dont use JPEG!
There is no such thing as PPI (DPI as you referred) when it comes to video.
There is a set amount of pixels, and that’s it – how it’s displayed is a different story, so it’s impossible to judge video in terms of resolution.
You’d be best to find out what format these are going to – typically DV is around 720x480pixels so anything more is wasted.
In different parts of the world this size may be different, and if they’re going HD the dimensions will be different.
I don’t think you are going to benefit from high resolution images for this project. The television isn’t going to be able to differentiate between a 300 dpi image and a 72 dpi image. My recommendation would be for you to experiment. Create a video using different resolutions and file formats. View this video on your television and evaluate the results. Then you will know for sure what does and doesn’t work. Personally, I have experienced excellent results in my video slide shows from JPEG images at 72 dpi.
Personally, I have experienced excellent results in my video slide shows
from JPEG images at 72 dpi.<<<
That’s my thinking too. Unfortunately, the fellow doing the slide to CDROM conversions is thinking 600+ DPI. Personally, I think he is nuts but didn’t have the knowledge to tell him that. Many thanks.
Once it’s on video, there is no such thing as resolution!
Video only has so many pixels – how it’s displayed on either a 15" or 60" TV has no bearing on the fact that there are only 720x480pixels in DV format!
Even if it’s being projected 20′ across a screen – the resolution of video is unchanged.
You need to find out what video format it’s going to.
There is something else to consider here, however. Many of the newer DVD players are capable of reading a CD and simply opening folders and JPEG images. I have a Toshiba that will do this. If you are going to create a CD that would be suitable for both viewing on the TV as well as for printing the images, then perhaps there would be some justification for the higher resolution. The slide shows that I was referring to in my previous message were ones that I created using a video editing program, and were designed exclusively for TV viewing.
If you are going to create a CD that would be suitable for both viewing on the TV as well as for printing the images, then perhaps there would be some justification for the higher resolution.
Resolution (PPI) is ONLY for print. Not video viewing. As jason said, ONLY pixels matter on screens.
Don’t believe it? See:
<
http://aikodude.tripod.com/difResTest.html>
check out the image properties. the top is 72ppi, the bottom is 300ppi. both are 800 pixels wide x 600 pixels high. any diff viewing on screen? nope. not a one. but the top one will PRINT bigger than the bottom one (and look pixelated). The bottom one will PRINT smaller and be denser, of better printed quality. The same goes for tv screens. The dvd player probably has a setting for "full screen" in which it’ll scale (resample) the image to fit the screen, or "actual size" which will display the actual pixels the image is saved at. It’ll probably default to "full screen".
So if your images are destined ONLY for screen work, you can ignore (or strip with Save For Web) ANY resolution info from the image.
hth, dave
You’d be best to find out what format these are going to – typically DV is around 720x480pixels so anything more is wasted.
True, unless you plan to zoom into the images.
My plans are just to convert the images into a USA VHS tape (with audio added). Nothing fancy, will do the DVD just to provide future usability.
I just have to convince the fellow handling the slide to photo CD conversion to tone down his DPI, there is no intent to ever print the images, just display them as video.
I just have to convince the fellow handling the slide to photo CD conversion to tone down his DPI
You can’t do that. A PhotoCD has five resolutions, with the largest being about 3000×2000 pixels, the next one is 1500×1000 pixels and so on. You have to pick the resolution you need when you open the file.
And BTW, Kodak doesn’t manufacture PhotoCDs anymore (the PCD files get put on a regular CDROM), so you may want to look into another alternative.
Of course, Kodak only made the scanning/burning stations to create PhotoCD output.
The actual CD itself IS just a "regular CD", just had thumbnails and some additonal editing/viewing software on it.
The actual .pcd files can stand alone, like Corel Photo CD releases. But it’s true that Kodak has quit manufacturing the workstations, so .pcd is a dying format.
Too bad, actually, I thought it was truly handy. Especially if it were updated to be higher resolution than the original specs.
PhotoCD are compressed 4.5MB .pcd files, with 5 imbedded resolutions: 192×128 (72KB)
384×256 (288KB)
768×512 (1.125MB)
1536×1024 (4.5MB)
3072×2048 (18MB)
There is also ProPhotoCD, with one higher resoution embedded (quite a bit more expensive).
Mac
Dave, I’m afraid I must disagree. With my CSI-Image enhancer software, at 72 dpi, I can only make out the license plate number and driver of the cement mixer. At 300 dpi, I can determine the species of ant walking along the left edge of the license plate and get the fingerprints of the driver.
😉
abclapp,
Tell us about this CSI-image enhancer software. As Dave and others have said, monitors and TVs display pixels. Resolution tags are ignored.
Bert
Bert – note the smiley on abclapp’s post….
Bert – note the smiley on abclapp’s post….
DUH!
Of course, Kodak only made the scanning/burning stations to create PhotoCD output.
Wrong, they also sold the actual PhotoCDs to us people who sold them to the public. And continued doing so after they annouced the end of the PCD stations (around 2001 IIRC), assuring us they would still manufacture them for a long time to come, then one happy day last year, when we ordered some, they told us the PCDs were discontinued without any warning. We are since burning PCD scans to regular CDROMS, but have had to discontinue some asciated services.
The actual CD itself IS just a "regular CD", just had thumbnails and some additonal editing/viewing software on it.
Wrong again, the difference between a PCD and a CDROM was that the PCD has a unique serial number which the PCD burner can read and recognize thus treating it differently than a "regular" CDROM. The cost of a PCD was also about 10 times as much as a regular CDROM.
The actual .pcd files can stand alone, like Corel Photo CD releases. But it’s true that Kodak has quit manufacturing the workstations, so .pcd is a dying format.
Yes, but if you burn them onto a regular CDROM, the PCD scanning station will not give you access to some of the features a PCD allowed, such as "removing" or "moving" files on the CD. Duplication also cannot be done properly with the PCD scanning station and has to be done with Toast or CDCreator or another CD burning software instead.
This the end of a bad idea: "You can watch your pictures on your TV!"
Thanks for clearing some of that up for me, Rene.
I obviously did not know that the media itself was differently encoded.
Of course, more and more people ARE looking at their pix on TV, but not with PhotoCD. It’s ironic that working pros embraced the PCD format rather than Joe SixPack (until 18MB images became "low rez").
Mac
Of course, more and more people ARE looking at their pix on TV, but not with PhotoCD. It’s ironic that working pros embraced the PCD format rather than Joe SixPack (until 18MB images became "low rez").
Actually, it’s not, you also had to buy the $300 PCD viewer to plug into your TV, and BTW, it did nothing else, that right a $300 piece of machinery to view photos on your TV, no vide, no laserdisc nothing else. Not to mention an added 30 to 40 smackaroos when you process your film to get it scanned. Every single customer offered this option would always say "why would I want to do that, I can just pull out the photos themselves and pass them around" 2 million in market research didn’t figure this one out for Kodak.
Today viewing the phtos on your TV is cheaper, not more expensive than seeing them on paper.
The only thing that saved Kodak on this one is that designers and photographers figured out quickly it was a cheap alternative to drum scanning if you didn’t mind the lwer quality. This is where the ProCD came from, with the larger resolution (about 4000×6000 pixels) and the ability to scan 120 film and 4×5 film.
Just an aside, I have 3 of 4 the Corel Photo CD libraries. 600 CDs, 100 .pcd images each CD.
Just normal .pcd though, 3072×2048 highest rez.
And these, btw, are just on normal CD release media.
Mac
Mac,
It is possible to burn PCD files onto a CDROM (heck it’s even posible to write them straight to a hard drive) but Kodak (and their software) won’t recognize those as "real" PhotoCD images, all part of their g/o/u/g/i/n/g/ better serving the customer policy
Right, I understand that now, due to your explanations.
I’ve only used .pcd as normal files, never even had a "real" PhotoCD with whatever software and interface was on them.
I do see the PhotoCD players on eBay now and then though, and of course they don’t sell at $5.
What I don’t get re the "watching on TV". Why the deuce did they make the format multi-rez, and 18 MB tops to boot? I mean, this was a boon for actual pro imaging purposes, but way overkill for TV, rez wise.
Mac
