SCANNING PICTURES TO FINAL CUT PRO

Hi David B

I agree completely with your very good advice

I am just a bit confused by your opening statement. The OP clearly stated he wanted to import to video:

''I am scanning pictures to put into final cut pro to do a montage''

therefore video frame size, and PAL and NTSC international standards are pertinent. I thought the comments from the more knowledgeable contributors, compliments your post admirably.


G

More fried green tomatoes:

The OP never said what the dimension of his project. (I, myself do a few montages a week. My size is 800x600.) Yes he did say video. What kind of video?

David B

I think guidance on how to scan correctly for video has been given 4 times in this discussion, including your own excelent advice.

To quote David Bogie
"You set your scanner to achieve an image size, not a resolution"

I think thats all anyone ever needs to understand

G

Yes, and then they berate you for asking in the first place or speak up when there's nothing positive to say

geez, david, give it a rest already.

looking over your prior posts, it seems you're the one doing the berating when you don't get the answers that you want to hear.

best wishes,

zeb

Troll alert!
🙂

Yes, and then they berate you for asking in the first place or speak up when there's nothing positive to say

<

Troll? I'm game.

Sorry if I've posted duplicate information. I don't bother to track every newbie or easily researched thread or re-read all threads in which I may have already beat to death a previously dead horse more than twice.

There's a dead horse in every post of Dead Horse Threads.

bogiesan

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

Best wishes to you too. Now get back to work doing something productive instead of checking on all my posts.

I imported a photo into Final Cut but I think it's only 71 dpi. I looked all over the floor of my office for the missing dot but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Does anyone know where I could buy an extra one?


Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5 Mac OS X (10.3.6)

Good news! Turns out I'd left it in the scanner! Duh. Thanks anyway!

I used quite a bit of transparency shots (slides only) in my previous docs. With hi-res saturated film, Velvia, I found that 144 was sufficient, but went to 300 when I was swooping that Ken Burns stuff (close up in the file). Yes it took a little while longer to render, but had no jaggityjag as when I scanned them at 144.

Ok fellas, I watched a tutorial at CreativeCow on how to do stills. It involved importing the scanned photos (pictures from a magazine) into Photoshop,setting the image size, and then saving and importing into Final Cut Pro. He then goes on to show how to create the movement etc etc.
I have been doing photo montages as mentioned above in my posts and must have been lucky that I didn't have to do those steps. I have saved alot of time not doing the photoshop step but its good to know how to do it that way. I usually do anywhere from 100-1000 photos per montage. I guess here's the big dollar question. Is it really necessary to import into Photoshop to get the proper pixel sized image? I may have been uneducated and did it the way I've been doing it for years but it has worked for me.
Is there any advantage to adding the photoshop step?

Ymir, I have no idea what the tut on CreativeCow site, instructs on scanning. But, I'm sure it a good one to do. You can scan to size if you want to bypass Photoshop. Even if you scan to size, Photoshop gives you the option to:
Clean up blemishes
Color Correction
and a zillion other things.

Enough of th itcfest you guys. I scan 'em at the highest res possible then downsample them to a reasonable size in PS at 72 dpi. I have had good results saving them as .png 24. I can pan and scan all day long without any pixelation.

A hard and fast rule: YOU CANNOT SCALE AN IMAGE OR VIDEO UP (much) WITHOUT LOSING (perceivable) QUALITY.

I think the point is that there's no real need to reduce the print resolution to 72 dpi. Just reduce the image dimensions as FCP doesn't care what the print resolution is.