Stills from FX7 Video footage at DVinfo.net

Troy Davis · October 13th, 2010, 01:33 PM

Hello,

A client wants to know what size stills can be produced from HD video shot with th FX7? They had problems with the photographers images and wants to print a few from the video capture. I'm assuming
that in order to get a good quality printed image the image would be somewhat small if saved at
the default 72/96 dpi? Any ideas?

Thanks,
Troy

Seth Bloombaum · October 13th, 2010, 03:03 PM

That's one of the things I noticed immediately when I got my V1; a decent shot really does produce a decent image, in come cases usable for print.

The actual still will be a 1440x1080 file, with non-square pixels. As I understand it, later versions of photoshop can correctly display non-square pixels. The pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of HDV is 1.3333, meaning that for correct display, the width of the pixel is multiplied by that amount.

The square-pixel equivalent is 1920x1080. This is what any graphics program can deal with, and the correct PAR of 1.0 is what you want for jpegs, pngs, tiffs, and all those other graphics file formats.

The question is, when you pull a still off your video, is your NLE doing this correction for you? If not, the images will have to be processed so as to increase the width by a factor of 1.3333.

Once you have your 1920x1080, this is an absolute pixel size. Translating that into graphics-speak, it would be an equivalent of 20"x11.25" at 96dpi, I think. I'm not expert on the graphics side. What I'd tell a client is 1920x1080 pixels.

Denise Wall · October 13th, 2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troy Davis

Hello,

A client wants to know what size stills can be produced from HD video shot with th FX7? They had problems with the photographers images and wants to print a few from the video capture. I'm assuming
that in order to get a good quality printed image the image would be somewhat small if saved at
the default 72/96 dpi? Any ideas?

Thanks,
Troy

One thing that can make these stills work better is a high shutter speed if there's any action or a lot of movement. I've shot video at higher shutter speeds than I wanted to because I thought I might need to pull stills later. It's usually something I start out thinking about, though, not something after. Even so, you can usually go frame by frame to find the best frame for a still. They often work out not so bad in a pinch.

Troy Davis · October 13th, 2010, 04:53 PM

@ Seth
You are correct. I did a test and it's just what you said. This will work just fine.

@ Denise
I will keep that in mind for future reference.

Thanks,
Troy

Bruce Dempsey · October 13th, 2010, 06:43 PM

From the video, the image is in two fields as interlaced.
The best stills can be achieved by combining the two and there are online tutorials somewhere

Victor Wilcox · October 14th, 2010, 08:00 AM

Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CS4 have a deinterlace video filter which does a good job.

Denise Wall · October 14th, 2010, 12:03 PM

Be sure to check the color space of the stills you pull in a photo editing program. The native color space may be in CMYK or uncalibrated. You'll need to convert it to an RBG color space to edit and look decent in print.

If you need to up res the image for a larger print than the resolution that you get off the camera will allow, you can do it up to a certain point. Just be sure to use the "bicubic smoother" when you resize to avoid pixelation of the image in print.

John Wiley · October 15th, 2010, 04:09 AM

I've used FX7 frame grabs for DVD cover prints regularly with very acceptable results. I once even had some A2 posters printed with a FX7 frame grab as the main graphic (it was a portrait orientation too, meaning that 2/3 of the resolution was lost when cropping the image to fit the poster) but this was for a very stylised poster with alot of PP so I could get away with the lower res.

For web use, HD frame grabs are great. For printing, there is definitely a few boundaries but you can certainly get acceptable results up to A4 if you are careful with things like shutterspeed, deinterlacing, etc.

October 13th, 2010, 01:33 PM	#1
Troy Davis Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Raleigh,NC Posts: 263	Stills from FX7 Video footage Hello, A client wants to know what size stills can be produced from HD video shot with th FX7? They had problems with the photographers images and wants to print a few from the video capture. I'm assuming that in order to get a good quality printed image the image would be somewhat small if saved at the default 72/96 dpi? Any ideas? Thanks, Troy

October 13th, 2010, 03:03 PM	#2
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	That's one of the things I noticed immediately when I got my V1; a decent shot really does produce a decent image, in come cases usable for print. The actual still will be a 1440x1080 file, with non-square pixels. As I understand it, later versions of photoshop can correctly display non-square pixels. The pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of HDV is 1.3333, meaning that for correct display, the width of the pixel is multiplied by that amount. The square-pixel equivalent is 1920x1080. This is what any graphics program can deal with, and the correct PAR of 1.0 is what you want for jpegs, pngs, tiffs, and all those other graphics file formats. The question is, when you pull a still off your video, is your NLE doing this correction for you? If not, the images will have to be processed so as to increase the width by a factor of 1.3333. Once you have your 1920x1080, this is an absolute pixel size. Translating that into graphics-speak, it would be an equivalent of 20"x11.25" at 96dpi, I think. I'm not expert on the graphics side. What I'd tell a client is 1920x1080 pixels. __________________ 30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001.

October 14th, 2010, 08:00 AM	#6
Victor Wilcox Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Iron Horse Guest Ranch, Waller County, TX Posts: 340	Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CS4 have a deinterlace video filter which does a good job. __________________ Vic Wilcox, http://wilcoxvideoproductions.com/Default.aspx Sony FDR-AX100, DJI Phantom 4 Pro, GoPro Hero 8 Blk, Vegas Pro 15, DaVinci Resolve 18

October 14th, 2010, 12:03 PM	#7
Denise Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Advance, NC Posts: 153	two more things Be sure to check the color space of the stills you pull in a photo editing program. The native color space may be in CMYK or uncalibrated. You'll need to convert it to an RBG color space to edit and look decent in print. If you need to up res the image for a larger print than the resolution that you get off the camera will allow, you can do it up to a certain point. Just be sure to use the "bicubic smoother" when you resize to avoid pixelation of the image in print.

October 13th, 2010, 04:53 PM	#4
Troy Davis Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Raleigh,NC Posts: 263	@ Seth You are correct. I did a test and it's just what you said. This will work just fine. @ Denise I will keep that in mind for future reference. Thanks, Troy

October 13th, 2010, 06:43 PM	#5
Bruce Dempsey Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Atlantic Coast Canada Posts: 599	From the video, the image is in two fields as interlaced. The best stills can be achieved by combining the two and there are online tutorials somewhere

October 15th, 2010, 04:09 AM	#8
John Wiley Trustee Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Byron Bay, Australia Posts: 1,155	I've used FX7 frame grabs for DVD cover prints regularly with very acceptable results. I once even had some A2 posters printed with a FX7 frame grab as the main graphic (it was a portrait orientation too, meaning that 2/3 of the resolution was lost when cropping the image to fit the poster) but this was for a very stylised poster with alot of PP so I could get away with the lower res. For web use, HD frame grabs are great. For printing, there is definitely a few boundaries but you can certainly get acceptable results up to A4 if you are careful with things like shutterspeed, deinterlacing, etc.