Photo to Movie vs FCP5 Keyframing at DVinfo.net

Hubert Hofer · June 12th, 2008, 02:28 PM

Hi,
I'm seeking experience based opinions on these two applications. What are the major differences re quality & ease of use.
thanks

Scott Routt · June 16th, 2008, 05:54 AM

Maybe the question made sense to someone else, but not to me. Are you talking about an application called photo to movie? Or are you talking about using iPhoto to turn photos into slide shows to use in iMovie. And are you talking about using Final Cut Pro 5 to pan and zoom across photographs while making a movie out of the photos in the time line?

Hans Ledel · June 16th, 2008, 06:18 AM

I guess you are talking about this program.

http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php

or....?

Jonathan Bufkin · June 16th, 2008, 07:22 AM

I've used Photo to Movie and I think it is way easier and less time consuming then trying to key in all the moves in FCP. Also, I sometimes get poor results using stills(visually) in FCP but haven't had any problems with Photo to Movie. This could be because I don't have the best work flow for using stills in FCP. I suggest not creating text in Photo to Movie unless you have to because it is a little lacking in this department and the transitions are less than great but usable. I also suggest the following work flow for getting the best results:

Create Montage in Photo to Movie-->Export using highest quality "Animation" export in QT-->Use Compressor to encode as a Mpeg2-->Author in DVD Studio Pro

I hope this helps.

Boyd Ostroff · June 16th, 2008, 08:16 AM

I just threw together a 45 minute "slideshow" using about 100 stills in FCP. That "Photo to Movie" program looks nice (if it really works) - will have to try it next time. But I was in a hurry and wanted to use familiar tools.

For my project I resized a whole bunch of photos to 720x540 and dropped them into a sequence. They actually looked very nice on the DVD, which we fed to a projector on a 6' screen. I made all my titles in Photoshop and also sized them at 720x540.

Keyframing moves and zooms can get trickier in FCP though... I've found that adding motion blur often helps to make that look better.

Hubert Hofer · June 17th, 2008, 03:13 PM

thanks all.
I'm trying to pan over old photos & slowly zooming out. Have tried with close-up lenses but it just doesn't look right. i.e. no matter how carefully I moved the camera (Z1 on fluid Head) the footage looks jerky. I want those photos as part of a video & not just a slide show by itself.
When I looked up digital rostrum effects I could only find Photo to Movie. It took me a while to realise that rostrum is called keyframing in FCP. It appears that Photo to Movie is less complex to use & I have read that this effect can be of rather ordinary quality in FCP.

June 12th, 2008, 02:28 PM	#1
Hubert Hofer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Torres Strait - Australia Posts: 76	Photo to Movie vs FCP5 Keyframing Hi, I'm seeking experience based opinions on these two applications. What are the major differences re quality & ease of use. thanks

June 16th, 2008, 05:54 AM	#2
Scott Routt Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206	Maybe the question made sense to someone else, but not to me. Are you talking about an application called photo to movie? Or are you talking about using iPhoto to turn photos into slide shows to use in iMovie. And are you talking about using Final Cut Pro 5 to pan and zoom across photographs while making a movie out of the photos in the time line? __________________ Scott Routt "Talk is cheap unless you have a lot of audio toys"

June 16th, 2008, 06:18 AM	#3
Hans Ledel Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Stockholm Sweden Posts: 184	I guess you are talking about this program. http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php or....? __________________ Remember, that English is my second language.

June 16th, 2008, 07:22 AM	#4
Jonathan Bufkin Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 253	I've used Photo to Movie and I think it is way easier and less time consuming then trying to key in all the moves in FCP. Also, I sometimes get poor results using stills(visually) in FCP but haven't had any problems with Photo to Movie. This could be because I don't have the best work flow for using stills in FCP. I suggest not creating text in Photo to Movie unless you have to because it is a little lacking in this department and the transitions are less than great but usable. I also suggest the following work flow for getting the best results: Create Montage in Photo to Movie-->Export using highest quality "Animation" export in QT-->Use Compressor to encode as a Mpeg2-->Author in DVD Studio Pro I hope this helps. __________________ Jon Bufkin focalpointcinematic.com

June 16th, 2008, 08:16 AM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I just threw together a 45 minute "slideshow" using about 100 stills in FCP. That "Photo to Movie" program looks nice (if it really works) - will have to try it next time. But I was in a hurry and wanted to use familiar tools. For my project I resized a whole bunch of photos to 720x540 and dropped them into a sequence. They actually looked very nice on the DVD, which we fed to a projector on a 6' screen. I made all my titles in Photoshop and also sized them at 720x540. Keyframing moves and zooms can get trickier in FCP though... I've found that adding motion blur often helps to make that look better.

June 17th, 2008, 03:13 PM	#6
Hubert Hofer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Torres Strait - Australia Posts: 76	thanks all. I'm trying to pan over old photos & slowly zooming out. Have tried with close-up lenses but it just doesn't look right. i.e. no matter how carefully I moved the camera (Z1 on fluid Head) the footage looks jerky. I want those photos as part of a video & not just a slide show by itself. When I looked up digital rostrum effects I could only find Photo to Movie. It took me a while to realise that rostrum is called keyframing in FCP. It appears that Photo to Movie is less complex to use & I have read that this effect can be of rather ordinary quality in FCP.