Return-Path: Received: from host6.canaca.com ([66.49.160.142] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4781385 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:31:53 +0200 Received: from 207-195-100-23.regn.static.sasknet.sk.ca ([207.195.100.23] helo=[192.168.1.43]) by host6.canaca.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SsIzE-0004hP-M4 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:35:42 -0400 From: Jack Tunnicliffe Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B029975A-653C-42B0-B5A0-CB7B5A8F33D9" Subject: Re: [AE] Photoshop CS6 Issues Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:35:37 -0600 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host6.canaca.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - media-motion.tv X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - javapost.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: --Apple-Mail=_B029975A-653C-42B0-B5A0-CB7B5A8F33D9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for this, Chris. So here's another one for you to extrapolate on. = Recently I attended a Sony seminar. I went to a camera workshop where = the presenter was talking about the new Sony cameras with their super 35 = imaging systems. I commented that they looked great but that I couldn't = actually get at the high resolution image and that I was stuck to using = HD. He was arrogant enough to point out to me that size larger than HD = were not required for video post. I subsequently pointed out to him that = I had been working in 4 and 5K images from Red for several years and I = explained how important this was for reposting shots in movies and = television series, making a wide shot into a single if you have to. = Funny how engineers often think they know everything. Anyway, he backed down a bit and then said that Sony was a firmware = update away from making the huge image from their sensors available. = Sorry, but I had to recount the rant above, but here's all I really had = to say, they showed how much bigger the pixels were for a Super 35 image = sensor compared to a 4 or 5K Red image sensor. The difference was = enormous according to his projected slides, making a Redcam fit inside = Sony like SD fits inside HD in an HD comp in AE. There I mentioned AE :) = =20 The result is better low light gathering and lower noise. In my tests of = side by side Epics and Sony F3's I've found this to be true, especially = for high speed shots, 120 fps. Now I had always thought a pixel was a = pixel, size that is, but Sony claims their's are bigger. How do you = think this will display when the 4K image, or whatever it turns out to = be (just a firmware upgrade away) actually is available? =20 Jack Tunnicliffe Java Post Production www.javapost.ca On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Chris Meyer wrote: > Digital images are measured by how many pixels they have. >=20 > DPI - dots per inch (or its more accurate cousin, PPI for pixels per = inch) - only comes into play when printing. It answers the question "how = big do you want this?" by giving a translation between the pixel world = of digital images and the inch world of physical media. >=20 > Photoshop always specifies DPI, as it is often used for printing = images; I use it all the time inside Photoshop to manipulate the = as-printed size of my photos and scans without resampling. But if you're = not printing, you can ignore it, and focus on the number in pixels. Yes, = in some cases you can change the number of pixels indirectly by changing = DPI, but it's an indirect connection - and one that can be thwarted or = broken (i.e. depending on whether or not the Resample option is = checked). Focus on that pixel setting; it's what really matters - = everything else is indirection. >=20 > In video, all formats are defined by the number of pixels. DPI is = never specified. Just think about it: You have no idea how many inches = big is the monitor your viewers will be using, and it can vary. What's = standardized is the number of pixels, and the display device scales as = necessary to fill the desired image area. >=20 > DPI may affect print resolution, but it does not affect video = resolution - pixels do. So be careful of interchanging "resolution" for = those terms. >=20 > If DPI mattered to AE et al, it would be in the Interpret Footage = dialog (and its equivalent in other programs). It's not. Look at the XML = metadata for video formats (not the still image fields; the Dynamic = Media fields): no DPI. Look through the ATSC standards for hi-def video = (as well a REC 601, 709, and other standards of relevance): No DPI. DPI = is (supposed to be) irrelevant to video. >=20 > Indeed, AE ignores DPI even when working in "inches": Right-click on = the Scale or Position parameters for a layer. Set Units to Inches. The = number you see is based on 72 DPI, regardless of the file's actual DPI = tag. (I consider that a bug.) >=20 > The earliest version(s) of Premiere did look at the DPI for still = images, and scaled them based on an assumption that it would use 72 DPI = - so a 288 DPI image was scaled to 25%, etc. It dropped that behaviour = early on. And as Rick has stated, no other video (or non-vector*) apps = do.=20 >=20 > (*Vectors need a DPI-like setting to render pixels. It's like printing = in reverse. Nothing to do with video.) >=20 > 72 DPI is a holdover from the old, old computing days when "WYSIWYG" = meant something, and displays strove to represent "actual" size. 72's = not a desired target number (our eyes can resolve much finer than that); = it was based on the limitations of the tech at the time. Once display = and monitor technology improved, it went out the window, with Apple's = Retina displays being the latest proof of point. Alas, 72 DPI has stuck = with us - but it's irrelevant. (Along with the newer meme that hi def = video is 240 dpi, because that's how Canon DSLRs tag their still images. = I kid you not; I wasted a few hours with an editor on that one.) >=20 > here lies dragons - > Chris >=20 >=20 > On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Jack Tunnicliffe wrote: >=20 >> It's certainly an interesting topic, especially now that devices with = so called Retina displays are no longer 72 ppi. Who knows what Apple's = next AppleTV might look like, a real television with possibly a Retina = Display for better resolution than we're used to with traditional = broadcast television. For the time being broadcasters will deliver 72 = ppi but a television display just like a new generation iPad or Macbook, = could display multiple resolutions for different inputs. >>=20 >> Jack Tunnicliffe >> Java Post Production >> www.javapost.ca >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: >>=20 >>> I think we're saying the same thing differently. I'm old-schoold, = and DPI is what I'm used to calling it, even though it's been re-branded = into Resolution. =20 >>>=20 >>> When somebody scans a photo, they usually have an option to choose a = DPI, or Resolution. That has a direct relationship to the number of = pixels in the scanned image. But, ultimately, pixels are pixels. In = Ae, the 72 number is understood, as it's the screen resolution built = into Ae. You can test this by exporting any NTSC frame and bringing it = into Ps. Look at the Image Size in Ps, and you're going to see three = numbers: Height, Width and Resolution (which is 72). >>>=20 >>> I don't suppose you recall a discussion we had with Trish a few = years back about using Ae for print work. What we agreed by consensus = was that you could increase the print DPI by multiplying your Ae comp by = some factor to get a decent print. >>>=20 >>> If you wanted 300 DPI, you multiplied your Comp Size by 4.167, which = is 300/72. =20 >>>=20 >>> So, choose 2550x3300 in Ae to get an 8.5x11" print at 300 DPI. >>> =20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Chris Meyer wrote: >>>=20 >>>> I think you might be fooling yourself. I think AE and PR only care = about the number of pixels. The way you happened to scale the image - = lowering the DPI setting, with resampling on - happens to lower the = number of pixels. I bet if you took the same image, and changed the DPI = setting with resampling OFF (thereby NOT changing the number of pixels), = that you would see no changes in AE or PR. DPI may be a red herring for = you. >>>>=20 >>>> Or I may be wrong; I haven't re-tested this in years. >>>>=20 >>>> - Chris >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Yes, as does Pr and Ae. It's called "Resolution" in Photoshop. = It's intertwined with Height and Width. If you change one in the Image = Size dialog, the other two change along with it, if Constrain = Proportions is checked. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Just two days ago, I got some stills that were scanned at 1200 = DPI. They bogged down Pr horribly. I was having to scale them to 10% = to get them to fill the frame. So, I resized them in Ps, taking the = Resolution (DPI) down to 300, and that brought the Width and Height = parameters down with it. Then Pr handled them with aplomb, speedy, and = with more workable scale sizes, in the 50-70% range, with resolution = left to do panning and zooming. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Benny Christensen wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> You need to make sure that the DPI is not too high that they are = RGB color space. FCP will definitely crash using CMYK files. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I usually resize every thing to 150DPI and no larger than 3000 = pixels wide for normal shots or 3000 pixels tall for vertical shots. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I know that FCP is supposed to handle larger files, but this has = been safe for me. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Benny Christensen >>>>>> Producers Playhouse >>>>>> Oklahoma City >>>>>> 405-858-0700 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> "I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make = people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if = I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'." = - Kurt Vonnegut (Timequake) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Perhaps I should elaborate. I've been tasked to do a couple of = "slide show" projects (Yikes!). Whenever I brought a bunch of JPEGs in = and tried to do Motion moves, and dissolves between them, FCP crashed = regularly. When I brought the same stills into Pr, I had no crashes. =20= >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> And on other projects, where I only had occasional stills, I'd = still get crashes from the JPEGs, but not after I converted them to TIF. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> That's just been my experience. Maybe it's a codec thing. I = think I'm the Pig Pen of finding things that crash Mac apps. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:51 AM, James Culbertson wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> FCP 7.03? JPEGs and PNGs work just fine in my experience. I'm = working on a feature length doc that I inherited for finishing tasks = that is a smorgasbord of formats - in addition to JPEGs, and PNGs, there = are also BMPs, Tiffs, and PSD. No problems whatsoever. What I would = avoid are PDFs. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> If I were to choose I would stick with TIFF and JPEG, and use = PSD when necessary. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I've had bad luck with most still formats in FCP. It's pretty = hostile to JPEGs and PNGs, IME. =20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Try TIF or TGA, which also support an alpha channel. TIF is = what I use (when I have to.) =20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Pr is a LOT better at handling stills, except really large = ones. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Benny Christensen wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> That has been my workaround, but it is annoying because I = don't like to use PSDs in FCP. I usually like a flattened file for = titles. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Benny Christensen >>>>>>>>>> Producers Playhouse >>>>>>>>>> Oklahoma City >>>>>>>>>> 405-858-0700 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> "To be is to do"--Socrates >>>>>>>>>> "To do is to be"--Jean-Paul Sartre >>>>>>>>>> "Do be do be do"--Frank Sinatra >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Glen Tubbesing wrote: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> You might try using Photoshop's native PSD format, instead. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012 6:38 AM, "Benny Christensen" = wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I know this isn't the Photoshop list, but since it is pretty = integral to our workflow here goes. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> I am having a couple of issues lately. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 1) PNGs are not acting the same way they used to. I can't = get the empty spaces to read as alpha holes in FCP. Is there a better = format to use since PICT files are no longer an option. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Sometimes the program simply will not let me Save a file. = The Save window pops up, but the buttons are not colored and won't = react. In fact, at that point the program is completely locked up and I = have to Force Quit. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone else seen these problems? >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Benny Christensen >>>>>>>>>>> Producers Playhouse >>>>>>>>>>> Oklahoma City >>>>>>>>>>> 405-858-0700 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them = pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Sir = Winston Churchill >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> +---End of message---+ >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send any message to = >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_B029975A-653C-42B0-B5A0-CB7B5A8F33D9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Jack Tunnicliffe
Java Post Production
www.javapost.ca



On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Chris Meyer wrote:

Digital images are = measured by how many pixels they have.

DPI - = dots per inch (or its more accurate cousin, PPI for pixels per inch) - = only comes into play when printing. It answers the question "how big do = you want this?" by giving a translation between the pixel world of = digital images and the inch world of physical = media.

Photoshop always specifies DPI, as it is = often used for printing images; I use it all the time inside Photoshop = to manipulate the as-printed size of my photos and scans without = resampling. But if you're not printing, you can ignore it, and focus on = the number in pixels. Yes, in some cases you can change the number of = pixels indirectly by changing DPI, but it's an indirect connection - and = one that can be thwarted or broken (i.e. depending on whether or not the = Resample option is checked). Focus on that pixel setting; it's what = really matters - everything else is = indirection.

In video, all formats are defined = by the number of pixels. DPI is never specified. Just think about it: = You have no idea how many inches big is the monitor your viewers will be = using, and it can vary. What's standardized is the number of pixels, and = the display device scales as necessary to fill the desired image = area.

DPI may affect print resolution, but it = does not affect video resolution - pixels do. So be careful of = interchanging "resolution" for those terms.

If = DPI mattered to AE et al, it would be in the Interpret Footage dialog = (and its equivalent in other programs). It's not. Look at the XML = metadata for video formats (not the still image fields; the Dynamic = Media fields): no DPI. Look through the ATSC standards for hi-def video = (as well a REC 601, 709, and other standards of relevance): No DPI. DPI = is (supposed to be) irrelevant to = video.

Indeed, AE ignores DPI even when working = in "inches": Right-click on the Scale or Position parameters for a = layer. Set Units to Inches. The number you see is based on 72 DPI, = regardless of the file's actual DPI tag. (I consider that a = bug.)

The earliest version(s) of Premiere did = look at the DPI for still images, and scaled them based on an assumption = that it would use 72 DPI - so a 288 DPI image was scaled to 25%, etc. It = dropped that behaviour early on. And as Rick has stated, no other video = (or non-vector*) apps do. 

(*Vectors need = a DPI-like setting to render pixels. It's like printing in reverse. = Nothing to do with video.)

72 DPI is a holdover = from the old, old computing days when "WYSIWYG" meant something, and = displays strove to represent "actual" size. 72's not a desired = target number (our eyes can resolve much finer than that); it was based = on the limitations of the tech at the time. Once display and = monitor technology improved, it went out the window, with Apple's Retina = displays being the latest proof of point. Alas, 72 DPI has stuck with us = - but it's irrelevant. (Along with the newer meme that hi def video is = 240 dpi, because that's how Canon DSLRs tag their still images. I kid = you not; I wasted a few hours with an editor on that = one.)

here lies dragons = -
Chris


On Jul 20, = 2012, at 12:45 PM, Jack Tunnicliffe wrote:

It's certainly an interesting = topic, especially now that devices with so called Retina displays are no = longer 72 ppi. Who knows what Apple's next AppleTV might look like, a = real television with possibly a Retina Display for better resolution = than we're used to with traditional broadcast television. For the time = being broadcasters will deliver 72 ppi but a television display just = like a new generation iPad or Macbook, could display multiple = resolutions for different inputs.

Jack Tunnicliffe
Java Post Production
www.javapost.ca



On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Jim Curtis wrote:

I think we're saying the same = thing differently.  I'm old-schoold, and DPI is what I'm used to = calling it, even though it's been re-branded into Resolution. =  

When somebody scans a photo, they usually have = an option to choose a DPI, or Resolution.  That has a direct = relationship to the number of pixels in the scanned image.  But, = ultimately, pixels are pixels.  In Ae, the 72 number is understood, = as it's the screen resolution built into Ae.  You can test this by = exporting any NTSC frame and bringing it into Ps.  Look at the = Image Size in Ps, and you're going to see three numbers: Height, Width = and Resolution (which is 72).

I don't suppose you = recall a discussion we had with Trish a few years back about using Ae = for print work.  What we agreed by consensus was that you could = increase the print DPI by multiplying your Ae comp by some factor to get = a decent print.

If you wanted 300 DPI, you = multiplied your Comp Size by 4.167, which is 300/72. =  

So, choose 2550x3300 in Ae to get an = 8.5x11" print at 300 = DPI.
 


On Jul 20, = 2012, at 1:17 PM, Chris Meyer wrote:

I think you might be fooling yourself. I think = AE and PR only care about the number of pixels. The way you happened to = scale the image - lowering the DPI setting, with resampling on - happens = to lower the number of pixels. I bet if you took the same image, and = changed the DPI setting with resampling OFF (thereby NOT changing the = number of pixels), that you would see no changes in AE or PR. DPI may be = a red herring for you.

Or I may be wrong; I = haven't re-tested this in years.

 - = Chris



On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jim Curtis = <jpcurtis@me.com> = wrote:

Yes, as = does Pr and Ae.  It's called "Resolution" in Photoshop.  It's = intertwined with Height and Width.  If you change one in the Image = Size dialog, the other two change along with it, if Constrain = Proportions is checked.

Just two days ago, I got some = stills that were scanned at 1200 DPI.  They bogged down Pr = horribly.  I was having to scale them to 10% to get them to fill = the frame.  So, I resized them in Ps, taking the Resolution (DPI) = down to 300, and that brought the Width and Height parameters down with = it.  Then Pr handled them with aplomb, speedy, and with more = workable scale sizes, in the 50-70% range, with resolution left to do = panning and = zooming.



On Jul 20, = 2012, at 12:13 PM, Benny Christensen wrote:

You need to make sure that the = DPI is not too high that they are RGB color space. FCP will definitely = crash using CMYK files.

I usually resize every = thing to 150DPI and no larger than 3000 pixels wide for normal shots or = 3000 pixels tall for vertical shots.

I know = that FCP is supposed to handle larger files, but this has been safe for = me.

Benny = Christensen
Producers Playhouse
Oklahoma = City
405-858-0700
=

"I say in speeches that a = plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at = least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled = that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'." - Kurt Vonnegut = (Timequake)

On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Jim Curtis wrote:

Perhaps I should elaborate. =  I've been tasked to do a couple of "slide show" projects (Yikes!). =  Whenever I brought a bunch of JPEGs in and tried to do Motion = moves, and dissolves between them, FCP crashed regularly.  When I = brought the same stills into Pr, I had no crashes. =  

And on other projects, where I only had = occasional stills, I'd still get crashes from the JPEGs, but not after I = converted them to TIF.

That's just been my = experience.  Maybe it's a codec thing.  I think I'm the Pig = Pen of finding things that crash Mac = apps.



On Jul 20, 2012, = at 11:51 AM, James Culbertson wrote:

FCP 7.03?  JPEGs and = PNGs work just fine in my experience. I'm working on a feature length = doc that I inherited for finishing tasks that is a smorgasbord of = formats - in addition to JPEGs, and PNGs, there are also BMPs, Tiffs, =  and PSD. No problems whatsoever. What I would avoid are = PDFs.

If I were to choose I would stick with = TIFF and JPEG, and use PSD when = necessary.

James


On Jul 20, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Jim Curtis wrote:

I've had bad luck with most = still formats in FCP.  It's pretty hostile to JPEGs and PNGs, IME. =  

Try TIF or TGA, which also support an alpha = channel.  TIF is what I use (when I have to.) =  

Pr is a LOT better at handling stills, = except really large ones.


On Jul 20, 2012, at = 8:55 AM, Benny Christensen wrote:

That has been my workaround, = but it is annoying because I don't like to use PSDs in FCP. I usually = like a flattened file for titles.

Thanks.

=
Benny Christensen
Producers = Playhouse
Oklahoma = City
405-858-0700

=
"To be is to = do"--Socrates
"To do is to be"--Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be = do"--Frank = Sinatra
<= /div>







On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Glen Tubbesing = wrote:

You might try using Photoshop's native PSD format, = instead.

On Jul 20, 2012 6:38 AM, "Benny Christensen" = <bennychristensen@me.com> = wrote:
I know this isn't the Photoshop list, but since it is pretty integral to = our workflow here goes.

I am having a couple of issues lately.

1) PNGs are not acting the same way they used to. I can't get the empty = spaces to read as alpha holes in FCP. Is there a better format to use = since PICT files are no longer an option.

2) Sometimes the program simply will not let me Save a file. The Save = window pops up, but the buttons are not colored and won't react. In = fact, at that point the program is completely locked up and I have to = Force Quit.

Has anyone else seen these problems?

Thanks in advance.

Benny Christensen
Producers Playhouse
Oklahoma City
405-858-0700

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick = themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Sir Winston = Churchill






+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
=






=




= --Apple-Mail=_B029975A-653C-42B0-B5A0-CB7B5A8F33D9--