|
|
Posted by Richard Crowley on 07/03/06 11:53
"RP" wrote ...
> ...Most other sources I've read indicate that it's a waste
> to shoot for the 4096x4096 limit, but I guess they're
> assuming I'm not going to need all that much headroom
> and that storage is at a premium. In my case, storage isn't
> a big issue, it's not like I do this for a living. I do want to
> preserve my zooming in capability, so I will give myself
> some headroom, but I'm guessing I'll probably be ok with
> something like 2000x2000 which, if I understand correctly,
> should allow me roughly a 4-1 zoom on images that can
> comfortably downsample to 720x480 and still fit without
> cropping
I think you've got it. The bottom line is when you are
"zoomed" all the way in to a particular image, you
*never exceed* the resolution you scanned the image
at. If you zoom *past* the native resolution of your image,
Premiere has to start interpolating/creating pixels and the
picture starts looking "fuzzy".
> (I'm assuming the correct axis to multiply is the 480,
> which I guess will produce some "reverse letterboxing").
> I hope this makes sense, it sounds confusing the way I say
> it, but I think I get it.
Premiere will tell you exactly the pixel dimensions of a frame
for whichever format you chose when you created a new
project. Remember that NTSC uses "non-square" pixels
so while Standard Definition TV is theoretically 4x3, the
pixels are only 0.9 pixel wide, which is where the 720 x
480 comes from. I could quote you the exact dimensions,
but I am not at the video workstation where PP is installed.
> I guess another issue occurs to me as I write this. Seems
> to me that Premiere Pro is going to need to preserve the
> original 2000x2000 image and build that into the final
> production irrespective of how much use it actually gets
> at that size in the film.
No. The output from PP is a sequence of 720 x 480 video
frames, regardless of whatever the original size/shape/
resolution of your still pictures was. If the frames of video
weren't this exact size, nobody could play it back on a
DVD or VCR, etc.
> This has at least two implications: 1) final output is larger
> (no biggie, really); but
No. The final output size of a DV file depends ONLY on
the length (number of minutes, seconds, and frames). It has
nothing to do with the content or the original source material
or how it was derived.
> 2) performance is slower due to file management and
> downsampling. Is that an appreciable issue on decent
> hardware (my Alienware Area 51 - 7900)?
Assuming you mean the performance of PP while creating
your video production? Once it is a DV stream (or a DVD,
or VHS or WMV or whatever) it plays in "real time" without
regard to how it got there. To me, how long it takes to render
is not really an issue as I am not under a deadline to get my
stuff out in a few minutes/hours. If I do something that takes
a LONG time to render, I just let it run overnight while I am
sleeping. The computer doesn't get tired.
> This is all a lot more complex than I originally thought
> when I asked for Premiere Pro for my birthday lol,
I think you are over-analyzing this. In practice it isn't that
complex. The effect of more capable computer hardware
and application software is to make sophisticated and
complex mechanisms easy to use regardless of the
internal complexity.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|