digital photos no longer in focus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
John Kelly said:
Oh My !!! I have just realised what you are thinking...you really do
believe
that there are physical objects within a video file that are pixels and
that
some of these are not square and some are!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Ever
heard of a data stream ?
Click to expand...

I see it must be the data stream size of 720x576 that is shown by WMM and
Windows explorer for DV-AVI movie file...

Another experiment:

1. Make a dv-avi 720x576 movie of your input image of whatever size but
ratio 4:3.
2. Import that movie back into WMM
3. Take a snapshot somewhere in the middle.
4. What size of the frame did you just capture ?

Answer: 768x576

Please explain!
 
Yes I know now :)

it only took two replies from me... which did not include any slur against
him either, to be honoured with the status of my IP address being blocked
to access his site. HAHAHA What a spoilt child.

It now shows this message:
-------------
Error 403 FORBIDDEN
You do not have permission to access the requested URL
This site is an Anti Fool site
Yes we know it is fairly easy to get around this.....but at least you know
how welcome you are.. .
Plagiarism is Theft!
Taking advantage of and using information others innocently gave, and
without their permission is deceit
------------

HAHAHAHA

Very interesting.

Rehan
 
And this from someone who can not demonstrate mathematically why he is right
and a fairly large film industry is wrong...no surprise at all is it...none
at all.

--
Best Wishes.....John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
I know that I feel that I must, at times, post anonymously when responding to you. While this is unfortunate, it is not because of cowardice, but rather an attempt to avoid being the target of personal attacks or threats. It wouldn't surprise me if others feel the same

----- John Kelly wrote: ----

This from a person with no guts to identify himself.......rant on fool
 
John Kelly said:
And this from someone who can not demonstrate mathematically why he is
right
and a fairly large film industry is wrong...no surprise at all is
it...none
at all.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate mathematically? What ? You have already dismissed my technical
arguments as "playing with numbers". Furthermore I devised a couple of
simple test for you to try and explain the emperical results according to
your theory, which you have not replied so far.

Well if you consider yourself to be the "fairly large film industry" or
their representative, why wont you first aquire the facts about the issue
you are trying to argue so pationately. The non-square pixel encoding of
DV-AVI format, whose existence you have flatly denied, is fairly standard
knowledge and can be referenced however extensively you want it to be. See a
few references about the issue, below.

I am sure even these wont be able to satisfy you since your expertise
surpass logic completely. However for other modest readers of this thread,
these might prove useful.



Determining the Shape of Pixels and Frames
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/PixelFrames.aspx

How Film Is Transferred to Video
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

Work with non-square pixels (D1, DV) in After Effects (4.0-6.5)
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/1809a.htm
 
John Kelly doesn't seem to like URL references; he has refused to post them himself in the past even after being repeatedly asked

----- Rehan wrote: ----
[...
knowledge and can be referenced however extensively you want it to be. See a
few references about the issue, below

[...

Determining the Shape of Pixels and Frame
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/PixelFrames.asp

How Film Is Transferred to Vide
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo

Work with non-square pixels (D1, DV) in After Effects (4.0-6.5
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/1809a.ht
 
You did not demonstrate mathematically anything...all you did was
say.....this then that with no construction between the two
statements.....any one can do that.

I do not consider myself to be a fairly large film industry...its remarks
like that from you that reduce everything else you say to garbage.

I use professional video software...go look up Cinegy...they are the people
that do a lot of post production work...I think Harry Potter films are
managed by them, Shrek etc etc....I would rather accept what they have to
say rather than your ramblings and inability to develop a cohesive argument
as to why you are right and why I am wrong. I will soon be using the actual
software that is presently used to create the very sophisticated
productions we now see at the cinema. It is running at the moment on my
Linux system. Its hard work learning how to use it...but there is one thing
about it that is very certain...If you specify a ration of X:Y and a screen
size of whatever...thats what it creates....nothing else.

The other software I have does all sorts of very clever things with how a
pixel is mapped into a new format....but at the end, that which is
displayed is still a pixel...the software displaying it may have been told
to stretch it slightly along one axis...but its still just a single pixel.
It has no shape only size. The size of the data that describes that pixels
is determined by a number of items...colour depth being the most obvious.
Additional information will describe at what rate that pixel will be
replaced by the next one. Several other parameters will describe what
happens to that pixel one of which is the one that you are perpetually
stuck on...whether its a square or non square pixel, and if it is non
square exactly what relationship its sides have to one another. You should
also note that in more sophisticated software you control its panoramic
range.....pixels at the left and right edges having a different aspect
ration than those in the center of the image. But if you were to look at
the operating system which knows nothing about how that video should be
displayed and ascertain its frame size there...you will find the frame size
that (in thios case movie maker) created.

--
John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
He doesn't need to use any references because he already knows everything. Haven't you been paying attention? Silly fsdsdffsd..... ;^

----- fsdsdffsd wrote: ----

John Kelly doesn't seem to like URL references; he has refused to post them himself in the past even after being repeatedly asked

----- Rehan wrote: ----
[...
knowledge and can be referenced however extensively you want it to be. See a
few references about the issue, below

[...

Determining the Shape of Pixels and Frame
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/PixelFrames.asp

How Film Is Transferred to Vide
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo

Work with non-square pixels (D1, DV) in After Effects (4.0-6.5
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/1809a.ht
 
Hello everyone
I thought I would just check back and see if there was any more input about my original question...You all have me soooo confused. Why are my photos not crisp and clear when I bring them into wwm like they are when I bring the exact same photos into Adobe Photoshop Album and record a slide show there playing full screen. They look great in the small window in the right hand corner, just not when you play them back full screen. I like WWM capabilities much better but when I play back the slideshow full screen before I burn it, the photos look a little out of focus. Its frustrating to think that I have to resize every photo. Shouldn't the program adjust this for you??Again these are taken with a 6mg camera. What I did read from Rehan was that viewing in the preview mode DOES have a reduced resolution just to save space. If this is true you have answered my question. So what do you all think?
Karen
 
Karen,

Sorry to have confused you with our bickering over meaningless things.

You do not need to resize your photos. Windows Movie Maker does the resizing
for you. However its resize operation is not very good. So manual resizing
to "output compatible screen size" would help a bit (but not a lot) to
achieve crisper results. However to achieve any discernable benefit it has
to be done using some professional software which uses high quality filters.
Otherwise the automatic resizing done by WMM is good enough.

Unfortunately there is further loss of quality during the processing done by
Windows Movie Maker. This is largely unavoidable.

The main reason for these issues is that WMM was not mainly designed for
slideshow creation of still photos... So compromises were made in its design
that favour other things over slideshow quality of still photos.

To address these issues Microsoft has produced another software called Photo
Story which does a much better job of resizing and maintaining quality
during internal processing. It also has panning and zooming effects.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/plus/dme/Photo.asp
 
And yes, the quality of preview window is much less than what you would get
in the final output to a movie file.
 
Reha
Thank you so much for making this very clear. My son wants me to do all of this in Powerpoint, but I will look into the Photo Story. thanks again... Got a new Burner and I am ready to go!
Karen
 
Well, we are still waiting for you to prove your argument in a cohesive
manner....I do like the way you are bringing this newsgroup further and
further in to the muck....you are doing a better job than all of the others
put together.

If you owned some professional software yourselves (yes that's you with the
split personality LOL) you would know the truth of it.....

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to advertise my website by the
w3ay...damn decent of you!

--
John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
I cannot be more cohesive against your complete denial of something:
non-square pixels of DV format.

How can one go about proving a fact? Lets try to state them in simple terms:

* Its a fact that the DV format specifies non-square pixel aspect ratio.
References such as
ww.lumidium.com/formats.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...adandwritevideostreamswithnonsquarepixels.asp

* It is also a fact that for DV AVI (Pal), Windows Movie Maker encodes a
frame of 768x576 to 720x576. (Experiment: encode a frame of size 768x576 and
see if it covers full screen. Also refer to first reference above).

* It is also a fact that if your input image is 720x576, it will be encoded
with black borders on sides. (Experiment: Encode a pure white image and see
the result.)

* It is also a fact that whatever input size you use, this small horizontal
scaling of 0.9375:1 is always applied by WMM encoder to acccount for
non-square pixels. (Experiment: use crisp text on white image of whatever
size, and capture frame from the output dvavi movie. Text is no more crisp.)

These facts can be independently verified either by consulting documentation
or doing small experiments as I suggested before.

Given these facts it is obvious that your advice to use cropped images of
size 720x576 is wrong since it will never be able to achieve its desired
effect of preserving pixel perfect video quality. A horizontal scale will
always be applied during encoding to store more than one pixel worth of data
in one encoded pixel. On the other hand it will result in output having
black borders on sides.

Your observation that the size specified by WMM for dv avi pal is 720x576 is
correct, but missing the fact that this format uses non-square pixel
encoding. Windows Explorer only shows the size in actual pixels contained in
the encoded file: 720x576. When played with media player the inverse scale
is applied making one frame from 720x576 to 768x576. This is the size what
media player shows in properties.

Given these arguments, you should modify your advice to use 768x576 input
image for output to DV-AVI (Pal) format. All non DV fomrats used by WMM use
square pixel encoding and therefore your advice to use input images of size
matching corresponding output size is valid.

Rehan
 
John Kelly said:
Well, we are still waiting for you to prove your argument in a cohesive
manner....I do like the way you are bringing this newsgroup further and
further in to the muck....you are doing a better job than all of the others
put together.

If you owned some professional software yourselves (yes that's you with the
split personality LOL) you would know the truth of it.....

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to advertise my website by the
w3ay...damn decent of you!

--
John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
Click to expand...

Rehan has proved his argument in a cohesive manner whereas you Mr. Kelly
seemed to have confused the issue. For starters, your replies seldom
include the appropriate text to what you are replying to. All messages do
not arrive to all servers around the world at the same time or with the
threads intact. So in many the reading have no clue what you are talking
about.

Mr. Kelly, your name calling is a poor reflection of your attempted
professionalism.

Yes, you continue to advertise your web site every chance you can on
microsoft.public.windowsxp.moviemaker. However I have never seen your web
site or programs advertised on other forums. It can only make me wonder
what your agenda is.

Rich
 
Karen said:
Rehan
Thank you so much for making this very clear. My son wants me to do all
Click to expand...
of this in Powerpoint, but I will look into the Photo Story. thanks
again... Got a new Burner and I am ready to go!!
Karen
Click to expand...

I would go with Photo Story over PowerPoint for what I think is your
application.

Good luck!

Rich
 
And here is another pratt, you are WRONG, I have read what you said and its GIBBERISH.....Go back to school sonny where you clearly belong and while you are there get someone to teach you how to spell and how to clean up yout language...ARROGANT, OVERBEARING, INSOLENT and thats what you are like on a good day.....clear off sonny
 
Back
Top