Scanning Photos what to do

[Rob Forsythe]

I have produced many high-quality TV spots with scanned (panned and zoomed) images.

Here’s a great tutorial:

https://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/basic_ps.html

It is ESSENTIAL to monitor the QUALITY of images in FCP that you use an external NTSC (or PAL, if that’s where you are).
The Canvas is NEVER high-quality (by design) and should NOT be used to make determinations of image quality of clips or graphics.

I have had high-quality results zooming in by up to 200%-300% using just the “standard” size 720 x 534 (480). (the FCP anti-aliasing is amazing.)

But if I want to make TIGHT zooms, I just double ALL those numbers, and can zoom in at least 500% and “move around” with no “jaggies.”
So if you need to zoom or pan to a greater extent (extra-wide pan-across or extra-tight zoom-in) then scan the images at a much higher number of pixels WIDE and TALL (i.e. Double size 1440 x 1068 or Quad size 2880 x 2136) If you have an “odd shaped” image (very wide or very tall) just make sure you scan it at a large size.

You’ll note I have not talked about “DPI” as it is totally unimportant in FCP imports…
just make sure your horizontal and vertical sizes are substantially higher than the minimum (of 740 x 534).

Sometimes when panning an image at a certain size, some pixels will “dance”
or exhibit a moire patten… to “filter” this, just apply a tiny amount (1%-2% or less… say .75%) of “Gaussian Blur” filter until the moire disappears.

[David Roth weiss]

[Rob Forsythe] “Sometimes when panning an image at a certain size, some pixels will “dance”
or exhibit a moire patten… to “filter” this, just apply a tiny amount (1%-2% or less… say .75%) of “Gaussian Blur” filter until the moire disappears.”

Rob,

I would have agreed with you on this until here on the Cow pointed out to me that using a “vertical” Directional Blur would fix the problem, but would only soften the vertical resolution rather the total resolution of the image. This solves the dancing pixels with very little overall defocusing of the image. I tried it and it works a heck of a lot better than a gausian blur.

DRW

[Rob Forsythe]

[David Roth Weiss] “I would have agreed with you on this until here on the Cow pointed out to me that using a “vertical” Directional Blur would fix the problem, but would only soften the vertical resolution rather the total resolution of the image. This solves the dancing pixels with very little overall defocusing of the image. I tried it and it works a heck of a lot better than a gausian blur.
“

I think you made a small TYPO when you posted.
I believe what you meant to say was…

“I agree with you up to the point where you suggested using gaussian blur.
I got a tip on the COW that suggested a vertical blur would solve the dancing pixels with less overall defocusing of the image. I have found that works very well. I suggest that you try that instead.”

At least I HOPE that is what you meant to say.
Otherwise, I think we should step outside.

😉

[Thaxter Clavemarlton]

In your haste to criticize the first response you neglected to explain HOW to add ‘vertical blur’ to the image.

Would you tell us how you go about it?

[Ed Dooley]

I do a bunch of this stuff, and scanning the image, then processing levels, contrast, color, etc. in Photoshop
first gives the best results. While in Photoshop I add the blur: Filters/Blur/Motion Blur As David said, one to two pixels
at 90 degrees works best and doesn’t affect the horizontal resolution. Do a search of this forum, I know I’ve talked about
this very thing a number of times, as have others.
Ed

[Thax] “In your haste to criticize the first response you neglected to explain HOW to add ‘vertical blur’ to the image.

Would you tell us how you go about it?”

[Thaxter Clavemarlton]

[Ed] “While in Photoshop I add the blur: Filters/Blur/Motion Blur As David said…”

That was my point.

David did not actually SAY that at all.

The quote is, “…using a “vertical” Directional Blur would fix the problem…”

Since there is no “Directional Blur” filter in FCP or Photoshop (but there IS a “Gaussian Blur”), it might make for a long search trying to find “Directional Blur” in the filter choices.

David did not say to add the filter INSIDE Photoshop.

Since the first responder was suggesting adding a filter inside FCP (after you see that the image might need one), that can make for quite a bit of confusion.

[David Roth weiss]

[Thax] “That was my point.

Since there is no “Directional Blur” filter in FCP or Photoshop (but there IS a “Gaussian Blur”), it might make for a long search trying to find “Directional Blur” in the filter choices.

David did not say to add the filter INSIDE Photoshop.”

THAX,

Before stating that you’re wrong on all accounts on this post, let me first state that you’re way out of line on your first post in which you mentioned my name in vain. I had no intention to criticize, but rather to pass on a tip that indeed Ed passed on to me. The fact that I wrote it very hastily, late at night, after a very long and trying day added to some missing words and typos, but other than that, it was a attempt to help not to criticize.

Now, on to all the additional tripe you’ve written… In the latest version of FCP, otherwise known as the universal binary version 5.1.2 there is indeed a Directional Blur. I was not discussing PhotoShop or creating any other confusion. The fact that you’re possibly using an older version of FCP might have added to you confusion, and for that I forgive you.

All the best,
DRW

[Bret Williams]

There has been a directional blur for this very purpose for many many years. “Flicker Filter.” All it is is a vertical blur. It can also be found within the deinterlace filter.

However, adding your blur in photoshop will reduce renter times substantially, since FCP is rendering the motion blur every frame. It’s much easier to right click and say “open in editor” (photoshop usually) and add a little directional blur and save.

Many will notice that in the universal binary user prefs there is now a check box to “auto update” linked files. So you’ll never get the relinking dialog when updating externally linked files. Very nifty.

[David Roth weiss]

[Rob Forsythe] “I think you made a small TYPO when you posted.
I believe what you meant to say was…
“I agree with you up to the point where you suggested using gaussian blur.
I got a tip on the COW that suggested a vertical blur would solve the dancing pixels with less overall defocusing of the image. I have found that works very well. I suggest that you try that instead.””

Rob,

You managed to read between the lines quite well, just the type of reader I write for… Sorry for the typos and any perception of anythng other than a willingness to help on my part. I had a trying day yesterday…

DRW

[David Roth weiss]

[Thax] “In your haste to criticize the first response you neglected to explain HOW to add ‘vertical blur’ to the image.

Would you tell us how you go about it?”

Sure!!!

First, lay off all cafeinated products.

Second, update your software before taking pot shots at others.

Third, apply the Directional Blur as I initially stated. Set it to vertical. And, adjust the amount of the blur until a pleasing effect is achieved.

DRW