High res photo slideshow on DVD: possible? How?

[simone17]

This is the problem: I've "tons" of jpg pics taken with digital cameras at high (1280x960 and higher) resolutions. Which program should I use to make a sort of automated slideshow on dvd?

(I'd like to avoid VCD or photocd cause I was told they only support low res pictures. And I 'd like to burn on dvd rather that CD or SVCD)
Any ideas?

Thanks from Italy.
Simone

[HAGGARD]

Simone,

You may try DVDMaestro to do that job... Though have to do some "things" with the pictures... (eg. resize them so they fit DVD resolution (720x576) with Paint Shop Pro).
Then make a menu template in DVDMaestro... (eg. make a menu with a background picture (this is one of your pictures) and a "back" and "next" button...
It looks something like this...

Menu 1 = Picture 1
Menu 2 = Picture 2
Menu 3 = Picture 3
. .
Menu n = Picture n

Link the "back" and "next" buttons to the appropriate menus (thus your pictures) so you can "walk" thru the pictures or use menutimeout (eg. 10seconds) to make an automated slideshow of the pictures...
It is hard to explain, but just try and play with DVDMaestro so you'll get it...

Good luck
'HAG

[pluche]

I've used a different way to chieve that goal: I have a Mac with a graphics card that has sVHS connection , and a Panasonic DMR E50
So I have used a picture browser on my Mac called "Graphics Convertor" which has a slide show and via the sVHS port recorded all pictures on a DVD with the Panasonic;
advantages: - very good picture/color quality (on a good tv)
- no need for picture conversion: you can use jpeg (large ones), tiff, psd etc... and i've done that with picture varying between 3 and 14 mb/piece
- color management (if used) remain intact

disadvantage: no selection of transitions

first one needs to make some tests: especially the contrast/highlight settings of the graphics card are very important (I use +- 50 %)

[huiwinsun]

If u intend to view your slideshow on TV, u will be limited by the resolution of your TV, no matter how high the resolution of your pictures are.

Recommend to use DVD Pictureshow (best, no flickering) or WinOnCD 6.

Forget programs like PicturetoTV or photo2VCD as they convert stills to lower resolution video...

Hope this helps.

[Specialist]

Have a look at Ulead DVD PictureShow 2:

http://www.ulead.com/dps/runme.htm

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[EricB]

simone17,

I second the motion on Ulead DVD PictureShow 2.0. The DVDs look great, and you can store your original pictures (original names and resolutions) on the DVD for backup.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Whether you make a VCD or DVD slideshow(no transitions)the resolution will be the same 704x480(576 PAL).When you use transitions the program converts the slideshow to MPEG then DVD has a higher resolution.
BTW..I also recommend Ulead PictureShow 2.

[patsym1]

In my opinion Vegas Video cant be beaten. Having tried every other programmes including Ulead DVD PictureShow 2.0 Vegas is far more professional looking, even some TV Companies use it in conjunction with Avid Express.



Regards Patsym1

[wwaag]

I use SlideShow MovieMaker (freeware). You can input your image files (regardless of the resolution), apply whatever transitions you like, control timing, add titles, sound, etc. It then creates an AVI file depending on your codec of choice (I use the MainConcept DV codec). I can then input these files into Premiere for further editing or combination with other video material, or simply encode and burn to DVD. Since your output resolution is always limited to 720x480 NTSC, this gives you a lot of leeway in terms of cropping your images and still have great looking output. SSMM also provides some limited panning capability. Best of all--the price. Recommend highly.

wwaag

[mrbass]

In my opinion Vegas Video cant be beaten. Having tried every other programmes including Ulead DVD PictureShow 2.0 Vegas is far more professional looking, even some TV Companies use it in conjunction with Avid Express.

Regards Patsym1

That's it...I keep hearing this and I gotta try Vegas Video 4.0 out for slideshows. I really wish we could just make DVD Stills and fit like 10,000 photos per DVD. That was my hope but I guess they have to be with transitions, etc.

[patsym1]

You don't have to use transitions and you can use as many pics as your blank DVD disc will hold. The quality is excellent.



Regards Patsym1

[doug1937@hotmail.com]

You should get a modern DVD player...both of mine will let me take a CD-R full of JPGs, burned in Data format, and view it as a slideshow on my TV. Who needs DVD format? A 1280x960 pic in JPG format is roughly 200K, and on a 700MB CDR I can fit about 3500 of them.

[Rogue3]

What is the best way to make it so the slideshow is anamorphic? Do I just crop the images to 720x480?

I tried using Ulead pictureshow 2 but it had the jitter problem, so I think I will use premeire instead. I just wanted to know how to insure that the final output would be anamorphic.

[mkelley]

PictureShow 2 does have a jitter problem with DVDs, but not with VCDs. The resolution of stills with no transitions on a VCD is almost identical to the still format of DVDs -- the same economy (you can easily fit 2000 or so images on one VCD).

This is my preferred way of doing slide shows that I want to control the duration (ones I'm going to show people, as opposed to ones I give people). When I want transitions I use Premiere with DVDLab and it works great, but it's not as easy and automatic as PictureShow 2 (and with transitions I don't get a *ton* more images on a DVD -- plus the chapter stops don't work nearly as nice). Since VCDs play on nearly every modern DVD player this is as universal as DVD gets (and a whole lot cheaper).

In Premiere you import the slides in whatever resolution you took them and check "Maintain Aspect Ratio" -- it will correctly pad with black on the sides or top/bottom as needed, just as PictureShow does (although PS doesn't have any option for *not* maintaining aspect ratio).

Just as my tag says, you don't want to hold yourself to only one tool -- learn to use them all and you'll be able to do so many more things.

[vitualis]

As others have stated, if you use MPEG still images on a VCD, you can have a resolution of 704 X 576 for PAL and 704 x 480 for NTSC (4:3 display aspect ratio).

DVD is only slightly higher (720 x 480/576).

@ mkelly: when you use Premiere to make a slideshow with transitions, I think that you may have forgotten about this issue: http://www.vcdimager.org/guides/mpeg_still_images.html#aspect_ratio

Premiere will "maintain" the aspect ratio with an assumption of a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio (and so it should). It doesn't compensate for the fact that the end video aspect ratio is 4:3 display aspect ratio which at the framesizes of 720x480/576 or 704x480/576 or 352x240/288 does not have a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1.

As such, the slideshow when displayed on TV will yield people who look too skinny in NTSC or too fat in PAL.

A long time ago, I actually wrote a guide to fix this when using Premiere to make a photo slideshow. It involved use Photoshop automation to correctly batch resize the images. Unfortunately, that guide has long since "expired" on the current forum...

Regards.

[mkelley]

Michael,

I'm well aware of the "fat pixel versus skinny pixel" of computers and NTSC -- however, I have done the Premiere slideshow a few times with 6.5 and I can swear I see no problems when "Maintain aspect ratio" is checked.

Are you *absolutely* positive Premiere hasn't now adjusted for this? If not, then I'm beginning to think that all those years of creating broadcast television images where we (my company makes educational videos) resized them were wasted. Maybe there really isn't all that much of a difference (and, as Spock said "A difference that makes no difference is no difference." :>)

The other thing that makes me think that maybe Premiere was changed is that shows I've created using PictureShow (which was designed for the casual user and definitely encourages you to simply select an image regardless of the resolution and it will take care of the rest -- my assumption here is that it *must* be doing resizing correctly or the average Joe would be lost) creates slideshows that look absolutely the same to me as doing it in Premiere. Also, I'm really familiar with the images I am using (in Real Life I have achieved some notoriety as a still photographer) and I would have thought I'd have noticed if they were distorted in any way (some of these images have been displayed quite prominently in shows, and I've spent many hours adjusting and pouring over others of them) and they all seem just fine.

I suppose what I need to do is run some scientific tests (sigh) but in the meantime I'm going to stand by my premise that if it looks right there's no reason to worry about it (that is, ultimately, the only test that matters).

[vitualis]

I can only comment with the version of Premiere I own (v5.5) and it definitely did not compensate.

It is relatively easy to do a quick check...

With the video clip (MPEG) that Premiere makes, load it up with virtualdub and copy a frame to memory that contains one of your pictures.

Paste that over to an imaging program. Now, compare this clip and the original JPEG/TIFF/etc. If the pixel aspect ratio is the SAME (i.e., resize so that the WIDTH is the same and paste one on top of the other as a new layer with a transparency of 50%), then no compensation has been done.

If the pixel aspect ratio is NOT the same, presumably, some compensation can be done (and one would assume correctly if it "looks okay") on the TV.

Regards.

[mkelley]

Would not capturing a still from an MPEG into computer format and then trying to compare it somehow skew the process? Maybe it's too early in the morning for my poor brain, but it just seems like translating fat pixels back to fat pixels here. I mean, isn't the point the pixels appear *differently* on the NTSC monitor then they do on the computer?

Actually, what I think I'll do (but it will have to wait until the weekend) is fire up our broadcast NLE suite and do a comparison from there. I don't use it much since we switched to Premiere and firewire, but I do know it strictly follows the pixel translation rules (which is why we were always resizing) and I also know I can tell the difference when images aren't sized correctly there. So I'll just prepare a slide show using the same images and output it to DVD and then see how it compares with ones I do in PictureShow and Premiere.

Assuming I can remember to do this (I'm an old man :>) I'll post the results of this experiment back here on Monday.

[mkelley]

Okay, as I wake up (slowly) I realize that's what you were saying -- it *should* appear different because the program translates it (or at least that's my contention). If it doesn't appear different then no translation is going on that it won't be correct looking on TV. I'll check this out.

I may still do the broadcast test, since that's a good reference standard. Also it may demonstrate one additional thing: the proof that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If my eyes can't tell the difference between a slide show done on our high end suite in which we've compensated for the aspect ratio versus using Premiere and not compensating, then it really doesn't matter. In the end it's how the image looks that really counts.

[vitualis]

Would not capturing a still from an MPEG into computer format and then trying to compare it somehow skew the process? Maybe it's too early in the morning for my poor brain, but it just seems like translating fat pixels back to fat pixels here. I mean, isn't the point the pixels appear *differently* on the NTSC monitor then they do on the computer?

No to your first question and Yes to the second.

For the image to be compensated, it will have to be resized so that it no longer has a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. When you capture a bmp from the mpeg stream with VirtualDub, it still assumes a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. Thus, you can see whether any compensation had taken place at all when you compare it to the original image.

Trust me, my experiment is easier and if you understand it, foolproof. It doesn't involve any guessing by "eyework"...

Regards.

[vitualis]

If my eyes can't tell the difference between a slide show done on our high end suite in which we've compensated for the aspect ratio versus using Premiere and not compensating, then it really doesn't matter.

But what if somebody else's eye can tell the difference?

When I first made my VCD slideshows, I ignored the aspect ratio issue. I didn't notice too much at first but just thought that it didn't look quite right. Then my girlfriend said that my slideshows made her look fat on the TV (I use PAL)...

Now that I'm aware of the issue, I can see it easily...

Regards.

[mkelley]

Yes, but you go on to prove my point. You said you "just thought it didn't look quite right."

My whole point is that if you *did* thought it looked right it wouldn't matter, even if your girlfriend thought otherwise. I'm assuming from your sig you're in the content creation business like myself. We have to create our art in accordance to what *we* think is good. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks it looks too blue, too dark, too contrasty, too short, too loud, etc. etc. Now, I grant you if enough "other people" don't share your taste then you won't be too successful, but let's stipulate that you and I are both successful folks.

If I look at two identical (in terms of content) slide shows made with different processes and can't tell the difference between them I trust my critical eye well enough to know there *is* no appreciable difference. If I'm truly not able to see differences that you and your girlfriend can see, trust me, then I've been in the wrong business for 28 years.

[vitualis]

Actually, I'm inclined to think that Premiere 6.5 may well adjust the aspect ratio since you say you can't see the difference (and I see that you work in the field)... I can't prove or disprove it myself since I don't own that version of the software.

Without the adjustment, I think that a fair number of people CAN see the difference. There's been a few nice flamewars before on the forum where people have refused to believe the issue existed at all (despite the maths) vs. the people who can see the difference and were troubled by the fact that none of the programs (then) had an automated way of fixing it.

Actually, I don't work in content creation business though I'm flattered that you might think so... I'm just an enthusiastic hobbyist. Actually, if you click on the last link on my sig, you'll see that I'm a doctor.

Best regards.

[mkelley]

Ah, I'm very impressed, Michael, that you are in the medical profession. To my mind there is nothing I have done in my time on earth that has made one single difference -- and every single day you do something profound and important. That you then have time to engage so enthusiastically in this "hobby" is even more impressive.

I haven't used Premiere up until this version so I have no basis of comparison. But I'll run both tests, we'll see what we can see <g> and I will report back here (believe me, if I am wrong I'll be doubly sure to report back here -- I would hate to mislead anyone in this).

Keep up the good work (I only read a few paragraphs but your blog is very interesting -- makes me wish I had chosen a different path, one that would have improved this world).

[vitualis]

BTW, (for anyone else following the thread), have a look at the two Warner Bros. logos here: https://www.videohelp.com/vcd

Both have been "adjusted" so that they will play properly in the 4:3 display aspect ratio on TV. On the PC (with a displayed pixel aspect ratio of 1:1), the NTSC version is a little bit fatter (as it gets "thinned" on TV) and the PAL version is a little bit thinner (as it gets "broadened" on TV). That is, the TRUE image in the correct aspect ratio is somewhere between the PAL and NTSC images.

Most people should be able to notice the difference between the PAL and NTSC in the 1:1 displayed pixel aspect ratio (or else get your eyes checked!)

Not everyone can see the difference between the PAL/NTSC in the 1:1 displayed pixel aspect ratio (i.e., as displayed by a "dumb" media player on the PC) and as it is displayed on TV (i.e., a display aspect ratio of 4:3).

BTW, curiously enough, "dumb" media players include WMP version 7 and up.

"Smart" media players that understand the concept of "display aspect ratio" and resize accordingly include PowerDVD, WinDVD and Windows Media Player 6!

Regards.

[SaSi]

Simone has gone... 8)

[SaSi]

BTW, curiously enough, "dumb" media players include WMP version 7 and up.

Yeah, they were too busy fixing the skins and buttons that take up all the space on the screen, they forgot to make it play movies properly.

Thankfully, when MP7 is installed, it doesn't uninstall MP6.

On the DVD Slideshow issue, I've succesfully viewed several CDs and DVDs with jpeg images grouped in folders. Some DVD players don't play the disks, others happily do. Not a recommended approach for compatibility, however one option to have in mind if you have a disk with images and no computer to view them...

[shhas]

I have made slide shows with a whole bunch of programs.

ProShow Gold is the best. It makes excellent SVCD in addition to VCDs for slide show. And yes there is a huge difference in quality of the slide show with SVCD.

Check it out. http://www.photodex.com/products/proshow/

[txpharoah]

I use Premiere 6.5 and input 640x480 TIF images. Output MPEG2 with Mainconcept. Add audio tracks, whatever. The slideshow is the easiest of all editing techniques.

Ratio is perfect to tv screen. Color automatically adjusted. Looks great. Not real hard at all. Can use Premiere filters to fade/etc.

[Timoleon]

Ulead DVD Picture Show 2 works great --- just finished making a 7500 slide DVD with it. **DON'T** use transitions!!! (too much disk space & flicker).