I always add photos without knowing the size, PD will adjust to the size of the video is saved, if FullHD 1920x1080 to 720x480 for NTSC DVD or other sizes according to the selected output.

Quote: I always add photos without knowing the size, PD will adjust to the size of the video is saved, if FullHD 1920x1080 to 720x480 for NTSC DVD or other sizes according to the selected output.

Hei,
I did reduce my pic file sizes ... each of many Mb's which makes for a very large PD project to Produce & Burn. I set them at 1920x (which is the pixel size at Full HD) and this made a huge difference to each of the picture 'bits' and a big reduction in the overall Project size. Can't really see the difference in pic quality ... yet ... though there are many other factors to picture size/resolution etc to consider. To do this size reduction easily, I use a programme that will allow me to process multiple files to the size that I want ... I use this programme also for printing pictures from an online supplier eg if I want standard 10x15cm pictures then I set the file size to this so as to (again) reduce the amount of upload time to the photo site.

If I am on the wrong track I will soon find out!

I think the PD10 process better if the pictures are smaller, Here I add the original photos and works well.
In my view this will not increase the project file, it only save information (scripts) to create the video, the photos remain in their original source (folder)
This in my opinion.

Note: This applies to Save Projects As..
The option to Export / Project Materials Pack ...
This copies all but material to a folder, in this case your thinking is correct

Hi Ron & Playsound -

Playsound is correct. Higher resolution images in a project do not increase the size of the project file (the .pds). Of course, your PC has to work a lot harder with higher resolution images.

Test: 4 images (same image resized). 4 separate projects each containing 20 identical images...

Pic1.png - 5184x3240 (35.5MB) - Pic1.pds (20xPic1) = 338KB
Pic2.png - 2592x1620 (9.26MB) - Pic2.pds (20xPic2) = 338KB
Pic3.png - 1296x810 (2.24MB) - Pic3.pds (20xPic3) = 351KB
Pic4.png - 648x405 (575KB) - Pic4.pds (20xPic4) = 364KB

When I produced the projects to AVC 1920x1080, all produced files (m2ts) were similar file sizes, and each took a similar time to produce...
Pic1.m2ts = 312MB, Pic2.m2ts = 312MB, Pic3.m2ts = 327MB, Pic4.m2ts = 341MB
- There you go! Pic4 is 12.5% of the resolution of Pic1, yet the final file is larger!

Viewed on the PC (23" HD monitor), the difference in quality wasn't so noticeable. Viewed on a 50" HD TV (through a media player), the difference was very obvious. I would always use the highest resolution images for quality.

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

I'm convinced gentlemen, thanks
I should have remembered that pictures and printing have different requirements to pictures and on screen viewing.

But, it was good that it gave me thinking time for I have also been struggling to get 400+ pics in the correct date order. We used 3 camera's on holiday at 'home' in Aussie (2x DSLR & a mob phone) and they each have different file numbering schemes. Within Windows Picture Folders and other viewing programmes you can easily view in Date order such that each pic from whichever camera is seen in the correct overall sequence. But the fun starts when importing them into PD10 ... sure they can be viewed in Date order but in individual File Date order so you end up searching 3 files (in my case) to select various pics for the Timeline.

I got around this by copying the pics I needed from the master Pictures Folder into a new pics folder. I then renamed all pics by selecting All and calling them 'Aussie' ... these copy pics then were numbered in sequence Aussie 1 - 400++. I imported them into PD10 ... problem solved. I know that when jpeg pics are copied (jpeg being 'lossy') that you tend to loose some definition but its the only way I could think of doing this in a quick and dirty way.

Unless there are other ways CYa Ron (W10/i5gen8/Nvidia)
Someone famous once said: "We only have the 4th dimension of 'time' so that everything does not all happen at once"

RonH

400 photos in my opinion is much to be added in PD10.
I would do several video clip with + or - 50 photos, then merge the videos into one, or make a menu with buttons for each video.
If you use many effects will be easier to correct errors
The image quality in video should consider.
On TV FullHD correspond to 2 Mpx. maximum and the DVD-video 0.4 Mpx.

Ron -

You didn't call in!

I'm sure most us do a similar thing when preparing a project. I always assemble (yes - often by copying & pasting) a working project folder, and sub-folders, with each item named in much the same way you've done. The sub-folders, in my case, represent the "stages" of the project and the file naming reflects that too. I reckon whatever works for you, & the way you think, is a good way to do it.

By the way, copying & pasting images doesn't cause them to lose a single pixel.

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

Quote: Ron -

You didn't call in!

By the way, copying & pasting images doesn't cause them to lose a single pixel.

Cheers - Tony

Didn't call in 'cause didn't get to NSW this time around ... home base was Vic & I can 'hear' your comments

I think this snow falling up here in Norway is freezing my brain ... of course you do not have jpeg losses when simply copying ... I am thinking of 'editing/save as etc, apologies Another embarrassment CYa Ron (W10/i5gen8/Nvidia)
Someone famous once said: "We only have the 4th dimension of 'time' so that everything does not all happen at once"

Quote:
If you use many effects will be easier to correct errors

Good point Playsound, thanks for that tip.