Pte full HD and image size

[stonemason]

Just having got a full HD TV I've started looking into full HD PTE output, and immediatly come up aginst a problem. This is the loss of image content from cropping a 3:2 ratio image from the camera (Nikon D300) to suit the 16:9 ratio on the TV. My question is has anyone come up with a good compromise to get the best from the image content and filling as much of the screen as possible in HD.

Geoff

[davegee]

Geoff,

If you don't want to post process you have two alternatives:

Either crop the top and/or bottom of the 3:2 frame (in PTE) or use the 3:2 frame as is (with black areas at the sides).

With all of the pixels that most of us have at our disposal these days I find it easier to allow just a little extra unwanted material in the image and crop/resize to 1920x1080 (or 1920x1280) in NX2 or PS.

Getting it right in camera is great but that means that you are stuck with a 3:2 image to work with. The 16:9 format is not that much wider than 3:2 and I find that it is easy to lose a little sky and/or foreground in a landscape image.

Cropping/resizing to 1920x1280 and adjusting (moving) up or down in PTE is a compromise.

There is no single answer.

Then there is the question of how to get from computer to TV.

Using a suitably equipped PC/laptop connected via HDMI (or DVI and audio leads) is probably the ultimate in quality and DVD is probably the worst option. BluRay is somewhere in the middle there (near the top).

Then there is the question of TV resolution.

Not all "HD Ready" TVs are 1920x1080. Up to around 26"-30" they are more likely to be 1366x768 or similar. Checking the TV manual is advisable.

DaveG

[Ronniebootwest]

Geoff,

Barry Beckham had some very good tutorials on this subject, particularly his 'Pictures To Exe 5 - Techniques 1' DVD.

Visit his site and take a look.

Barry's Web Site

Ron West

[cjdnzl]

Just having got a full HD TV I've started looking into full HD PTE output, and immediatly come up aginst a problem. This is the loss of image content from cropping a 3:2 ratio image from the camera (Nikon D300) to suit the 16:9 ratio on the TV. My question is has anyone come up with a good compromise to get the best from the image content and filling as much of the screen as possible in HD.

Geoff

I understand that HDTV is 1920 x 1080 pixels, and the D300 is 3872 x 2592 pixels, twice the linear size of the TV. I guess there's not much you can do except crop existing images, but when taking fresh images intended for a slide show, leave the in-camera image with plenty of space around the wanted area. You'll still have more pixels in the image than the TV can use.

Colin

[davegee]

Colin,

Firstly with regard to your figures.

Yes, HDTV is commonly thought to be 1920x1080 but the truth is, as I said above, LCD TVs are being sold with the "HD Ready" and "HDTV" stickers which are, in fact, only 1366x768. As a general rule of thumb TVs around 26"-30" (and smaller) could be at the lower resolution.

The aspect ratio is 16:9 but the actual resolution is not always 1920x1080. It is worth checking the TV manual to see what the actual resolution is.

A minor point: the D300 resolution is 4288x2848 (3:2) and I think that the OP wanted to maintain that AR and "crop in camera". As you rightly point out, shooting a little bit more than you think you might need is probably the way forward for AV purposes if your intention is to show in a 16:9 AR.

DaveG

[stonemason]

Thanks to all for the info.

DaveG

The TV is full HD with 1920 x 1080 resolution, and I agree with you about thinking slideshow when I take the images. However for existing images I think that I will go with 1080 high and the length madeup to 1920 with end black borders, as most of my images I have always tried to exclude what I don't want at the taking stage. As far as playing the slideshows on the TV this is no problem at all. I purchased a Western Digital WD TV HD Media Player and an external usb2 500gb Wd Mybook HDD. This combination plays the PTE .mp4 files onto the TV, and the quality is stunning. The player will also play almost all forms of music, video, and .jpg pictures, thus adding full media player caperbility to your TV. It also has optical audio out so is easy to attach to a surround sound system. Anyone interested take a look here. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=572

Ron

Thanks for the link I'll take a look.

Geoff

[davegee]

Hi Geoff,

I have heard good things about the WD unit.

My observations were that (to take a particular example) one of my 1920x1080 EXE files is 200Mb and its corresponding MPEG4 file is 1.2Gb.

To quote Igor: The EXE file is the Highest Quality option available from PTE.

So my logic at the time was that it required 6 times more storage space to play something which is of lesser quality.

For those who have a laptop which is capable of being connected to a HD TV by HDMI the EXE wins every time.

But, of course I am only comparing the EXE with its MPEG4 file. The WD unit, as you rightly point out, does other things besides playing MPEG4. If only it would play EXE files!

DaveG

[stonemason]

Hi DaveG

I have tried both ways Laptop to TV via HDMI and the .mp4 on the media player, and my observations are that you would have to be super critical to spot any differences in the quality of either. The media player plus a 500gb HDD gives a very convenient way of watching films, listening to music, and perhaps most importantly being able to enthrall family and friends with our slideshows, all at the touch of a button. I've not had it long but am more than satisfied with it's performance with everything I've given it to play.

Geoff

[davegee]

I think that the important thing is that we can, by one method or the other, now watch PTE shows at 1920x1080 resolution without the upsizing that takes place via DVD.

DaveG

[potwnc]

My observations were that (to take a particular example) one of my 1920x1080 EXE files is 200Mb and its corresponding MPEG4 file is 1.2Gb.

So my logic at the time was that it required 6 times more storage space to play something which is of lesser quality.

This kind of comparison will depend on a lot of factors. As an (unrealistic) example if I have one image which is 1920x1080 in my show, the .exe file will be around 2MB typically whether the show lasts 1 second or 2 hours. But the .mp4 file will be much much larger if I show that image for 2 hours versus 1 second. If I want to zoom that image and not lose quality it will be a larger pixel size so the .exe file will be correspondingly larger but it would have no impact on the .mp4 file size. In my experience of realistic HD slideshows (15 minutes, 100 slides, maybe 15% of these have no zooming) the .mp4 file at 1920x1080x 15Mbps is much smaller than the equivalent .exe file.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

In preparation for Windows 7 I am getting a budget together to up-grade my hardware. I think I will have to go from laptop to desktop, which throws up the question of monitor. I use my hardware to edit my pictures & wonderde if HD monitors were up to the task. If so which are you guys using???

Yachtsman1.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

There are two considerations which at first blush may seem to be of equal importance, but in reality are not.

In terms of "practical" application, I find that I can edit my highest resolution images with precision and absolute accuracy on a crt monitor at 1024 x 768 resolution. I don't believe having higher resolution (larger pixel matrix) settings are really all that necessary or useful in terms of editing. However, for folks our age, having higher resolution screen settings can adversely affect our ability to read text, etc. So for display purposes of slideshows, higher resolution monitors are very nice but for edits and such are not necessary.

The issue with LCD monitors is that there exists a wide disparity in their abilities to accurately display nuances of color and therefore accurate calibration. Further, the refresh rates are highly variable and this means potential ghosting of objects should you have rapid movement of objects of contrasting color with the background.

Recently I submitted a little test slidshow which may be of value to you when purchasing a new display. Various forum members tried this brief show on a variety of different equipment and the results were interesting. For example, many if not most of those who were using LCD displays saw ghosting as the disc rotated against the dark backdrop. Those using crt monitors saw little, if any. On the other hand on the LCD monitor theDom was using (not generally found in the US, but probably available in the UK) there was no ghosting and the disc was sharply defined at all times. So what you might want to consider is not only the usability for editing but also the probability of ghosting or not on a specific LCD display.

Here's a link if you care to put this little show on a USB media stick and take it with you to test a display before purchase.

http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/3Dsimulation.zip

Best regards,

Lin

[davegee]

Eric,

I know that you have said that you are using 1024x768 projectors and, presumably, are making your shows at 1024x768.

However, if it is your intention to make shows in HD format i.e. 1920x1080 then it is imperative (IN MY OPINION) that you are able to preview them at that resolution.

Incidentally, it used to be the case that you could not make a PTE show that was bigger than your screen resolution. I wonder if that has changed?

Therefore you need a 1920X1080 (or a 1920x1200) monitor in order to do this. I have said this many times here: Make sure that, if your computer has HDMI or DVI connections, that you use it. If you are buying a new computer make sure that your new computer's graphics card has HDMI or DVI output.

I use an Iiyama Pro-Lite 82403WS and have used Iiyama for the last couple of monitors with absolutely no problems whatsoever.

I THINK, but I'm not 100% sure, that the "ghosting" that Lin mentioned COULD be a function of using an LCD monitor connected via VGA connection.

I have noticed similar effects when doing trials early on.

DaveG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin & Dave.

First Lin, CRT is definitely out due to size restrictions, I work off a bed table, which if you don't know it is, it's a 2ft 6in x 1ft 4in elevated tray on castors which I swing over my legs as I sit in comfort. It would buckle under the weight of a CRT monitor. Also when I mentioned editing, it was still pictures I was referring to not animated.

Dave yes i have been sizing at 1024x768 & use an XVGA 1024x768 projector. However, my working laptop is a 17inch 1280x1024 res screen & the PTE shows are fine, however I have to reduce the res to 1024x768 to get them to the projector. I posted elsewhere I was thinking of building my own cube PC, which could be positioned behind where I sit & still use the bed table with a maximum sized monitor of 19" and a small keyboard. With a cube PC, I could disconnect it easily to take off site when doing shows.

I also have an 32" HD TV, with HDM & VGA connections which I use for shows at home.

What I was looking for was a reasonably priced monitor with HD & VGA connections then I would have the best/worst of both worlds.

Thanks both for your suggestions.

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

Sorry for not being clear. What I wanted to get across (I assumed you would be buying an LCD monitor) is that not "all" LCD monitors are created equal in that "some" are much more amenable to correct gamma range and calibration. Others can't be calibrated at all. Also, some will "probably" give you ghosting while others will not.

Price is another can of worms. You don't necessarily have to pay an arm and leg, but you do need to "not buy" the run-of-the-mill LCD monitor if you want to be able to "accurately" edit your images for color intensity, hue, etc., and if you want accurate representation of what most other will see on your slideshows.

We really "can't" edit animated "images" as such in the relevant sense. We edit still images and with PTE can then animate these edited images as necessary or desired. Ask Dave what his monitor cost because that model is, I believe, the same one theDom uses and it is a very good one for both editing and for playing back stills as well as animations. Bottom line is you won't get a decent LCD monitor for less than about $400 USD and probably it will cost more.

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi

Having done some more research I think I need to do even more. rather than drag this topic along with things that Geoff doesn't want to see, I will do some more reading & probably start a new topic when I understand the subject more. However, I did come across this site last night which has a mass of info and will take some time to sink into the grey matter.

http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/Monitor.htm

Bye for now.

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[davegee]

Regarding price:

Closest in Size (to mine): http://www.dabs.com/products/iiyama-24--e2...0000-4294955021

Closest in Price (to mine): http://www.dabs.com/category/peripherals,d...428540000-50677

When I bought (24" - 1920x1200) there did not appear to be a 1920x1080 version for less than around £600 - £1000. They seem to be filtering through in the lower price range now.

If I were buying again I think I would go for 1920x1080 (purely to avoid the black lines when viewing 1920x1080 shows).

DaveG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Dave

My viewing circumstances limit the size to 19inch. I've been checking a few of the links on the link in my last post & checked out Envision & Lenovo, still nothing to suit my circumstances.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1