interesting problem

[Aanarav Sareen]

Can you describe “twingle” in a little more detail please?

[Amz370]

yesit’s as if the luma peaks them selves are dimming andbrightening every other frame, as in one frame they are dim and the next they are normal luma, giving them a sparkle

[Sam Moulton]

It sounds like high frequency noise created by too much detail like you get when you shoot patterns with a camera. try a little blur

[Amz370]

tried a radial blur, past 1.5 pixels im afraid iill loose to much detail, but it still sparkles

[Amz370]

sorry a directional blur

[Ben Insler]

By twinkle, do you mean that it almost in a strange way looks like parts of the image are moving? Almost rippling even? I’ve run into this many times, although usually much more in Final Cut than AE (AE is much better at handling images). Anyway, if that’s the case, it’s because the image you’re trying to use is too high res for the screen space you’re trying to scale it into, and thus it can’t interpolate the pixels correctly (kind of like when you zoom an image in photoshop to 33.3% – it looks crappy, but we won’t don’t need to get into too much of that here…). The first step would be to create a copy of the image that’s lower res and try the move on that. You only need the image to be so large that the portion you want to finish the move on is equal to the resolution of your comp. For example, if I’m working with a 100×200 (for math simplicity sake since I’m terrible at it..) comp, and you want to zoom in from your whole image to focus on half the image, the overall image size only needs to be 200×400 (assuming that its aspect ratio is also 1:2). This way, when we zoom in to half the image, the half we ultimately see will have the same resolution as the comp and remain sharp, and hopefully the full resolution of the whole image will not be so great that the twinkle still occurs. If we wanted to zoom from the full image to 1/64 of the image, then we might have a problem. In such a case, you might have to use a blur to fix the jitter (as was suggested) or use an interlace flicker filter (which also is a type of blur)

A workaround for that might be to make 2 images, one for the first half of the zoom and one for the second. The first image would be used for the first 60% of the zoom. The second, however, would be cropped from the original so that it only contained information from 50% into the zoom to the zoom’s final positions. Make both images the same resolution, and place them in the comp so that image 1 starts at the beginning of the zoom, and image 2 starts 50% of the way into the zoom. Do moves on both of them at the same rate, and then crossfade them together between 50%-60% of the zoom. This would be tedious to get right because you’d have to exactly crop and move your second image to match up with the first zoom’s fade out, but if you got it to match up perfectly you shouldn’t notice the crossfade, but you would eliminate the outrageous resoultion that you were initially working with. It might also get tedious because you might have to do this step a few times, depending on how much you really need to zoom… but just an idea if nothing else is working.

Good luck,

Ben Insler
Editor
Telemark Films

[Amz370]

ok, well tried scaling it down to an ntc standard from it’s huge sze, and the idea of scaling it down to get rid of the twinkle kinda works, but it’s still there and is even worse in an interlace monitor, not that it’s worse tehn before but more noticable, so scaling is a no go, perhaps if any helpers would like the image, as i said before im happy to send it