On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:47:59 GMT, "David McCall"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3c4699fc.6796179@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:23:18 GMT, "W. Keith McManus"
>>
>> >> "Neuman - Ruether"
>> >> news:3c474318.1948152@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> > >> > You should import graphics preferably as multiples
>> >> > >> > of 640x480 (NTSC) in order to maintain the proportions
>> >> > >> > of the image (try importing a circle on a 720 x480
>> >> > >> > background, and another on a 640x480 background, then
>> >> > >> > export to tape and watch on a TV - the 720 image will
>> >> > >> > not look correct...;-).
>> >David McCall's process is the correct one to follow.
>> Well, to check all this out, I made four fields
>> (at 300dpi): 1440x1080, 1280x960, 720x540, and 640x480
>> with black backgrounds. I did not use the 720x480
>> proportion, since this WILL result in incorrect graphic
>> proportions on TV. On these I placed a white circle
>> about 1/2 height, and four bits of text, also in white
>> ("THEN", "JMLQ", "HOW", and "LHFD" in Times New Roman
>> [with seraphs...] near the four corners, and a horizontal
>> line near the top, all proportioned similarly relative
>> to the backgrounds. Within the circle, in black type,
>> is the field size. These were places on the Premiere
>> timeline (Mini-DV, Canopus codec) with 6-second lengths,
>> and this sequence was repeated. In the second sequence
>> "flicker removal" and motion (0, 10; 0, -10, for
>> scrolling) were applied.
>> Results:
>> Without motion, 1440x1080 and 1280x960 looked about
>> the same, both with slight flicker, but noticeably
>> better than the smaller field sizes; with the 720x540
>> compared with the 640x480, the first looked quite
>> irregular on the circle but rendered the type slightly
>> better.
>> With motion, all again had slight flicker, and again
>> the 1440x1080 and 1280x960 looked about the same, and
>> noticeably better than the smaller two field sizes;
>> with the 720x540 compared with the 640x480, the results
>> were (not surprisingly) the same as above.
>> The very high contrast of the test material exaggerates
>> the effects seen, but it is evident that in Premiere,
>> with the conditions set, that using imported graphic
>> fields of either 1440x1080 or 1280x960 (NTSC) is
>> preferable to using smaller fields, even when there
>> is no motion or zooming within the graphic; if large
>> graphic elements are used in the smaller fields,
>> 640x480 is preferable to 720x540; if text only is
>> used, 720x540 is preferable to 640x480; if you don't
>> believe this, try it yourself...! ;-)
>I might concede that a graphic created in a larger size
>might well look better than a graphic that started smaller,
>however, even if I were to create a graphic that large
>it would still have to be altered to use it in a 720 x 480
>environment. Either you do it before you put the graphic
>in, or you make the NLE do it, for every frame.
Importing the graphic as 1440x1080 or 1280x960
looks so much better, once I tried it, I would
never go back. Imported straight, and letting
Premiere handle it, takes virtually no render
time (and little, if any more, than imported
720x540 or 640x480, which renders FAST...).