VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Philippines
    Search Comp PM
    pixel dimension, resolution and size of a photo... DOES IT MATTER?

    Hello.. Im inquiring to what is the best specifications of a photo
    to make a brilliant photo slideshow (S)VCD? Pictures comes from DC?
    And what type of format (specs)? Thanks for any suggestions replied.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    If you use VCDeasy (http://www.vcdeasy.org) it will convert your photos to the correct format. Nero, for example, can be used to make photo slideshows, but it does not follow the standards and some DVD players will refuse to play the discs because they don't comply with the standards. VCDeasy created slideshows should play without problems on any DVD player that supports VCD.

    The resolution of your photos doesn't matter, but they should be more than 704x480 (NTSC) or 704x576 (PAL) or they will be upconverted to that resolution and maybe not look very good. I recommend making VCD slideshows because both VCD and SVCD slideshows use exactly the same resolution and VCDs are much more compatible with standalone DVD players than SVCDs.
    Quote Quote  
  3. I recommend making VCD slideshows because both VCD and SVCD slideshows use exactly the same resolution and VCDs are much more compatible with standalone DVD players than SVCDs.
    But my SVCD slideshows are more sharp than the VCD slideshows, maybe because in MPEG2?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    If your SVCD slideshows are sharper than your VCD slideshows, it's because you are either:

    A) Authoring them incorrectly
    B) Encoding to MPEG Video and not MPEG Stills
    C) Using a DVD player with bad VCD reproduction

    I'm going to assume "B".

    SVCD video resolution = 480x480 NTSC, 480x576 PAL
    VCD video resolution = 352x240 NTSC, 352x288 PAL

    SVCD stills resolution = 704x480 NTSC, 704x576 PAL
    VCD stills resolution = 704x480 NTSC, 704x576 PAL (with a video resolution "fallback")
    If you were doing it right the resolution would be the SAME.

    Question: Do you have FX or Transitions in your slideshow?
    Yes=video=video resolution
    No=stills=stills resolution (or could be video done badly)

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  5. Wath do you want to say with
    Question: Do you have FX or Transitions in your slideshow?
    I don't know this, can you explain it?
    Thank you very much.
    P.S.: I know the video resolution of still frames, and I'm sure that they are still frames 704x576, and it's not a video, because there is a transition between the single frame, but if you want to check it out you have only to try a slideshow with audio with Nero Vision Express 3.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Maybe a visual example will help...

    Here is a still encoded as standard VCD MPEG video:
    http://www.cornucopiadm.com/goodies/Still_as_MPEGvideo.mpg

    And here is a still encoded as a VCD MPEG still:
    http://www.cornucopiadm.com/goodies/Still_as_MPEGstill.mpg

    Neither have transitions or fx.
    Both would be set to run for 5 sec on a VCD.
    Both were encoded from the same source BMP still, which had rez of 720x480.
    Both were encoded using the standard VCD settings for their respective features.
    Both would display at Full Screen on a DVD/VCD player (standalone or software).

    You decide...

    If you want to make good (S)VCD stills, get VCDEasy (freeware 1.5.2 or commercial/shareware 3.0).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  7. My slideshows don't have FX or transitions, but they can have it, so I don't understand if they are still or video, there is some tool to analyze them? Another question, are you sure tht the still fram is 4:3? On my PC is 1:1 (but the video is 4:3, I play them with Media Player Classic). And it is 352x240, not 704x480, even if the VCD uses for the still frames both the resolution.
    Anyway the VCD is progressive and the SVCD is interlaced isn't important this for the quality of your slideshow?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Both of them have a Display Aspect Ratio of 4:3 (Width : Height), and a Pixel Aspect Ratio of .909:1 (Width:Height). The VCD standard (a rigid, confined subset of MPEG1) doesn't allow for 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio, just NTSC (.909:1) or PAL (1.0909:1).

    Yes, the Still as Video is 352x240. That's the whole point! You've lost 1/2 the vertical and 1/2 the horizontal resolution when you encode a still to video as opposed to MPEG still. Of course, they will (should) both play in Full Screen at the same size, meaning that the MPEGVideo will be line doubled/repeated to include both odd and even fields of the interlaced frame, and it will be pixel stretched to 2x. The result will be a picture that is the same size either way (in full-screen mode, which is the way it will show on a real DVD player), but with Video will be blockier/blurrier.

    An MPEG still (as Still) of VCD-NTSC is 480 lines. That will be interpreted by the player as having enough for both odd and even interlace fields. This is the same as SVCD-NTSC resolution. Even though it is encoded as MPEG1 in VCD, which inherently doesn't support interlacing, because the frame height is enough, it will be played out correctly. SVCD is probably encoded as an MPEG2 I-Frame (Still)--although I haven't tested. It would also be played out correctly.

    I hope that convinces you...

    Scott




    >>>>>>>>
    edit: Use PVAStrumento, or MPEGProp or MPEG SequenceMaker to get an idea of resolution properties. Or use Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2) and do File:Properties.

    I'm going to have to email the coder of MPC and tell him/her that it's reporting the wrong DAR/PAR...
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Do me a favor and rip your Nero-created slideshow AVSEQ##.DAT files (if VCD) or AVSEQ##.MPG (if SVCD), and convert to std MPEG file. (Use ISOBuster or VCDEasy or VCDGear for the best quality here)

    Check the properties of those files (the same way I suggested before). I bet they're 352x240 (if VCD disc) or 480x480 (if SVCD disc). If so, like I've said before, you're doing yourself a disservice by not using MPEGStill encoded pix.

    Scott

    >>>>>
    edit: another way to tell would be to see where the files lie
    If VCD, Stills must be in SEGMENT folder as ITEM###.DAT, video usually is in MPEGAV folder as AVSEQ##.DAT or MUSIC##.DAT.
    If SVCD, Stills must be in SEGMENT folder ast ITEM###.DAT, video usually is in MPEGAV or MPEG2 folder as AVSEQ##.DAT.
    Quote Quote  
  10. I've converted my Nero slideshow, and it's 704X576, I've also analyzed it with VCDxmInfo, and it says that is still frames MPEG2 with audio MPEG1 Layer 2 224kpbs, I think that there isn't any compatibilty problem,but I remember that the slideshows that I created with Nero Vision Express 2 were 480x576 and probably they were videos and not still frames.
    Perhaps it's a problem that they have removed in the new version?
    P.S. the stills are in SEGMENT folder, as ITEM ###.MPG (but they are DAT, not MPG, but I think that's normal with the SVCD), in my slideshow there isn't videos, so the MPEG2 folder is empty.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Yeah, sounds like NVExp3 has improved over 2. You may want to go back and see if it improved the VCD as well. My guess is yes.

    That is one (more) good thing about DVD--the video can be as high quality as the stills, so you are more flexible with whether you want FX/Transitions (video required) or not.

    That's actually one thing that sounds great about BluRay. Actual stills that incorporate FX/Transitions and audio, yet are still user advanceable/navigateable. (They do it with better pointer tables ("out of mux") and with big buffers)

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  12. You may want to go back and see if it improved the VCD as well. My guess is yes.
    I guess is not, the same slideshow in the VCD doesn't fit in one CD, I'm going to burn it, so I will check it, perhaps it use video for the VCD, but it's pretty strange!?
    Quote Quote  
  13. I can't even burn it! The CD structure is too complex for Nero, but I can make it with VCD Easy, even if it's an hardest work (converting each stills is a frustation for me).
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    When I need to do anything over the simplest of VCD structure, I always use VCDEasy and/or VCDImager. I've even plunked down the bucks for the commercial version--it's worth it.

    With version 3, it works on all my burners, and the only thing left unsupported is [Hidden] and [Hi/Low Priority] parameters in the ISO section, allowing additional ISO files in the VCD application folders, AudioCD track support, Closed captioning, and Hotspots.
    I can currently use VCDimager to add the hotspots, use a Cuesheet editor and CUE/BIN burner app to add the AudioCD track support (or via Videopak/WinOnCD or VCDToolkit), go with Videopak/WinOnCD or Nero for Hidden/Priority attributes, and no app has been known to do Closed captioning anyway, so I don't worry about that anymore.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  15. However I'd like to know this: in order to make a (S)VCD slideshow it's better NTSC or PAL format? My DVD player and TV support both of them, but there are negative side for both the standards.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    You live in Italy, so you should use PAL. I live in US, so I should use NTSC. Use the TV system your country supports, that's all there is to it. Otherwise, you're paddling against the stream.

    (Of course, if everything you do is output ONLY to computer monitor, it doesn't matter, and since a still doesn't have "flicker" or motion issues, most would use PAL, as it has the higher vertical resolution.)

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  17. You live in Italy, so you should use PAL. I live in US, so I should use NTSC.
    Yes of course! But the NTSC format has a refresh of 29,97 fps, and on my TV the slideshow in PAL has flickering problem, with NTSC it's more stable, even if there are those 100 lines; I'm thinking if the DVD players support the PAL 30 format; it's uses by the videogames in Europe, and it's very cool, 625 lines with 30fps refresh.
    But why a still doesn't have flickering issues for you?
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    2 things:

    1) Don't get flicker (which is what your brain notices when the picture refresh gets too low) mixed up with twitter or strobing (which is what you see between adjacent lines of highly contrasting/different material that is made worse by interlacing).

    As someone who is used to watching 30fps NTSC video, flicker is noticeable at 25fps.

    2) Very often people don't pre-process their pix with interlacing in mind. Thus, they don't avoid the problems of twitter and strobing.

    One thing to do-apply a 2 or 3 or 4 (depending on strength you need) pixel vertical only motion blur. This will greatly reduce twitter/strobing without losing much sharpness. It does lose some, but that's the price you pay until all viewing devices are no longer interlaced. Also, check out things like color saturation/contrast. PAL is much better in this respect than NTSC, but both have limits based upon the difference between YUV and RGB color spaces.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  19. Thank you, and excuse me, I'm not an expert, and even my English is so so (I'm a 17 years boy otherwise)! Do you really think that PAL is better, oh I'm lucky !
    Cheers!
    Quote Quote  
  20. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    VCD stills resolution is 704x576 for PAL and 704x480 for NTSC, so it would seem to me that PAL is a better choice just based on that.
    Quote Quote  
  21. VCD stills resolution is 704x576 for PAL and 704x480 for NTSC, so it would seem to me that PAL is a better choice just based on that.
    Of course, but I was thinking about the effects of the frame rates of the PAL format, I don't know if you live in a country with PAL or NTSC system, but I'm very angred with the refresh of the european TV, but all the modern TV supports both the systems, so I want to know what is the better, but perhaps PAL is really better (even if I'm not sure about it)!
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Start with Digital cam photos (usually 1500x1100 jpeg) and make a test slideshow of each system--PAL & NTSC. Burn w/ CD-RW (no coasters!)and see which looks best on your player/tv setup.

    Let us know how it turns out.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  23. Ehmmm, the problem is that I don't have a digital camera, do you have some sample photo to link, so I will use them?Tnx!
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    I think you would find my pix boring--kids, church, work, town. Plus, my digicam files are all quite large--couple of MB each, too much to post on the web.

    Just do a google search for some pix that you might like (getting permission, of course) and use ones that are higher rez than 720x576. Lots of digicam stuff comes out at ~1500x1100, that's a good start.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!