54 pm

Thanks Simon,

I looked into Pixelmator by reading reviews and checking out their site. As well as other apps. I went with Aperture. Aperture not only gets good reviews specifically about processing raw files but for its organizational ability. And it interfaces with iPhoto and can share their libraries. Its a pro app and was only $80.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 5:47:48 pm

[Craig Alan] " I went with Aperture."

Good choice.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 2:48:27 pm

[Bret Williams] "Yes, images of that size are very taxing on FCP. Since they're probably 10x the file size of a jpeg, they require more memory and processing power. Because they're twice the resolution they need to be, they require more memory and processing power."

In general, I have found that when using oversize stills in FCP X, the best route is to make them into compounds before trying to do anything else with them.

This seems to speed up any image processing you do to them as well as creating a frame that is the "expected" size for any transform filters.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:48:54 am

Sorry, I didn't read your post clearly enough and forgot a step besides. You do need to select the clip in the browser, right-click to Open in Timeline and then apply the color correction there. Its not a destructive step other than you're adjusting the entire master clip (which is what you want to do anyway).

I don't have a problem using Open in Timeline with stills so if you are, I suspect there is an issue with the format of the stills. Perhaps you can't open RAW files in a timeline like that?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 6:25:50 am

Thanks Andy. Maybe. But they will edit into a primary storyline no problem. And it does, if I understand correctly, change the master clip when you "open in timeline." When you color correct in the timeline (not open in timeline) you can always go home again in the inspector by toggling off the box in front of each # color correction.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Mike Drew
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 3:29:43 pm

Just got to pop in here to say that it is unlikely you'll be able to process RAW files from any still camera in a video editor. They are designed to be be used as the base for final output to jpeg or tif or other format. You need to open the files in Photoshop, Aperture or Lightroom or the Canon software that came with the camera and export them as jpeg or tif from there. Leave them full size if you want headroom and import those files to FCPX. You should be good to go then.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 12:57:47 am

General fact - video screen rasters are nearly always WAY lower rez than modern photo rasters.

So re-sizing is a mess from square one.

And I don't think it's as simple as the above discussion makes it out to be - because of the target screen resolution that is in play for ALL video - even 4K - and the way that the Mac OS handles screen processing of stills.

Some examples.

I took a DSLR still from a studio photoshoot I did two weeks ago (5DMkii RAW 22.5Megapixel master) and exported two versions out of Lightroom.
One at 1920X1080 with the pixel raster density set to 600 dpi. (Test for X-1) and one four times as large a raster 7680X4320 but half the pixel raster density 300dpi (Text for X-2)

I dropped each into a FCP-X storyline set at 1920x1080 720p.

Understand that Version 1 is 848K (kilobytes) in size. While Version 2 is a whopping 10M (megabytes)

Here's the photo at full size in the X editing interface - trust me that at this apparent size, you can't tell ANY difference between the two files at all as you might expect.



Now the fun begins.
If I push in to 800% enlargement - the difference is notable.





But what about at 400%?

This is a perfectly functional zoom level for moves on stills - and it's extremely difficult to see the difference.

Here are both files at that zoom level. I won't say which is which.





Now I know that all these are smaller screen caps (click to enlarge them somewhat) - and any differences would be enhanced by looking at full screen caps - but on the other hand if the stills are in motion - then the moving video raster will be blurring the apparent resolution anyway. So I bet it's a push.

Test on your own, but just know that with modern compression and the modern code in X, it's perfectly sensible to use much, much smaller file sizes and still get really good results.

Remember, the difference in file sizes is more than 10 TIMES - 848k verses 10megs

Maybe with the new MacPro this won't matter. But if you're doing a 300 photo show - it's definitely orders of magnitude different.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 1:44:16 am

Thank you, Bill. Interesting post and very relevant to the workflow that I'm trying to develop. Now question: certainly on a small screen there would be very little difference. But what if the exported project was destined for projection on a large screen? I know it will be exported as a 1080p movie, but would the image quality and size within FC make any different to the final product?

I took a look at the various programs that can actually process the raw files and have decided on Aperture. It's reasonably priced. Lots of tutorials on how to use it. And I'm not buying in to the CC subscription plan.

Also I'm not finding any real problems with using raw files in FC but obviously I'm not reaping any great improvement using them either if the program is not able to process them. When I load the jpegs into my projects there is a slight difference in detail and exposure levels but it would be very similar to your post in terms of a side by side. And once they are exported to a source they are compressed and really I can't tell the difference.

That said, if i were to process the raw shots in Aperture what do you feel is the sweet spot for exporting to FC? What about a photo slide show on a large screen? Or an 11 x14 print?

Still don't get what the [Bill Davis] "pixel raster density 300dpi"would have to do with screen resolution. I use these dpi settings when printing but have not heard them discussed in terms of video editing. For an accurate side by side, shouldn't they be set to the same settings? I guess I'll learn more about the export choices when I start playing with Aperture.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 3:10:26 am

[Craig Alan] "But what if the exported project was destined for projection on a large screen?"

In projection the size of the screen is almost totally irrelevant.

The projector is putting out a fixed resolution determined by it's display chip raster (and the projector resolution settings.) The apparent "size" of the screen projection is only affected by type of lens being used to spread and focus the image and the distance of the projector from the screen.

Adding projector to screen distance yields bigger and less bright images, but the image itself has the exact same resolution. Again, that's fixed by the imaging chip in the projector.

As to the raster density - in the SD era, the typical 640x480 computer raster of the past had a equivalent pixel density of 72dpi. Which is to say if you created a screen that size and at that raster, you'd completely fill the typical TV Screen with a computer image top to bottom, edge to edge.

If you created an image at the exact same size, but with a higher pixel density - say 150 dpi, You would have twice the horizontal resolution and could "blow up" the image twice as wide and twice as high - which yields a 4x zoom at the same screen resolution as the 72dpi image mapped to the same array of pixels. (vertical resolution is more complex since it deals with interlace issues and scanning frequencies, so that's another topic for another time!)

Now it gets more complex as we move from SD to HD to 4K and beyond, but the relative pixel math stays the same. In a bit mapped raster (which is what we're discussing - NOT a vector world which works differently) you can increase the overall raster size, OR the pixel density and achieve the same thing - because you're mapping that pixel array to a presumably fixed screen display setting.

If you fix your still photo raster DIMENSIONS at say, 1280x1024 - then exporting two files, one at 100 dpi, and one at 400 dpi - would net you very different results when you scale up the images in your NLE. It would also yield different file sizes.

The key is to always think of mapping an incoming raster to whatever the raster you're likely to set your screen at.

Thats the practical process. You have to determine (or at least make a sensible guess at) what raster you're mapping TO - or you can't make good decisions about what export raster you're going to need out of your graphics program in order to zoom into the image in your NLE without significant degradation.

It's just how pixel arrays work.

It's tempting to just make your rasters big - imagining that some day you might want to output your work to 4k - but as my photo array shows, it's super easy to increase the size of pixel rasters and blow up your file sizes WAY beyond what's required for your actual output - and when you do that, you can bog down your entire production pipeline, since simultaneously increasing both horizontal and vertical (or pixel density!) factors has a massive and escalating effect on increasing file sizes.

I've seen countless folks take DSLR full raster files, dump 50 of them into a timeline - and get upset when it takes FOREVER to move them around.

Of course it does. Particularly in X which is built to calculate with and maintain the maximum amount of source material resolution in all it's image manipulations.

If you work with stills a lot - it's really important to test and test and test things - rather than just import willy nilly into X.

These days camera native rasters are MASSIVE and ever increasing. And people are messing up right and left by not understanding the basics of how raster math works and how you can unthinkingly create massive file size log jams very, very easily.

BTW, I'm no expert at this stuff. Just a guy who's been in the trenches for decades reading and trying to figure out what doesn't work. Anyone who's got better experience or theory to share, dive right in.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 2:17:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "BTW, I'm no expert at this stuff. Just a guy who's been in the trenches for decades reading and trying to figure out what doesn't work. Anyone who's got better experience or theory to share, dive right in."

You might want to check out other "theories" about dpi in video, e.g. this from Rich Harrington:

http://www.richardharringtonblog.com/files/026a3349ffd567f3cb9b30742914c51e...

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 2:24:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "If you fix your still photo raster DIMENSIONS at say, 1280x1024 - then exporting two files, one at 100 dpi, and one at 400 dpi - would net you very different results when you scale up the images in your NLE. It would also yield different file sizes."

Pixels are data -- the actual little dots that make up the image. Pixels have no inherent size themselves. Physical image size is irrelevant since different displays have different physical sizes. A 1920x1080 display could be 10" or it could be 60" on the diagonal, but they are both 1920x1080.

DPI, or dots per inch, is metadata. Since pixels do not have any inherent size, but print does, DPI metadata tells a print system how to relate the indeterminate size in pixels to the intended size on the page.

Since DPI is metadata, not image data, you can change DPI without changing the actual image itself. If you have a 100x100 image at 300 dpi, its nominal print size is 0.3 inches square (100 dots divided by 300 dots per inch). You could change the DPI to 72, and that would change its nominal print size to 1.38 inches square (100 dots divided by 72 dots per inch). These two different print-size images are really identical, and are only 100x100 pixels in Photoshop, FCPX, Pr, Ae, or any other app that measures in pixels instead of inches.

Print people ask for high-DPI images because they are thinking in print size, not in pixels. A 6-inch image at 300 DPI is 1800 pixels (300 dots per inch times 6 inches), whereas a 6-inch image at 72 DPI is only 432 pixels (72 dots per inch times 6 inches). This matters a great deal for print, but again because print considers physical size and video does not, this is irrelevant for video.

Where it gets confusing is that some apps like Photoshop have resampling turned on by default when changing image size. This means that when you adjust the DPI, Photoshop will also scale the image to preserve print size. If you uncheck resampling, then you'll see that changing the DPI without scaling the image keeps the same resolution (pixels) but change the print size (inches).

TL;DR -- for video, pixel resolution is all that matters. DPI is a meaningful measure of resolution for print only because they think in print size, not in pixels. DPI is irrelevant for video because while pixels are the "dots" in DPI, video has no notion of physical size (the "per inch" part). Some resizing tools have an option that uses DPI as a scaling factor, but disabling this to avoid resampling shows the true relationship between resolution and DPI.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 4:14:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Some resizing tools have an option that uses DPI as a scaling factor, but disabling this to avoid resampling shows the true relationship between resolution and DPI."

Thank you Walter. That's much clearer.

I suspect my notions of how DPI relates to scalability came from the old days when this scaling connection was common.

I have in my thinking lots of experiences from my learning years where increasing the DPI would yield a larger raster for scaling purposes. Thanks for clarifying the modern way things work.

(And on a personal note - happy new year - hope we get to see each other, perhaps at NAB this year?)

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 8:13:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "Thank you Walter. That's much clearer."

You're welcome.


[Bill Davis] "(And on a personal note - happy new year - hope we get to see each other, perhaps at NAB this year?)"

I haven't decided on NAB 2014 yet, but that is coming up quickly, isn't it? Did I miss a COW FCPX meetup last year?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 8, 2014 at 8:19:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "
I haven't decided on NAB 2014 yet, but that is coming up quickly, isn't it? Did I miss a COW FCPX meetup last year?"


Nope. Never got one organized last year - primarily because I attended the show as part of the working press team for another web site - and was filing stories from the show floor all week.

Haven't yet heard about this year - but will be attending regardless.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:51:06 pm

I have psds and pngs in my browser right now. Neither can open in timeline.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: stills in browser
on Jan 7, 2014 at 4:53:53 pm

Take that back. I found a few of the psds could. But not the pngs. Must be a format thing. Could be some are from CS6 or less from the client, and the pngs are CC from me or vice versa. Definitely something going on.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]