Photo To Movie - A solution to Jaggy edges to a moving still? (Ken Burns)

...perhaps less detail .... on the TV screen..

compared to what?
to what you've seen on a computers screen?
for sure!

any TV has by standard a res of just 720x480... about a quarter of an iMac.. or less, in case your settings are higher...

so, comparing the high-res pics of a modern digital camera on a computer, shows details in all their beauty...- on TV: less detail PLUS interlacing, which could add jaggies when the pic is "moving"....-

ENIGMACODE,

Remember the NTSC video standard, pieces of which date back 1940, is simply not capable of displaying video of the quality that is now common place on our computers.

Even when the NTSC standard was reconstituted in the 1950s to accommodate color, it was still up against the limitations of vacuum tubes and the fact that a video signal had to be capable of being broadcast, received and displayed in real time.

So I think, to some extent, the detail and smoothness of motion you are seeking may be mutually exclusive pursuits, at least with NTSC video.

Matt

When you look at movies, or frames of movies, in iMovie, you're looking at the entire frame. So if you import photos into iMovie, and don't use any panning or zooming, you'll see the entire photo ..but - as Karsten and Matthew say - at a reduced quality than the original photo(s), because movie resolution is lower than photo resolution.

To create a zoom out or pan effect across a picture, you obviously have to start with a smaller area of the picture than the area of the full photo. You then travel across the photo, still using a smaller area than the full photo, or you zoom out until you're looking at the entire photo.

If you start with a smaller section that the full photo, then if the photo has only a little higher resolution than video (..say it's a 3 megapixel photo..) then that smaller section has to be automatically enlarged to fill the entire video frame, so the apparent resolution of that smaller area of the entire picture will probably appear to be less sharp than the overall, entire photo.

It's like examining a newspaper photo with a magnifying glass: you'll start to see the detail of the dots which comprise the photo, instead of seeing the overall photo as a whole.

The higher the resolution of the original photo - e.g; 8 or 10 megapixels - the less will seem to be the quality loss as you pan or zoom across a small region of it.

But if you start with a 2, 3 or perhaps 5 megapixel photo, then - depending on how far you zoom "into" it - you may well see a poorer quality image in the panned or zoomed sections than you would see on the overall image.

..As in the film " Blow-Up" ..the more you magnify something, the less clear it can become ..unless maybe you're using an electron microscope..

Your impression — that there's a reduction in the sharpness of the image delivered by Photo to Movie — is consistent with what I've seen. It's the result, I suspect, of the relationship between sharpness and jaggies.

Softening an image while converting it to DV is an effective way to reduce the jaggies later. (Perhaps the ONLY way, I don't know. I'm no image guru.)

I've been testing jaggies too, and I have no doubt some third-party slideshow software soften the image. Photo to Movie does it quite effectively, softening the image a bit — but not too much — to produce a significant reduction in jaggies. It doesn't eliminate the jaggies on the most problematic photos, however, nor does FortoMagico. FotoMagico appears to use a similar technique.

iMovie, on the other hand, generates a very sharp image while converting a photo to DV, which later adds to the jaggies problem.

I suspect we can't have it both ways. We either have to accept a little softening of the image, or accept lots of jaggies. I personally prefer softening the image.

(I think the eye tends to accept softening unless viewed next to a sharp image. Consider this: we've all watched traditional TVs for years with no complaint. Compare their sharpness to today's HDTVs. The eye never accepts jaggies, however, especially when there's movement.)

I've been testing methods to use with iMovie to soften the image too. If we can come up with an effective way, we may be able to selectively soften images prone to jaggies. Those less affected by jaggies can be left sharp; those affected by jaggies can be softened.

A test DVD was just ejected by iDVD. Off to check the results...

Karl

In a test today, I used iPhoto to export the 2816x2112 images shot by my camera to something a lot smaller. It's too early to say what size is "best", but I find that after resizing to 720x540, iMovie delivers a huge reduction in jaggies. About 95% fewer. It's a huge improvement.

The 720x540 images were imported with a small Ken Burns zoom, starting at 1.03 and zooming to 1.10.

Resizing might be worth a try.

Shooting the photos at 640x480 doesn't have the same effect. It may be important to shoot large, resize to something considerably smaller, then import to iMovie.

Karl

In a test today, I used iPhoto to export the 2816x2112 images shot by my camera to something a lot smaller. It's too early to say what size is "best", but I find that after resizing to 720x540, iMovie delivers a huge reduction in jaggies. About 95% fewer. It's a huge improvement.

After more tests: Actually, it's more like 99% elimination of the jaggies. Definitely worth a try.

Karl

My experience is exactly as Karl has described. I only use alternatives to KBE such as P2M, FotoMagico, etc., when I really, really need some movement not possible with KBE.

Working exclusively inside iMovie has become a priority with me - just wish Apple would address the most common issues dominating this forum. Also, I find working in the 720p HD format also solves a lot of resolution issues.

Karl, I have done a lot of reading about this issue and this seems to be the simplest solution. Do you still need to make sure and follow the steps about the ken burns effect and rendering? or will this take care of everything?
Thanks-
MBM

Do you still need to make sure and follow the steps about
the ken burns effect and rendering? or will this take
care of everything?

Yes, it's still necessary to avoid the bug where iMovie adds jaggies when sending the project to iDVD. We're stuck with that until Apple fixes the bug.

I'd make one change to what I said earlier. Resize the image to 640x480 (for NTSC) instead of 720x540. My tests suggest that's better than 720x540. 640x480 doesn't allow for using much of a Ken Burns zoom, however.

Karl

Yes, it's still necessary to avoid the bug where
iMovie adds jaggies when sending the project to iDVD.
We're stuck with that until Apple fixes the bug.

I'd make one change to what I said earlier. Resize
the image to 640x480 (for NTSC) instead of 720x540.
My tests suggest that's better than 720x540. 640x480
doesn't allow for using much of a Ken Burns zoom,
however.

Karl

A few more questions:

1-If I export the image as you suggest from iphoto and save it on the hard drive and then import from file in imovie, I can't find out how to make sure the ken burns effect is on or get the photo settings to show up.

2- When sending to iDVD do I need to tell it not to render as others have suggested. If so how do I do that? I couldn't find it anywhere, nor was I asked for a choice.

Thanks-

1-If I export the image as you suggest from iphoto
and save it on the hard drive and then import from
file in imovie, I can't find out how to make sure the
ken burns effect is on or get the photo settings to
show up.

Click on a photo in the Photos pane and press the Show Photo Settings button. Configure all the settings, then drag the photo from the Finder window to the Timeline.

2- When sending to iDVD do I need to tell it not to
render as others have suggested. If so how do I do
that? I couldn't find it anywhere, nor was I asked
for a choice.

You don't need to tell iDVD to render it. iDVD automatically renders any unrendered clips in the iMovie project. When asked, tell iMovie to skip the rendering and iDVD will take care of it. You don't have to tell iDVD anything.

Karl