JPG in FCP part2

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

I just read the responses in “part 1” of your question

https://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_post.cgi?forumid=8&postid=885520&pview=t#head

Everything in that thread applies to this new question.

Scaling graphics in most video post-production will reduce the quality.

[David Roth weiss]

[Matte] “Scaling graphics in most video post-production will reduce the quality.”

Matt,

Please explain something to me. I keep reading numerous posts about problems encountered scaling large stills, however, I have no such issues on my system. What gives???

I’ve been working on a project since September in which I routinely import, scale and animate client supplied stills that come to me at 2267×3000 pixels at 300dpi. And, the process is completely and totally without issues and other than the ones that have hard verticle or horizontal lines, everything is flawless.

I use a Blackmagic Extreme card. Could it making a difference? How come this works for me? Inquiring minds want to know…

DRW

[Luke David]

I have had the issue you are having before and I think the reason it is looking blurry is that you need to render. Yes, it will play in real time, but it will be an approximation of the render. I think this varies between systems, but you should not be experiencing a loss of quality if you scale something down that is that big, only if you scale it up. Motion is a good alternative if you have it and it makes it really easy to animate pics. Good Luck

[Chris Poisson]

David,

Those images you are using are WAY too big. It’s overkill, and the fact you are not having flickering or over-long render times is an exception not the rule. My method of optimzing images is at 72 dpi and no bigger than absolutely necessary for pans and scans and zooms. Usually I’ll go twixe the frame size. FCP will love you for it.

Have a wonderful day.

[David Roth weiss]

Chris,

Believe me, with all he stuff I keep reading here I’d be inclined to resize the stills before importing into FCP if I were having anything but great results. And, this is something I know a bit about. I know what to look for. For years I used the best rostrum camera facility here in Hollywood until switching over in recent years to a wonderful program the BBC uses (on the PC side) called DigiRostrum.

So, I’m wondering why all the problems that others have don’t effect me. Is it at all possible that FCP ver. 5 has fixed many of the problems that were in previous versions, and many of you have gotten so used to the workarounds that you’re still using them???

DRW

[Kevin Monahan]

I totally agree with Chris.

David, your images are way too large. Sure they work and look good, but you can reduce your render time and get more RT with optimized images (this is something I learned way back in Avid Boot Camp: a very extensive training program and many of the techniques are precisely the same in FCP. Digital video is digital video).

The CPU doesn’t need to work as hard as you are demanding it to do. You see, there is a “target” resolution for every scanned or imported image. A “sweet spot” so to speak.

General ROT: Make your scanned or imported image only 2-3x the native frame size (if you want to do moves) at 72 DPI – any more and you’re overkilling it. Many have trouble with interlace flicker and moire, others like you are simply paying the price with increased render times and less RT.

Hey, if you can live with the fact that render times are keeping you from getting to Miller time sooner (rendering is a time bandit!), then you can keep your head buried in the sand. Have fun down there. 😉

Pol:
Aside from the mine field of making sure you are:

[David Roth weiss]

Kevin,

The render times are also not a problem, so I guess I’m just a very lucky boy.

What can I say, this is sort of one of those Twilight Zone kinda things…

DRW