Capture Pics for DVD Cases

[mitch]

My 8mm home movie to DVD project is going very well. Your guides are
enabling me to get some good quality DVD videos (at least as good as an
8mm source can provide). To give this project a final touch, I would
like to use some stills (pictures) from my captures (mostly national
park scenes) as background images for DVD cases (just working on a
standard jewel case size for now). However the quality of the stills
from the MPEG2 (352x480) captures does not appear to be very good. I
have been importing/testing images (BMP, TIF, JPG, etc.) from Womble
MPEG Video Wizard and ATI File Player into Nero Cover Designer (an older
version that came with my Nero 5.5 package) and adjusting the resolution
for 4/3 aspect ratio. NCD has some picture filters, but they aren't
working too well for me. I haven't yet bought Photoshop and would
probably need to get a less expensive older version, or maybe the
Elements edition. Would Photoshop have appropriate filters to clean up
these types of pictures?

Thanks!

P.S.
I have an HP OfficeJet Pro 1150C inkjet printer.

[mitch]

After further testing, I have found the following...

I recaptured some short clips that included frames I wanted to save as
pictures using an ATI MMC capture resolution setting of 640x480 (true
4/3 aspect ratio). I also bumped up the max and target bit rates a
little just to ensure quality. Then using Womble MPEG Video Wizard, I
again saved the stills in 4/3 aspect ratio and the quality was improved.
I also found that capturing de-interlaced or progressive appears to
provide better quality for pictures than interlaced. With a little
touching up, I believe these pictures will now be good enough to use for
case background pics.

[admin]

That's what I would do, is capture just the segments you need images from, using either 640x480 or 720x480 resolution.

I would then proceed to extract the images using one of two methods:

1) Use VIRTUALDUB, the version that can read MPEG files. Extract a SOURCE frame to your clipboard. Open your favorite image software (I use Photoshop), select a new image (Photoshop auto-select the new image size based off the data on your clipboard, or the previous new project, should not clipboard data exist) and then paste it in.

[img]uploads/admin/virtualdub-images.gif[/img]

You can get VirtualDub here:
http://fcchandler.home.comcast.net/stable/index.html

You can get a trial of Photoshop here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa....jsp?product=3 9&platform=Windows


2) There is new piece of software I have not tried to date, but it looks to have LOTS of potential, called TOPAZ MOMENTS. It uses advanced filtering and resize algorithms to created high quality images (suppoesdly) from "low quality" video stills.

You can learn more about it here:
http://www.topazlabs.com

Most good images, for printing, should be about 3x-10x greater resolution. Video, even the highest definition HD stuff, is mediocre at best, as compared to traditional printed images.

Sorry it took a while to reply to this. I'm back now.


NOTE: Any time you use video stills as print material, remember to adjust the black and white levels accordingly. Colors often need tweaking too. Video and printed matter are two uniquely different mediums, in this regard.




Edited by: admin

[mitch]

Hi. I have used Topaz Moment version 2.1 (evaluation) and have tested
various still captures using multiple combinations of parameter values
(have also followed the application's tips on how to get good quality
pictures) and unfortunately have thus far not been very impressed with
the quality of the enhancements. In fact, about the best I have been
able to do with this application is get picture quality comparable to
the originals. The ideas behind this application are great (enhancement
algorithms, filters, etc.) and the application is straight-forward and
easy to use, however I just haven't had much luck with getting good quality.

I looked for a Photoshop version on eBay, but was a bit fearful of
ending up with "bootlegged" software. My wife is a member of Sam's
Club, so I have ordered Photoshop Elements 3.0 from there. (I was
unable to download the (huge) eval version from Adobe's site as I only
have dial-up, but my wife wants to work with photographs anyway so it
should be put to good use). If PE 3.0 doesn't seem to do any better, I
still may buy Topaz Moment, but I'll do some testing with PE 3.0 first.

Thanks!Edited by: mitch

[admin]

Well, part of the issue may be that you are pushing the size of acceptability. Images off the Internet (excluding "wallpapers") and video stills are both low resolution. The only exception of this may be official 720x480 releases. But homemade VHS and other homemade sources are low.

Such images can only be used rather small in the overall case image. See the image (white spaces):

[img]uploads/admin/casesmax.gif[/img]

While you can MAYBE go double that size, it often takes a little bit of filtering. Also remember to filter video images for contrast/color, as what looks good on screen and what looks good on paper are not the same.

For a larger image, you really have to scan something. Or create it from scratch.

[mitch]

Hi. You're right about being somewhat limited when starting out with
low resolution video images, however fortunately I have had a bit better
luck using PE 3.0. It has a bit of a learning curve, so I can imagine
the learning curve required for the full Photoshop version. The more
"tools and tricks" that I learn though, the better I have been doing
with improving the images. I especially like the "photomerge panorama"
feature. It allows me to get more image real estate for the same scene
prior to transferring to the case layout. The sharpening, contrast,
etc. filters are also making a difference on certain images. I have had
better luck with adjusting the filters manually rather than using the
"auto" features. I have also matched the "color management" parameters
between PE 3.0, my monitor, and my printer to the best of my ability.
Resizing the image resolution up to 200 pixels/inch (and then applying
filters) has also helped tremendously prior to transferring the image to
the case software (I'm using an older version of Nero Cover Designer).
Photoshop appears to do a very good job of keeping reasonable quality
upon resizing.

Your "How to make cases in Photoshop" guide has also been very helpful.
Your recommendation of HammerMill 28 lb. Color Copy paper has worked out
well (and a lot cheaper than using pre-packaged blank case inserts). I
am however using Neato Photo-Matte labels for the DVDs (not too
expensive, got some at WalMart), and appear to work well. I am
sticking with standard jewel cases for now as I have actually been able
to get some decent quality images large enough for the whole
front/back/inside panels.

Thanks again for your recommendations. I have found PE 3.0 to be well
worth the investment.
Edited by: mitch

[admin]

Using labels on DVD is a bad idea. DVDs were never intended to be labeled. If you really need to have printed tops on discs, get inkjet media and an inkjet CD/DVD printer.

Labeled discs die very fast. The labels cause the discs to be imbalanced.

I choose to spend my efforts on the cases. The DVD video/audio gets the most attention. DVD cases may get a minute or two of attention. The DVD label itself is often never looked at, and if it is, just for a few seconds. It has the shortest lifetime of all the attention.

Because of this, I use sharpies on my discs, and I have a nice comic-book-style handwriting style. Some people have been known to even take calligraphy courses to improve their handwriting and make it look nice.

All my DVD transfer customers get a choice, on final productions, whether they want the discs blank, or for me to write on them.

[mitch]

I've been reading that inks from certain markers may damage disks by
corroding the surface over time and special CD/DVD markers are made for
disk labeling. I assume Sharpies are OK though?

This also brings up an interesting point. My current printer works
fine, but is now quite old. There are now printers available that print
in much higher resolution for less than half what I originally paid for
mine. My wife also wants to get more into photography anyway, so I'm
now thinking about buying a new "photo" printer (one with disk printing
capability). I've been reading that the Epson Stylus Photo R300 series
are nice printers at a reasonable price. Would this be a viable
alternative in your opinion?

P.S.
Please let me know if this is getting too off-topic.

[admin]

It's on topic.

The R300 is a decent printer. It's not a "tank" of any kind, it's a disposable unit like all other inkjets these days, but you should be able to get 1 good year of heavy use out of it, maybe 2 with lighter use. Longer if you're lucky. Just remember that ink dries up if unused for too long, can be messy/expensive to maintain/refill, and will slowly start to fail as time goes by. Again, disposable, all of them are these days. The R200 was fine too, and they were often on sale for $50-100 each.

Almost all of that "inks from certain markers may damage disks by corroding the surface over time" you saw online is malarky, as it relates to DVD. There is not such acid in markers. It may damage some really flimsy/cheap CD-R, but not a DVD. DVD has an upper plastic layer, whereas CD is just the foil on top. This is why CD is easy to damage, and DVD is not as much.


Edited by: admin

[mitch]

I ended up getting an Epson R200 as after looking at the different
models, I didn't think I needed the extra bells and whistles on the R300
or R320. I also bought a 100 stack of Taiyo Yuden 8x hub printables
from Rima.com and am quite pleased with the disk printouts.

As I know that the ink on printed disks is subject to smearing due to
water/humidity or sweaty hands (not that I would intentionally handle my
disks this way though), I am curious as to what might be done to protect
the ink. I have been reading on VideoHelp.com where several people are
using light coats of acrylic based sprays after printing (Krylon and
Patricia Nimocks clear acrylics have been mentioned). Do you see any
issues with these sealers affecting playback (now or in the future),
assuming they are applied lightly/evenly and the data side of the disks
are protected during the application?

Thanks!

P.S.
The updated digitalFAQ.com site looks fantastic!

[admin]

This is one reason I just don't like ink in general. Not for paper, not for discs. I would look into the sprays, but be careful. They will be trouble if sprayed unevenly, if gotten on the bottom surface, if it flakes off at a later date, etc. I never liked working with sprays when I did photo stuff. That's why I always bought the good paper (referring to silver halide, BTW, "real" photo papers).

[admin]

I've added a guide for some advanced filter/resize work, to create DVD cases from lower resolution images or video clips.

See http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/...ases/lowresfix. htm

[mitch]

Thank you for the new guide. I will definitely plan to reference it for
improved future DVD case designs. I completed my home movie to DVD
conversion project (including DVD cases) and all turned out well. I
ended up using standard jewel cases as I did not have to crop as much
from my captured pictures (4:3 aspect ratio) to make them fit the
"square" panels of the jewel cases. I was able to get decent quality
images that fit the entire panel areas (using Photoshop Elements 3.0 and
Bicubic (default) resize interpolation).

I captured video for stills at 640x480 progressive (to alleviate
interlace lines) and followed your recommendations regarding the MPEG
version of VirtualDub. I also used Photoshop jewel case templates found
at http://www.neato.com/support/#3pc (many other templates also included
here). These turned out well using my HP 1150C printer. Since I used
an Epson R200 (for the disks) and Taiyo Yuden hub printable DVD
blanks, I used an appropriate TY Photoshop disk template found at
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/image...1181582/119mm2 3mm.psd. I
then saved the disk picture images in non-layered TIF format and used
Epson Print CD to print the images to the disks. The little "extras" I
included (DVD Video logo, gradient backgrounds on appropriate case
panels, scripted text, etc.) turned out well also. I lightly sprayed
the disks with Patricia Nimocks clear acrylic (made by Plaid, found in
Wal-Mart crafts section) to alleviate ink smears (I covered the data
sides of the disks using the clear spacers that came with the TY 100
pack and used masking tape to seal the inner and outer edges).

All in all, I am extremely happy with how this whole project turned out.
While it may not quite be the Hollywood masterpiece, considering I had
somewhat of a limited budget, I am very satisfied with it. Thanks again
for your web site, guides, and excellent support!

P.S.
How much better is Genuine Fractals than Bicubic (Photoshop) interpolation?

[admin]

Genuine Fractals does not use linear or cubic type dimensions, it's a crystalline based method, from what I know about fractals. It's amazing. The guide had a comparison of a normal bicubic increase, versus a fractal increase. Even the lanzcos method is not as good as the fractal one.