Creating a DVD Slideshow at DVinfo.net

Theo Mason · December 11th, 2005, 07:37 PM

I am attempting to create a good quality DVD Slideshow of my photos on the 3 websites I author. I need good quality, pans, and zooms so I can offer it to my web clients as a promotional tool. I have tried Premiere but the results are poor. Any recommendations?

Ted

www.risingsunretail.com
www.risingsunwholesale.com
www.joelovelamps.com

Lloyd Coleman · December 11th, 2005, 08:24 PM

Theo,

What kind of problems are you having? Is it with Premiere or encoding for the web?

I use Premiere Pro for slide shows with panning and zooming quite a bit and am very happy with it. The one problem that I had to learn about when I was first starting was the flickering that occurs around sharp edges when you move the picture. I found this happens in all editors, not just Premiere. It has to do with sharp lines and skipping between interlaced lines on the TV when you show it. The best way I have found to fix it is to keep the size of the pictures to 1000 pixels wide or less. This usually gives me enough room to zoom or pan but still not have a flicker problem. Another solution is to applyl a little blur to the photos, either before you import them or inside Premiere. Blurring the photos before you import them will make your render times inside Premiere much quicker.

If flicker is your problem, I hope this helps. If you are having other problems, please let us know so we can try to help.

Theo Mason · December 12th, 2005, 10:03 AM

My biggest problem is getting the images to be very clear and detailed. I am making DVDs to showcase my product photography - and I need as much detail as possible, so reducing the resolution for Premiere is not desirable.

thanks for helping Lloyd,

regards,

Ted

Lloyd Coleman · December 12th, 2005, 12:43 PM

The problem with detail on a DVD is the limitation of the format. There are only 720x480 pixels to work with in a standard DVD. That is equivalent to less than a 1/2 mega pixel still camera (I think cell phones will do at least that much now). No matter what the resolution of your original picture is, it will be converted to 720x480 when you make a DVD. However, video does make 720x480 look better than a still picture at the same resolution. You might be able to zoom in enough to show what you are trying to show. The conversion to web will probably be your biggest challenge. I don't do any conversion for streaming video, but I do know there is a big difference is the quality of codecs, converters and setting.

Good luck with your project.

Dan Euritt · December 12th, 2005, 02:17 PM

dvd and web are two entirely different approaches; you can't really talk about both of 'em the same sentence.

so you should start from scratch for the web content... 72 dpi is your final target for the photos, how good it looks depends in a large part on how well it's encoded... bitrate, codec choices, etc.

however, i personally would use photoshop to crop the photos for impact, and then output 'em in jpeg format... create a javascript-based photo slideshow with any number of the free scripts that are downloadable off the 'net.

you probably won't be able to zoom and pan, but the end result should look a lot sharper and cleaner at comparable bandwidths and frame sizes, than if you used a video-based format... there may also be a flash-based solution, but i'd think that jpeg stills are the way to go.

Theo Mason · December 12th, 2005, 03:07 PM

Hmm...good thoughts....but I would like to be able to encode using a 720x480 window on my photos at full resolution that I could zoom and pan with. I have see this on other videos, so I know its possible. But, what is the editor or program used to accomplish this?

Dan Euritt · December 12th, 2005, 03:27 PM

you want 720x480 because it matches up with the video frame size? with the technique i described, you aren't limited like that... you could put up a 1024x768 jpeg sequence via javascript, and it would use less bandwidth than the 720x480 video clip.

but it may not have the zoom in/out type of thing... in order to make motion look sharp, you should start out with photos that are ~200(or even 300??) dpi at least... so when you zoom in, you aren't losing resolution... if it's strictly a photo sequence with no ntsc video, you should maybe create a custom timeline project at 640x480, since the source is square pixel photos to begin with... export directly to wmv off of the timeline... but the question might be which timeline codec to use, since you don't have to hassle with the dv ntsc footage in your project... maybe use an uncompressed codec?

the thing about the web is that the artsy-fartsy camera moves don't always translate well... it takes a lot more bandwidth, and in the end, it makes the project longer, while not highlighting your products during the actual camera move itself... that represents wasted time.

December 11th, 2005, 07:37 PM	#1
Theo Mason New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 10	Creating a DVD Slideshow I am attempting to create a good quality DVD Slideshow of my photos on the 3 websites I author. I need good quality, pans, and zooms so I can offer it to my web clients as a promotional tool. I have tried Premiere but the results are poor. Any recommendations? Ted www.risingsunretail.com www.risingsunwholesale.com www.joelovelamps.com

December 12th, 2005, 03:07 PM	#6
Theo Mason New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 10	Hmm...good thoughts....but I would like to be able to encode using a 720x480 window on my photos at full resolution that I could zoom and pan with. I have see this on other videos, so I know its possible. But, what is the editor or program used to accomplish this? __________________ Theo Mason My Photo & Video Webs: www.risingsunwholesale.com www.joelovelamps.com www.risingsunretail.com

December 11th, 2005, 08:24 PM	#2
Lloyd Coleman Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 256	Theo, What kind of problems are you having? Is it with Premiere or encoding for the web? I use Premiere Pro for slide shows with panning and zooming quite a bit and am very happy with it. The one problem that I had to learn about when I was first starting was the flickering that occurs around sharp edges when you move the picture. I found this happens in all editors, not just Premiere. It has to do with sharp lines and skipping between interlaced lines on the TV when you show it. The best way I have found to fix it is to keep the size of the pictures to 1000 pixels wide or less. This usually gives me enough room to zoom or pan but still not have a flicker problem. Another solution is to applyl a little blur to the photos, either before you import them or inside Premiere. Blurring the photos before you import them will make your render times inside Premiere much quicker. If flicker is your problem, I hope this helps. If you are having other problems, please let us know so we can try to help.

December 12th, 2005, 10:03 AM	#3
Theo Mason New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 10	My biggest problem is getting the images to be very clear and detailed. I am making DVDs to showcase my product photography - and I need as much detail as possible, so reducing the resolution for Premiere is not desirable. thanks for helping Lloyd, regards, Ted

December 12th, 2005, 12:43 PM	#4
Lloyd Coleman Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 256	The problem with detail on a DVD is the limitation of the format. There are only 720x480 pixels to work with in a standard DVD. That is equivalent to less than a 1/2 mega pixel still camera (I think cell phones will do at least that much now). No matter what the resolution of your original picture is, it will be converted to 720x480 when you make a DVD. However, video does make 720x480 look better than a still picture at the same resolution. You might be able to zoom in enough to show what you are trying to show. The conversion to web will probably be your biggest challenge. I don't do any conversion for streaming video, but I do know there is a big difference is the quality of codecs, converters and setting. Good luck with your project.

December 12th, 2005, 02:17 PM	#5
Dan Euritt Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Carlsbad CA Posts: 1,132	dvd and web are two entirely different approaches; you can't really talk about both of 'em the same sentence. so you should start from scratch for the web content... 72 dpi is your final target for the photos, how good it looks depends in a large part on how well it's encoded... bitrate, codec choices, etc. however, i personally would use photoshop to crop the photos for impact, and then output 'em in jpeg format... create a javascript-based photo slideshow with any number of the free scripts that are downloadable off the 'net. you probably won't be able to zoom and pan, but the end result should look a lot sharper and cleaner at comparable bandwidths and frame sizes, than if you used a video-based format... there may also be a flash-based solution, but i'd think that jpeg stills are the way to go.

December 12th, 2005, 03:27 PM	#7
Dan Euritt Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Carlsbad CA Posts: 1,132	you want 720x480 because it matches up with the video frame size? with the technique i described, you aren't limited like that... you could put up a 1024x768 jpeg sequence via javascript, and it would use less bandwidth than the 720x480 video clip. but it may not have the zoom in/out type of thing... in order to make motion look sharp, you should start out with photos that are ~200(or even 300??) dpi at least... so when you zoom in, you aren't losing resolution... if it's strictly a photo sequence with no ntsc video, you should maybe create a custom timeline project at 640x480, since the source is square pixel photos to begin with... export directly to wmv off of the timeline... but the question might be which timeline codec to use, since you don't have to hassle with the dv ntsc footage in your project... maybe use an uncompressed codec? the thing about the web is that the artsy-fartsy camera moves don't always translate well... it takes a lot more bandwidth, and in the end, it makes the project longer, while not highlighting your products during the actual camera move itself... that represents wasted time.