VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread
  1. Member solarblast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    N. California. USA
    Search Comp PM
    This is something of a surprise. In another recent thread, I struggled with trying to get a map of the country Chile in a vertical position with good resolution. Too much small type was messing things up. I found another map of Chile that had pretty much only the major cities named on a very nicely colored map. 209x800 pixels, jpg. I thought I'd re-dimension it to 155x440 pixels to nicely accommodate a 480x640 frame. The city names in Vegas were more or less OK, but not really up to snuff.

    I then stuck the 209x800 image into the timeline, and was surprised to see (in Preview) the image was very clear, as were the names. I'm puzzled. Why does Vegas do so well at compressing the big image into a frame, but PSP (Paint Shop Pro) do such a bad job? I'm pretty sure the PSP resize used weighted averages. What is Vegas using? I tried the other PSP re-sample methods, but weighted was best, but not as good as Vegas. Comments?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    I would suggest two things, neither of which answer your question directly.

    1. PSP used to be a great budget alternative to Photoshop. However as it grew, and as JASC lost interest and sold it off, it has dropped in quality and in it's ability to keep pace. Even paint.net, a freebie still image editor, does some things better.

    2. Vegas has a long heritage, greater resources behind it, and caters to a more discerning market than the average PSP user. You would expect it to do a better job at most things than PSP.

    3. Finally, Vegas is aimed at video work, PSP is aimed at still image work. Vegas will be using an algorithm designed to best resize still images for video presentation. If you are resizing images for use in Vegas, let Vegas do the work for you, or buy photoshop.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member solarblast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    N. California. USA
    Search Comp PM
    You may very well be right about this. When you say it resizes for me, do you mean that I might as well drop my best good sized image into the timeline rather than try to use a PS, PSP or paint.net to accommodate the frame size? My still work is pretty limited. PSP and PS both are beyond my needs. However, Elements is a cousin to PS. Is it likely a better choice than PSP or a reasonable substitute to PS, that is carry the same quality as PS?
    Quote Quote  
  4. I often resize images with VirtualDub's LanczosResize, or AviSynth's Lanczos4Resize.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member solarblast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    N. California. USA
    Search Comp PM
    I may give them a try to see what the effect is. I did a little Googling and found that Elements 3 introduced a couple of new re-sampling methods not found in PSP. I believe Elements is up to version 6 or 7 now. That's a guess. In any case, 3 shows that PSP is not keeping up with the Joneses.

    I just tried an experiment with PSP and Vegas. I widened the image by 10% in PSP to account for the shrinkage Vegas makes for NTSC. I took that over to Vegas and could not really notice much of a degradation in the small city names. At least, PSP doesn't screw that up. My experiment above (first post) was just with the raw Chile map, so it shrunk 10% in width in Vegas (it was still OK with me). So doing the increase in width resulted in a still better image than the original I used above. The letter separation was better. I think all this is good.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads