davegee Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 The author has not specifically asked for critiques but:I have just downloaded and watched Windmill Pond Flowers and would like to offer a critique of this potentially excellent show.1.The show has no text file attached and no information regarding screen resolution etc. Therefore the viewer does not know if the show is a true representation of what the author intended. Am I watching a 1024 pixel wide show on my 1280 wide screen? Is the show being interpolated to “fit Screen”? What was the author’s screen resolution?2.The show (if I am not watching an interpolated version) shows evidence of “over enthusiastic” zooming and/or over-brightening of images causing pixilation and/or colour noise. I have offered my opinion on “over-zooming” in the past. The guideline that I adopt is that if a 3872 pixel wide jpeg image is used then a zoom factor of around 300% (but no more) is achievable with no obvious artefacts in a 1280 pixel wide show. The corresponding figure for a 1024 pixel wide show with the same image is around 375%. The downside of this is that the image used is likely to be around 2-3Mb at quality 8 (Photoshop).3.Some images have “dust bunnies” which could be easily cloned out.4.The PTE5 PZR effects are well done although my vertigo kicked in a couple of times during the rotations. The music fitted the subject well and care has been taken to blend some of the effects to the piece. The butterfly slide is well done and let down only by the colour noise in the background at the end of the zoom.Overall the show is commendable. This is excellent use of PTE slightly let down by some of the imaging techniques.DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hi, Dave,Thanks for the critique and guidelines. I had been hoping for comments of this kind. Guilty of all charges.The screen resolution is inconsistent, and to be sure, the zoom exceeds your criteria. I'll keep these factors in mind for opus no. 2. I apologize for the rotationally induced vertigo, I should have attached a "scopalamine recommended" warning in the text file along with the resolution attributes. The spinning stamens were shortcuts for that mysterious, reproductive alchemy, a subject that many find sickening anyway. Again, Dave, I appreciate your comments. Thanks for taking the time to respond.Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted June 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hello David,So was it a full screen show and what is your screen resolution?DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hello David,So was it a full screen show and what is your screen resolution?DaveGHi, DaveG,Sorry that my answer was incomplete. My monitor resolution is 1024x1280. As mentioned, the image pixel dimensions varied. A quick look revealed that they ranged from 848x1200 to 1461x2100, victims as they were, to "quick and dirty" crops. So, I'd have to guess that the show was only sometimes full screen.If you are interested in more detail, I would be glad to zip the project and upload it to MediaFire for you. Your further response would be most welcome.Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted June 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Hello David,My screen res is 1280x1024 so I was looking at the same pixels as you were.If your 1200x848 image was shown full screen then some interpolation must have taken place resulting in degradation of the image. As for the 2100x1461 image the greatest magnification that one will take is 164% without degradation of the image.Take a look in O&A to see what Zoom ratio the 2100x1461 image has been subjected to and describe which image that is?P.S. Do you play a fretted instrument (frets3)?DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Hello David,My screen res is 1280x1024 so I was looking at the same pixels as you were.If your 1200x848 image was shown full screen then some interpolation must have taken place resulting in degradation of the image. As for the 2100x1461 image the greatest magnification that one will take is 164% without degradation of the image.Take a look in O&A to see what Zoom ratio the 2100x1461 image has been subjected to and describe which image that is?P.S. Do you play a fretted instrument (frets3)?DaveGHi, DaveG,The 1461x2100 image is no. 5 (the purple thistle); it's zoomed to an extreme of 181%.1461/1.81 = 8072100/1.81 = 1160At 181% zoom, the image dimensions are less than that of my monitor. Therefore, the resulting interpolation yeilds a degraded image. In fact, just as you have stated, many of the images are zoomed beyond the criteria for best definition on our monitors.DaveG, thanks for your input; As a result, I'll probably not fail to "do my arithmetic" for subsequent shows. Good guess about "frets3," which alludes to my guitar. Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted June 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 No problem.Look out for a private e-mail Re the frets thing.DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.