On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:40:01 -0800, "Paul Tauger" <ptaugerspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e457ff0.4114380@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:46:52 -0800, "Paul Tauger"

>> <ptaugerspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:

>> >"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message

>> >news:v3r6np22rdugb2@corp.supernews.com...

>> >> "Milburne Drysdale" wrote ...

>> >> > I'm surprised to find that none of the common desktop nonlinear

>> >> > editing programs for PC's seem to include "pan and zoom" (also known

>> >> > as the Ken Burns effect) which allows motion to be added to a still

>> >> > photo, as the camera appears to zoom in and move the viewer around a

>> >> > still photo.

>> >> Define "common desktop nonlinear editing programs".

>> >> Adobe Premire (likely the widest-used NLE) has supported it for years.

>> >> You are aware that KB likely created the shots optically with an

>> >> automated "rostrum camera", not by digital effects (which

>> >> significantly reduce picture resolution)/

>> >Though you're right about Ken Burns, I need to qualify your remark about

>> >reducing picture resolution. Adobe Premiere's pan and zoom function can

>> >accept scanned stills at up to 4,000 x 4,000 pixels. Using a still at

>the

>> >maximum resolution, you can zoom in almost 5x before losing any

>resolution.

>> >Note that Premiere's "Motion" tool _will_ lose resolution when it zooms.

>> >However, Pan and Zoom will not.

>> This is true - though avoiding annoying artifacting

>> while using "image pan" in Premiere with DV has escaped

>> me... I'm also looking for something that can pan/zoom

>> both stills and motion images with minimal artifacting

>> (rippling, "bright-edging", etc.). I gave up on AE...

>If you find something, let me know! ;)

>

>I'll also add to the wish list the ability to accellerate and decelerate.

>Premiere can only do constant speed.

I tried Canopus Imaginate yesterday, and *if*

the original hi-res still is not sharpened,

Imaginate does a good job of pan/zoom within the

image with less artifacting than when the same

operations are done with the same image in Premiere,

using the "image-pan" filter. Regardless of how

"deflicker" and slight vertical "better Gaussian blur"

are used, the Imaginate results look better, though

not perfect, unfortunately... If "12" is perfection

(utterly smooth results, even with difficult material),

and "0" is terrible, I would give Premiere at best

a "4" for this, and Imaginate a "7". Still looking

for at least a "10"...;-) I haven't yet checked for

other features of Imaginate, and it is rather

expensive at $200...