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

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

>

>>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...

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:58:10 -0000, "Guy" <blank@space.net> wrote:

>Have you tried Moving Picture?

>

>The image panning software ALL others should be judged against!

>Keyframeable, spline tools and realtime preview. Nuff said.......

>http://www.creativecow.net/articles/hofmann_jerry/stagetools/

I have not tried it, but it is also $200 (+ $70 more, as

I recall, if you want to rotate the image [included in

Imaginate]), and it looks like its operation is nearly

identical to Imaginate. It is worth trying it, though,

to see if there is any improvement in the output compared

with Imaginate (I suspect it will not be better, but...;-).