Q: Resizing clips in FCP without losing quality - possible?
-
Sep 25, 2016 5:44 PMby David Bogie Chq-1,Your screen shot did not load for me.
Blurriness is the result of improper focus when shooting so you may need another descriptor. You may be confusing resolution with format dimensions. HD has a dimension of 1280x1920 but has no established resolution. You can play an HD file on a 720 TV set with no change in resolution but some pixels are thrown away in the set's conversion dn averaging algorithms. It's all quite confusing.
Scaling is an effect that has consequences.
Your video, as it comes out of your camera, is a set of separate images that have individual pixels arranged in a grid. You cannot get any more pixels than you started with so when you scale up, FCPX just makes the individual pixels larger. The image is degraded a bit but most people do not object to, or even notice, the artifacts of scaling until about 150%.
Scaling down reduces the number of pixels of the original image by averaging and smoothing and smooshing them together. The image doesn't get blurry so much as less distinct but that's because detail is being thrown away.
You have not provided any useful information about your source files and your export/share settings so there's not much left to discuss. Fill in those blanks for us and wait for some other folks to chime in over the next several hours.
-
Sep 26, 2016 12:03 AMby hape13,Thanks David. I don't know why the screenshot doesn't load - it's just a link which works fine in any other community I'm subscribed to. Right-click and open in a new window works in my case. Anyway the image might had helped to make the situation more clear even without all the details you asked. Regarding to the image I didn't mention that downscaling is the topic, not upscaling, of course. This clip ain't a typical shoot but a screen record of an outboard device done with Quicktime so blurriness caused by improper focus is not the issue here.
Here are the details of the original clip:
For this test I used just the regular export from FCP so the details of any of the exports is like this ...
I uploaded the results as very short clips so you can recognize the difference.
Just right-click and "open in a new window" works here also.
Scaling down reduces the number of pixels of the original image by averaging and smoothing and smooshing them together. The image doesn't get blurry so much as less distinct but that's because detail is being thrown away.
I never had any issues with images while scaling down. I can even resize an image while raising the resolution in the dedicated ratio which leads to virtually better quality. So a video is a "separate set of images" like you wrote. I didn't tell FCP to compress the file size or so.
So again the improved question stays:
What is this the ability do DOWNSCALE worth when I can't use it with a ratio at 98% without recognizing the lost quality???
Thanks again.
-
Sep 26, 2016 3:03 AMby Luis Sequeira1,Pixels are discrete units. What is 98% of two pixels, for example?
What you are asking is very difficult if not impossible.
It is not the same as having a photography optical lens, where you can zoom in or out, with virtually infinite resolution.
You have, say a 10x10 square. Scale it 50% and that should be easy, right? But scale it 98%... you can't have a 9.8x9.8 square.
-
Sep 26, 2016 3:20 AMby Karsten Schlüter,Luis Sequeira1 wrote:
Pixels are discrete units. ... you can't have a 9.8x9.8 square.
Excellent example, Luis
plus, video isn't saved as 'pixel by pixel' (that would be some kind of raw…), but highly compressed. Most codecs put a grid over the frame, h264 for example 8x8 ,'summarize' pixels, reduce colour-definition (4:2:0), … so 'uneven' scaling has to result in quality losses.
Finally, video codecs are optimised for moving pictures; the OPs examples show static computer graphics, so any blur due to re-compression gets very obvious (edge definition etc)
For my dead eyes, the examples are fully acceptable…
-
Sep 26, 2016 3:49 AMby hape13,Luis Sequeira1 wrote:
You have, say a 10x10 square. Scale it 50% and that should be easy, right? But scale it 98%... you can't have a 9.8x9.8 square.
It is not the same as having a photography optical lens, where you can zoom in or out, with virtually infinite resolution.
Thanks for your reply. The ratio 98% was just for testing purposes. And I wasn't talking about an optical lens. I am asking why this works with images and not with videos. But anyway, if it is impossible it is impossible. My personal guess: it's impossible for FC - I'll think about the "Pro" in the meantime ...
-
Sep 26, 2016 3:52 AMby hape13,Karsten Schlüter wrote:
For my dead eyes, the examples are fully acceptable…
Unfortunately not for mine. Made just a quick test with Motion and - surprise surprise - the result ain't excellent but much much better.
So what's up with FC ... ??? I'm pretty sure if I'll investigate a bit I'll find a tool (maybe even a shareware) to to a better job on this topic.
-
Sep 26, 2016 3:57 AMby Karsten Schlüter,hape13 wrote:
.... So what's up with FC ... ??? I'm pretty sure if I'll investigate a bit I'll find a tool (maybe even a shareware) to to a better job on this topic.
read what I've written before the catch-phrase … 'loss' is immanent by what you're doing, has nothing to do with Final Cut.
-
Sep 26, 2016 4:04 AMby hape13,Karsten Schlüter wrote:
read what I've written before the catch-phrase … 'loss' is immanent by what you're doing, has nothing to do with Final Cut.
These technical details didn't help to explain why the result out of Motion is much better.
Anyway, if there's nothing else which can be done to improve that, I'm out of here.
Thanks for your time.
-
Sep 26, 2016 7:31 AMby David Bogie Chq-1,hape13 wrote:
These technical details didn't help to explain why the result out of Motion is much better. Anyway, if there's nothing else which can be done to improve that, I'm out of here.
Motion's rendering engine is the same as FCPX's, as far as I know. The differences in output quality are usually the results of settings in the export windows that are not understood by most users.
You have a problem that we don't quite understand and have asked for a solution that we don't think exists with the out-of-the-box FCPX/Motion combination. Sorry we could not offer you an explanation of the physical and technical realists that you find acceptable.
There are probably third party tools that handle scaling differently, much like there are retiming tools that create entire frames where there were none. If you buy some of them, we hope you will return and post your experiences. This will help future users with similar inquiries.
-
by Karsten Schlüter,Sep 26, 2016 7:43 AM
Karsten Schlüter
Sep 26, 2016 7:43 AM
in response to David Bogie Chq-1
Level 7
(32,748 points)
VideoDavid Bogie Chq-1 wrote:
…
You have a problem that we don't quite understand and have asked for a solution that we don't think exists with the out-of-the-box FCPX/Motion combination. …
… a very polite way to express, David, how confusing these posts are (what are 1.2sec clips at YT good for??)
e.g. two screenshots above show diff. colour-schemes in use… so, as long as Hans-Peter doesn't tell us his workflow, all those masses of pics and micro clips are of lil' use.
I'm out of here.
… but it doesn't look like, his interested in a solution.
My personal guess: it's impossible for FC - I'll think about the "Pro" in the meantime ...
…and he's made up an opinion. Fine.
Wanderer soll man ziehen lassen.
