Resolution and zooming in...

Question

Level 1

40 points

Resolution and zooming in...

I'm shooting footage on a Canon HF10 camcorder in 1920 x 1080. I want to use this footage to make instructional videos that I will sell on the internet as downloadable videos of an average length of 12-15 minutes with a file size of around 200MB. I do want these videos to be widescreen, but they will obviously be far, far less than HD.

Here's my issue: I want to zoom in and out of different areas of the video while I'm editing it using keyframes and cropping. However, I am concerned about the loss of resolution I'll experience as I zoom in.

I had thought that the loss of resolution and resulting blurriness would limit me to only zooming in a small amount. But I was recently speaking with a tech rep in the professional applications department at Apple. He suggested that, since the final file size is going to be so small, I should do something like edit the 1920 x 1080 footage in standard definition. He was saying that by doing this I would be taking advantage of the full resolution of the footage and would be able to zoom in quite a bit without any noticeable loss in video quality.

I've been experimenting with this, and I'm not sure I understood what the tech was suggesting. Can any of you tell me what the tech might have been suggesting, or, even better, if there is a way I can take advantage of the full resolution of the footage I'm editing so that I can zoom in quite a bit without loss in quality?

I would greatly appreciate any advice. I hope my question is clear.

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010), Mac OS X (10.6.4)

Posted on Mar 10, 2012 9:32 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

Karsten Schlüter

Level 7

34,086 points

Mar 10, 2012 10:31 PM in response to JDLee

you can do a simple test on your own:

• record a scene (keep in mind: 'quality' is by far more than just pixels! Do good photography, keyword light)

• edit a few shots, set your Project to 1080 ...

• add diif. 'zooms' in diff. scales (2x, 4x, 10x) - will look pixelated, promised 😉

• … are you using Compressor? Or how do you finally 'convert' into delivery-version?

letssay, you're using Compressor:

• create a Preset, as 480x270, 15fps, h264, 500kbps, deinterlace ... or whatever your 'quality' should be

• share/export using this Compressor Preset ...

=> when you blow-up a 1080-video (#1) by 4x, for sure it looks 'blocky' (#2) - each pixel is now 4 pixels in size; but shrinking the final video again by this factor reduces the resolution back to 1 pix (#3) ... so, theoretically, the picture should look ok.

but ....

compression is a bit more than just re-sizing pixels 🙂

don't forget to deinterlace!

Reply

Answer 2

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Mar 11, 2012 12:28 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Hello Karsten,

I had started doing some experiments, but I was going along different lines. I took a one-minute clip from my 1920 x 1080 footage created three projects: one at 1920 x 1080 (29.97i), one at 1280 x 720 (23.98p), and one at 720 x 480 DV Anamorphic (29.97i). I output them using the Share > Apple Devices... > Mac & PC option. This creates .mp4 files that are about 91MB each (for one minute of footage).

Compressed and output this way, even though the .mp4 files are all about the same size (90MB) the higher resolution of the project, the higher the quality of the ouput. I hardly notice any loss of quality where I zoomed in using crop on the 720 x 480 version, but the loss of quality zooming in is very noticeable on the 1920 x 1080 version. Is this how you thought it would be?

I'm working through more and more FCPX tutorials, and have a basic understanding of how to edit. I really don't know much about Compressor. I guess I should be using Compressor and not the output choices in FCPX? I planned to buy it, but then I saw a lot of reviews that were highly critical of Compressor for being incredibly slow and not offering PC-friendly codecs. I could use some advice, here, too. Should I buy and use Compressor? What about outputting .wmv files?

I have a series of Compressor tutorials that I will be working through. Right now I have to admit that I don't even know what benefit deinterlacing offers.

I guess I'm showing a mind-numbing lack of understanding of how all of this works that makes it difficult to give me advice. Still, I'd really appreciate any advice you can give.

I should note that the final file size of the videos I will make can be up to about 500mb for 10 minutes of footage.

Reply

Answer 3

Mar 13, 2012 2:52 AM in response to JDLee

My suggestion is:

• work in FCPX in your cameras 'native' res, 1080

• if Compressor is not on your Mac, Share/export your Project with its actual settings

• use for example the free converter tool Mpeg Streamclip

• Export, mpeg4 and choose as optional codec h.264 and resize to your final resolution

=> avoid 'back 'n forth' compressing, resizing, converting. keep the process simple. use simple to use tools 😉

my suggestion is a two-step process: editing (in native 'format'); conversion (into final codec, resolution = size)

Reply

Answer 4

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Mar 13, 2012 3:06 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Kartsten--

Thank you for your continued help.

When you say to wrok in my camera's native resolution, you mean keep it full quality, but choosing "Create optimized media." In other words, I don't want to try to edit it in AVCHD (if that is even possible), right?

Since I am buying Compressor, what settings would you recommend I consider using in it?

Reply

Answer 5

Mar 13, 2012 5:12 AM in response to JDLee

Sorry to disagree with Karsten here.

I don't think you have much to gain if you edit in full HD in your situation - and probably there is a bit to lose.

I concur with the advice of the tech rep you mentioned in the original post.

If you cut not in the original size but in the intended, smaller, size, then you can "zoom" without actually zooming. The full original will actually be zoomed *out* to fit entirely, so you can "zoom in" from that using actual pixels from your original, not getting any pixelation at all.

Think for a moment of a still image from a digital camera, and how you can "zoom" in to part of the image: since it is much larger than even Full HD, you can pan and zoom without pixellation, because the resolution of the original is big enough. That's because when you fill the frame with the picture, it actually scaled down.

In your situation it is the same, except that you can't zoom in as much.

Reply

Answer 6

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Mar 13, 2012 9:55 AM in response to Luis Sequeira1

Hello Luis--

Thank you for your advice. I've done a little experimenting with this, and it seems that if I edit in a lower resolution, I end up with a lesser result. In other words, if I set my project for SD and edit in SD, it seems to me that I get a result as though I shot in SD, so zooming in is bad.

However, what you say makes sense. Your analogy to cropping in on a large digital image is exactly what I was thinking about.

But, it seems to me now that editing in a lower-resolution project is having an effect that is analogous to resizing (down-sizing) that same large photograph and then trying to crop ("zoom") in it. The resolution is already gone, so "zooming" in just gives you a really low resolution section of the picture.

Am I doing something wrong? Does what I'm saying I think is happening when I try to edit HD footage in an SD project sound right?

Reply

Answer 7

Mar 13, 2012 11:50 PM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:

... what settings would you recommend I consider using in it?

frankly - no idea 😁

it depends all on your wanted delivery ... is resolution a matter (to show detail)? does frame-rate not matter (because audio is of more importance)? is bit-rate no issue (master goal: keep files small)? is .mov ok, or does your audience prefer .mp4 as 'more universal' media-wrapper? ...

Compressor is a very mighty tool ... IF you know what you want tand how to accomplish it; aside many ready-made presets = basicly for exporting all kind of Apple devices, you can create your very own pre-sets, for example I made my 'own' YT-720p according the recomendations from YouTubes website etc etc etc .

I prefer to work my AVCHD-sources in proRes(LT) - my ol' MacMIni handles that smooth & easy …

@ Luis …

nothing to worry about. 🙂

I think, my workflow is ok, when your final delivery is NOT SDef, but some self-set 'format' - then you should avoid any 'in-between' scaling, but stay in your original format and convert straight from there to final format.

I prefer A >>> B, not A >> B >> C ... 😉

Reply

Answer 8

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Mar 14, 2012 1:16 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Karsten--

Okay, so asking about settings would require too many specifics. I do wonder, though, are the presets for the same devices any better in Compressor than the ones in FCPX in under the Share menu? If so, why?

Also, it is my understanding that you can't create .wmv files in Compressor. I will need that format, so I guess I'll have to output from Compressor in one format and then switch it to a .wmv file in a program like MPEG Streamclip, Flip4Mac, etc. Which I guess isn't good because it's yet another stage.

I understand what you are saying to Luis in your last post about not wanting to go through too many scalings before final output. In the end, though, I'm still confused about what way is best in terms of keeping the zoomed-in image not looking zoomed in. What Luis said would seem to make sense, but I don't think it was working for me (as I described in my reply to his post).

What you said seems to be working. I mean, it seems like when I edit my footage in its full resolution in a project, and then put it out to a smaller resolution, I can't see much quality loss as I zoom in on the footage. It's all pretty confusing to me. I don't really understand it all too well.

Reply

Answer 9

Mar 14, 2012 2:00 AM in response to JDLee

I agree with the notion of avoiding unnecessary conversions.

If the intended frame size is not one "supported" by FCP X, there is a way around it, that I have learned from another thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3789633?answerId=17797433022#17797433022

Using the above trick, you can edit your content directly in the desired size, thus avoiding further scaling.

Reply

Answer 10

Mar 14, 2012 2:53 AM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:

..... I can't see much quality loss ... It's all pretty confusing to me. I don't really understand it all too well.

if it's ok for you, why asking for more confusing issues?

you have to manage these things, and if the workflow and its results are ok, it's ok.

I'm pretty sure, a professional would add that extra grain of quality - but you aren't.

after all, my experience is, that in 98% cases, the camera work is so 'bad' at all, that those tiny bits you can do in the post-production is of no need at all.

good cinematography = good compression = good results.

bad cinematography = good compression = bad results. 😉

JDLee wrote:

... .wmv files in Compressor. I will need that format...

why that?

any h264.mp4 is fully compatible on ANY platform.

wmv doesn't add any 'extra'.

it is a proprietary codec ... Mac & Linux need plug-ins, no playback on iPads, Android devices, …

it costs $$$ to teach Mac wmv EXport (Streamclip does, btmk, NOT support wmv as an export option)

-----------------------

final word:

nice saying here "nicht nur gackern, auch Eier legen!"

which means: there's the point where you should start MAKING.

there's much more in the making of your projects than just zoom-quality ... 😀

Reply

Answer 11

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Mar 14, 2012 8:26 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Thanks, Karsten. I appreciate what you're saying.

I guess because I'm at the start, I'm anxious to make sure I'm doing everything in the best way. Well, not the best way, because I know that is beyond me right now. I just want to make sure I've settled on a good way.

But I know you are right and at some point I must just move forward.

Thanks for the advice on .wmv. It makes sense. I just see so many people using .wmv that I focused in on it.

Reply