Hi Alliedsign.

It can get confusing!!

Could you ATTACH a few of your jpg images in your next post so that we might download them and test them on our systems to see if we get similar results?

I might be incorrect on this...but the dpi setting is of little value when displaying the images on a screen or playing it back in a video, it is a printing related quality function. The important aspect of picture quality is the resolution, the file type and what sort of compression might be involved when they were created and saved.

If you attach a few samples then we will have most of the answers.

Regards,

Kevin


Check out PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials and more! Over 5,000 Subscribers.

Thanks, Keven, here are two of the "offenders".

-Dave

I get the same bad result. One thing that may, r may not, help is to set the scanner to document, or newspaper, or whatever similar setting you have. That should clear up a lot of the blotches in the scan. Unfortunately that probably will not solve your problem. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM

Hi Dave,

Ok....I am not an expert with pictures.....but....

The first picture is a jpg.... Resolution 1047X2902 with a file size of 360KB(very small file size!). When I produced to a mpeg-2 DVD HQ the result of this picture was very bad, probably similar to what you are seeing. This is largely due to the fact that a DVD's resolution is 720X480 and when the picture is squashed to that size it loses its clarity. Plus it didn't help that the file size was so small....not enough information in the file to maintain the quality. Can you rescan the clipping at a higher resolution? And then can you have it save as a bmp file type? a bmp file does not compress the file like a jpg does. I think you will get better results if you try to scan at a higher resolution and save it as a bmp.

The second file wasn't as bad... it was a jpg...5060X6840 resolution...file size 3.043KB....Similar but not as bad results because the file size was larger. I would rescan the picture and also save it as a bmp file if possible.

Once you rescan the clips...reimport them into PD and place on the timeline....PRODUCE to a mpeg-2 file type....make sure the PROFILE below says DVD HQ. This is the type of file that is placed on a DVD when you are creating a DVD anyways. So it will give you an idea of what it will look like without actually burning a DVD.

See if that helps....if you still have troubles....let us know....

On a BLU-RAY side note: I used the same images you sent and produced a BLU-Ray file and they were MUCH better. This is because the resolution of a BLU-Ray movie is much greater than a DVD 1920X1080 as compared to the DVD 720X480. So even with these images the result wasn't too bad. But would also improve if you scanned at a higher resolution and saved as a bmp file.

Regards,

KEvin
Check out PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials and more! Over 5,000 Subscribers.

Support everything Kevin & James have suggested, including saving the scan as a .bmp or .tiff file.

It seems to me that you might have your scanner set to "auto detect" mode, to produce scans of such vastly different file size (image size not withstanding).

I'm not sure what parameters your scanner software allows you to modify, but I'd check that out to ensure you get the highest quality scan you can! It might take a little longer but it'll be worth it.


Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

I was just coming to the same conclusion. I have several scanned JPG's that are lower resolution, but slightly larger file size. I also have a BMP around 5MB and some TIFF's from 5MB to 24MB.

I also tried different output formats, MPEG 2 HQ, same format with constant bitrate and 720p. Oddly, the high quality JPG's gave the best results, but all except the lower quality TIFF gave much better results than your samples. Hopefully that will help. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM

Thanks for your input, guys. The thing is, I took a chance and bought a $400 Fujitsu Scansnap S1500 scanner earlier this year. It has a straight-thru feed path, you can put a pile of docs or picks in the feeder and it can process almost 1 document or picture a second! Front AND back. I love this thing, and most everyone gives it 5 stars on Amazon. I've got 8000 photos I want to back up this way. Anyway, it only captures at 300 or 600 dpi, and you get the choice (only) of jpg or pdf.

I'll admit I was nervous about the file size being so low, but the results looked just fine on my monitor, as you may have noticed.

So being a newbie, I am asking myself, why can such a small jpg file produce a nice image on a monitor and then, after being burned to a dvd, look so crappy. Seems like the small file could get to a dvd without the compression or distortion?

I also have an all-in-one with a high res scanner, but it's slooow going. Maybe I'll just send my slideshows up to Picasa Web for my relatives to see. But I would prefer to send em DVD's. I'm still curious. Thanks, Dave

The JPG uses compression. Then the MPEG uses more compression. If the original file is not high enough quality, then the end result will not be as good. That may not even be your problem, but it seems like a good possibility. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM

Compression & re-compression... & starting with a poor quality image. Not a good recipe.

If you check out the specifications here http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/computing/peripheral/scanners/product/s1500/ you'll see there's an "Excellent" mode. Slower, but it should yield a much better result.

At least then, you're beginning with a decent looking image.

Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

Irrespective of my target (in other words, I haven't tried this with PD9), I find I get my best results by resizing my images in a dedicated graphics editing program. They typically offer "smart resizing" of some sort, as well as other options, so you can control what happens to a fair degree.

You also get to preview your images. Jerry Schwartz

Jerry -

You're absolutely right!

Over in the DZ Forum, there's been a bit of discussion of a similar thing... http://directorzone.cyberlink.com/posts/list/2896.page;jsessionid=D65DB488713767CF52855AEF26DC959B.web3

Beginning with an image that matches the AR of the project will yield a better result, which is tricky with a scan of a newspaper column! In this case (with a long narrow image), I've found it best to layer it onto a background in a separate image editor.

What does that have to do with Dave's problem? Well - if those scanned images can't be cropped to match the project AR, they'd be best "mounted" on a high res background in a separate editor.

In a similar DZ discussion, some time back, we were comparing different methods of cropping/resizing to match aspect ratio. It was found that cropping in an image editor or PhotoNow & using PD's image stretch gave the best results.

I did this comparison test using an original .jpg image - 4752x3168 (6.63MB). In each test, the original image is being cropped to 16:9.

Test 1: Crop image in graphics editor > import into PD
Image when cropped - 4752x2669 .jpg file (7.52MB)
Import into PD > insert in timeline > Take snapshot
Snapshot properties - 4752X2673 .bmp file (48.45MB)

Test 2: Import original image into PD > Crop in PhotoNow
Import original .jpg image - 4752x3168 (6.63MB)
Crop in PhotoNow - 4752x2674 .jpg file (6.0MB)
Snapshot properties - 4752x2673 .bmp file (48.45MB)

Test 3: Import original image into PD > Use Image Stretch
Import original .jpg image - 4752x3168 (6.63MB)
Insert in main video track > right click - set image stretch mode > select Crop > take snaphot
Snapshot properties - 4752x2673 .bmp file (48.45MB)

Test 4: Import original image into PD > Insert in PiP track > Stretch manually to fill screen
Import original .jpg image - 4752x3168 (6.63MB)
Insert in PiP track > take snapshot
Snapshot properties - Resolution 640x360 .bmp file (900.05KB)

Test 5: Import original image into PD > Crop in Motion Designer
Import original .jpg image - 4752x3168 (6.63MB)
Crop in Motion Designer > take snapshot
Snapshot properties - Resolution 640x360 .bmp file (900.05KB)

Cheers - Tony

Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

Hi,
I'll take a different point.

I don't make DVD's very often, hardly at all nowadays because I wasn't satisfied with the resolution for stills and videos. DVD's don't "cut the mustard" in today's HD world with high resolution images being outputted from small to high quality cameras.

In truth, if you want to get the most out of an image/video, look to create AVCHD, BluRay or opt to create video that's playable from a TV connected device (I use a WD-TV device). Render your video to 1080p and enjoy the better quality.

Dafydd

Absolutely true Dafydd -

DVD production is a terrible compromise...

BUT - in Dave's case, that scan is going to look horrible whatever viewing option he chooses.

If an image is of poor quality, or it's poorly handled by the editor, it will not look good in ANY produced file.

As has been pointed out, burning to DVD only magnifies the problem.

Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

I forgot to add one other observation.

Streamed video from YouTube, Vimeo and other specialist hosting sites can be shown at a higher resolution than a DVD - some at full HD others HDLite.

DVD is a commonality compromise which "dumb's down" quality resolution to the lowest mass level. Editors should look to show their work at it's very best and maintain the wow for the audience.

OK, I'd better jump off my soap box now.... sorry if I've stirred the pot or burnt the stew.

Dafydd

A lot for the newbie to consider, guys. Thank you so much for your helpful comments.

I've spent the last couple days trying to dive down into the technical weeds with you all to try to sort out all these options. Considering I'm so low on the learning curve, I'm going to try to make Dafydd's approach work. I see that 2 gig thumbdrives are around $10. My project involves about 350 old ancestor pictures , obituaries, news clippings and the like, scanned at 300 dpi in jpeg format collectively taking up well under 1 gig. I want to distribute them to 10 cousins so their kids someday can look back to what their great-great-great grandparents were about.

So I can export the jpegs out of my Picasa into a folder that I can then slide into the g:drive (thumb drive). I'm investing $100; my cousins get images that are very functional using, say, media player; I don't have to rescan at higher resolution on a slow scanner; my cousins all have computers with usb slots, whereas I'm sure some do not have Blu-Ray players; I save the time of rendering and burning dvd's; I don't have to buy and master a graphics editing program. And while I can't find an authorative comparison, I intuitively suspect a thumb drive with no moving parts might survive the ravages of time longer than ink-based dvds. And I just noticed that I have 2 tv's with usb slots. The menus have a slideshow function. So maybe my cousins will have that as an option too!

One thing though. Even Picasa lets me type in text onto the photos so I can identify the folks, but PD9 has nicer options, like those cartoon ballons which I think would be great for attaching names. But if I do that, do I still retain jpeg format? We've all seen how badly these low-res photos degrade when converted.

If you all have moved on, I understand. I primarily wanted to get wrap up to let you all know how much I appreciate your input and also to complete the thread in case another new user is seeing his photos degrade through rendering.

If you want to retain tem as JPEG you would probabbly be better off using a program like GIMP or PhotoShop. Paint.net will also do the job. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM