why at some poitn scan resolution does not improve VCD imag?

[dashur]

Hi

I'm making VCDs with family photos and have done some tests using different scan resolutions when scanning my photos. To my surprise there is no noticeable difference from 96ppp / 150ppp upwards. Someone knwos why? I expected that I could get sharper images using higher resolution but it makes no difference (even when I zoom up to x4 the quality is the same). Also, using Nero, it does not make a big difference using bmp or jpeg files. I saw someone here that claimed each photo he scanned used 60MB!!! Why would he do that if with after 2MB the VCD shows same image quiality?

Anyone knows?

Cheers!

javier

[Poplar]

I am not sure VCD is the answer to what you wanted to do. There are a lot of software that can do picture show, such as Ulead DVD Picture Show. Sandard VCD resolution is only 352x240, which is why it sucks.

[dashur]

Poplar, I know that. I use Ulead DVD Picture Show and Nero, after trying FlyVCD, Xatshow, etc. Therefore the resolution is not 352x240!!

I'm quite happy with the resolution of VCD still shows, however there is no noticeable image quality difference from 96ppp / 150ppp upwards scanned photos. Since I saw some posts talking about 60MB file per scanned photo I was wandering why do they scan with such a high resolution if it doesn't make a difference when you view it in your DVD!!

Any ideas?

Cheers

javier

[tonyp12]

ALL VCD still-picture programs re-encode the picture to a resolution of 704x480 pixels.

Some programs are so bad that they re-encode it to movie mpg1 at 352x240,
so you can have wipes and sound


It does not matter if the picture was 20mb and 1280x1024 pixels to start with.

Slideshow using Nero:
http://www.vcdhelp.com/nerophoto.htm

[EddyH]

Yeah... you're limited by what the TV can display... actually you should find the picture quality doesn't get any sharper, maybe just less noisy, past -one- megabyte picture size as 720x480 (x24 bits) = almost exactly 1mb... anything larger will get resized and so essentially look just the same.

If you've got a bad film setup, like a cheap APS box, scanning much above 120dpi won't do anything for the picture anyway because of the spectacular size of the grains... some cameras it's a waste storing them electronically past about 1000 x (whatever) pixels. Which is exactly why I got a digital infact 64mb card = about 100 very sharp (1600 across! = about 240dpi), totally grainless pictures with hardly any distortion

Even medium quality (1280 with slight distortion) matches anything the average compact camera puts out, and you don't have to go through the bother of scanning the prints!