| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Bill Warren |
Increasing resolution for frame grabs |
Lead | |
|
(07/21/08 3:49 PM) |
Does anyone here know of a program that does frame grabs with relatively high resolution? Unfortunately, the one Tim Murphy and I
used produced rather low-rez images.
I don't know how to find the resolution. The info that appears when I point a cursor at the file doesn't include resolution. It includes size expressed two ways, but not resolution. For example, a typical frame grab from a movie says it's 547X460 and 47.2kb. For a large poster, it's 1912x2906 and 13.4 somethings--mb? kb?
Last Edited By: Bill Warren 07/21/08 3:57 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||
|
HalLane |
|||
|
(07/21/08 10:38 PM) |
Bill, if it were me, I'd ask Dick Klemensen how he does it. Dick did some video captures from Hammer's Tales of Frankenstein tv show to illustrate Ted
Newsom's article for the next issue of Little Shoppe of Horrors magazine. I've seen the final layout and the grabs look pretty sharp.
|
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/22/08 2:21 AM) |
Someone not on CHFB directed me to a program called Topaz Moment 3.5. This was designed specifically as a frame capture program, and
evidently grabs frames in pretty high resolution. I've downloaded this program for a month trial.
Someone who IS here told me that Photoshop can >increase< the resolution of already existing photo files. Since Photoshop costs over $600, I'm not going to run out and buy it--but does anyone here have it already? If I sent frame grabs, could the Photoshop owner increase their dpi count? I've just sent a note to McFarland trying to find out what dpi they require. |
||
|
sirharryflashman |
|||
|
(07/22/08 3:06 PM) |
Bill, typically I'd say 300 dpi is a minimum resolution for print use. McFarland may have higher requirements, but 300 dpi is likely the lowest acceptable
size.
|
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/22/08 3:19 PM) |
300 is indeed the dots per inch count McFarland prefers; my frame grabs are 96dpi (for the most part). Now I have to find a way to
REgrab them at a higher dpi rate, or to convert the ones I have to a higher dpi rate. Both seem doable, but I don't have Photoshop (for the second
option).
|
||
|
sirharryflashman |
|||
|
(07/22/08 4:45 PM) |
Bill, I'm no expert by any means, but to increase the resolution the printable image size will decrease proportionately. That is to say that if you have an
image that is 4 x 3 inches at 96 dpi, for example, you can increase the resolution to 300 and end up with an image that is 2 x 1.5 inches (yes, I am aware that
isn't the right proportion, but I'm simply illustrating a point). So, while you can increase the resolution in an image editor, you will end up with a
smaller image. You'd be better off re-grabbing the frames at a higher starting resolution.
|
||
|
Kezilla58 |
|||
|
(07/23/08 4:45 AM) |
sirharryflashman wrote: This can happen in Photoshop if you're boosting the dpi of an image from 96 dpi to 300 dpi and then adjust the pixel dimensions. Of the two following
images, one is 96 dpi and one is 300 dpi. Can you tell which is which?
|
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/23/08 12:29 PM) |
A CHFBer ran a few of my frame grabs thru Photoshop, greatly enlarging them. But the sharpness isn't any better. I think if Tim
grabs frames anew with Topaz Moment, we'll be home free.
|
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/23/08 3:44 PM) |
This is frustrating. Topaz Moment 3.5 captures the images at a much larger size but the same 96 dpi rate. I'm at a loss.
|
||
|
sirharryflashman |
|||
|
(07/23/08 4:39 PM) |
Okay, the operative thing then is how much larger? If you crank up the resolution to 300 dpi and let Photoshop downsize the image accordingly, do you end up
with a usable print size or not? It is one of those inverse ratio thingies at work. An image at 96 dpi that has dimensions of say 16x20 inches can be nicely
scaled down to 4x5 at 300 dpi, if you see what I mean?
|
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/23/08 6:16 PM) |
sirharryflashman wrote: Not entirely. The problem is that McFarland wants frame grabs of the quality of standard movie stills, and I don't think
there's any way at all to make them look that good. I am not sure what "larger" means in this context. The publishers can print the photos at
any size. The images I get from Topaz Moment are about twice the size of the frame grabs Tim Murphy did for me. I don't really know what that indicates.
|
||
|
TServo4 |
|||
|
(07/23/08 11:28 PM) |
The problem is that off of a DVD, the best resolution you're going to get is 640 x 480 pixels. But by enlarging the RESOLUTION to 300 dpi, it will ensure
that in printing the image looks good. The sharpness is going to stay the same, but if you print something out the same size at 72 dpi, there's going to be
pixelation in the translation.
That being said, do you have a list of the images you can forward to me Bill? I may be able to help you out in another way.
J. Theakston
The Central Theater, Passaic, NJ |
||
|
Paul Scrabo |
|||
|
(07/25/08 12:52 PM) |
In aggreement with J. Theakston, remember that if you are talkijng about making a screen grab from a DVD, the best CAPTURING RESOLUTION you're going to get
is 72. You can uprezz it via photoshop to conform with a requirement for publication, but the quality will be about the same. Some capture programs have good,
better, best settings for analyzing the input.
Paul |
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/26/08 2:31 PM) |
That being said, do you have a list of the images you can forward to me Bill? I don't think the list would be of much use. The file titles are like this: 88 Kronos, 153 The Werewolf, etc. I don't know nothin about no dipi, all I know is that McFarland says they want 300 dpi files. Topaz Moment has turned out to be a major boondoggle. The program was badly written. Here's what happens: I select a frame I want to capture. Then, according to their own instructionss, "The video will step through a few frames as Topaz Moment makes use of neighboring frames per its default settings." But obviously I don't WANT it to "step through a few frames." I want the frame that I'm looking at right now, this particular, individual frame. Usually a few frames--five or so--on either side would do fine. But Topaz Moment >goes right by< any frames I want. I can't even try saving a few frames before the one I want; there's no way to gauge how MANY frames it will step thru before settling on one. Very, very few of the images I want are on screen very long. Also, I can't back up a frame at a time. The instructions say I can use the left arrow key to do that, but the left arrow key doesn't do a damned thing in Topaz Moment. The right key, yes, that does step forward one frame at a time. I CAN save frames using the program, but they're exactly the same quality as those saved by any other program. When I HAVE been able to save frames using the Topaz Moment feature, when an image did remain on screen long enough for a successful save, the images are substantially sharper than saving them the other way. This is deeply frustrating. |
||
|
Tom Powers |
|||
|
(07/26/08 4:24 PM) |
It's kind of a lost cause to try to get a good dpi picture out from a DVD frame grab: the image information of standard definition video is apx. 72 dpi.
My Power DVD grabs frames at a full 720X480 -- but at only 10 dpi (!). I upsample to 96 dpi and use directional sharpening in my editing program (Corel Photopaint), which is good enough for web use -- but not print. 
|
||
|
TomWeaver999 |
|||
|
(07/26/08 4:35 PM) |
I paid a buddy to do some QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE frame grabs for me, when I interviewed QUEEN co-star Lisa Davis for STARLOG and couldn't find enough shots.
They came out looking like a million bucks.
I wanted a shot of Robert Dix in FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER in my McFarland book with his interview, and that came out looking fair, maybe fair-minus. I'm not sure McFarland is set-up to run frame grabs; if they're not, maybe that's why they're resistant. Looking at it, I wish that shot wasn't in there. A book with LOTS of pics that looked that tacky would give the impression the author published it himself, on a hand-cranked printing press in his cellar. And withOUT reading the printing press instruction book! |
||
|
Bill Warren |
|||
|
(07/26/08 6:11 PM) |
It's kind of a lost cause to try to get a good dpi picture out from a DVD frame grab: the image information of standard definition video is apx. 72 dpi.Yes, that's about what I got. And McFarland was going to run all the frame grabs I really wanted in there, from Tim Murphy's initial captures. Then someone told me about Topaz Moment, which produces far better results, still at 76 dpi, but crisper and clearer. The problem with that program is that it is just about impossible to grab a specific frame. The enhancement program needs to skip forward a bunch of frames--which makes the program pretty much a failure. When you want a frame, you want that particular frame (or any of a few on either side)--you don't want a frame two seconds down the line. So this is a failure as a frame-grab program. |
||
|
TomWeaver999 |
|||
|
(07/26/08 6:41 PM) |
Well, maybe your readers will have to settle for seeing those frames in the movies instead. But I'd still be tempted to pay somebody who knows how to do it
right, if it was my book and I really wanted 'em in there. (And IF McFarland could guarantee me they'd look good in there -- which I don't think
they will.)
|
||
|
BlondieJohnson |
|||
|
(07/26/08 6:49 PM) |
There is a McFarland book I won't name here that is filled with so-called screen grabs. Most are out of focus. It makes the book look cheap. Also it shows
that the author didn't make the effort to get the proper photos for his book.
|
||
|
TomWeaver999 |
|||
|
(07/26/08 6:59 PM) |
<< There is a McFarland book I won't name here that is filled with so-called screen grabs. Most are out of focus. It makes the book look cheap.
<<
Reminds me of the magazine I won't name that used to have (maybe still DOES have) photos obviously taken by a camera pointed at a TV. Holy amateur night. |
||
|
TomWeaver999 |
|||
|
(07/26/08 7:04 PM) |
Again, I don't think McFarland is set-up to run frame grabs. My FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER one looked to ME like a good one on my computer, and the fellow
who grabbed it for me told me it was sufficiently hi-res (and I'm sure it was), and in the book it looks like Amateur Night. If it's a movie where you
only get a VERY fast look at the monster, frame grabs in a book or mag were great ... in the '60s and '70s ... a wonderful alternative to seeing the
monster for a split-second once every year or two, whenever the local TV station ran the movie. (What a ****ty way to have to try to get a good look at it.) In
2008, when we can watch the DVD of the movie and freeze-frame and look at 'em razor-sharp on our big-screen TVs, and practically count the hero's nose
hairs, frame grabs are the ****ty way to try to get a look at it!
Last Edited By: TomWeaver999
07/27/08 9:57 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
