Photo cropping in ProShow

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

When creating frames, I try to use one of the standard formats. Not only does this make it easier to fit photos to the frame, but it makes cropping in ProShow an absolute snap in view of the fact that we don't have the frame in the crop screen to see how we're doing. (Request to Photodex has been duly submitted.) Here's an example of how to do it with 6x8 frames, which are in a 3:4 ratio...

Portrait frame
In the crop screen, divide the pixel height by 4, then multiply the result by 3. That's the crop width to type into the little box. If the picture is extraordinarily skinny, do it the other way around, dividing the width by 3 and multiplying the result by 4 to get the height.

Landscape frame
It works just like the portrait frame except the numbers are reversed. Divide the pixel width by 4, then multiply by 3 to get the required height.

If you have a 4x5 frame, just use those numbers instead of 3x4. Another common frame size is 4x6 (2:3 ratio).

When creating your own frames, you'll thank yourself for using standard ratios because, down the road, it'll make cropping a whole lot easier.

Now all we need is for Photodex to allow us to crop with the frame in the background so we can use the good old guess-and-by-gosh method.

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Excellent advice! It avoids having to do a lot of extra work (in an image editor) when you use the crop function within Producer. This also works very well if the image is going to remain static within the frame.

For those of you planning to zoom your image up in size slightly (to give some impression of motion), or if you're using a much larger image than the frame (so you can pan that image), you'll want to use a mask that has the same size and ratio as the frame and as described by Barbara.

I typically try to make the pixel size of the mask as large as I can (to keep the effects of pixelation to a minimum. A good rule of thumb is to keep the solid/gradient layer's largest pixel dimension at or below 1500.

Some common dimensions:
4:3 --> 1200x900
3:2 --> 1500x1000
5:7 --> 1000x1400
4:5 --> 800x1000

I typically use a white gradient (a gradient layer that only uses white). This layer can be used as either a grayscale or an alpha (transparency) mask.

Move the gradient/solid white layer below the frame. Make sure you're using the layer scaling as that of the frame layer. Put the image below the gradient/solid white layer (it too should typically have the same scaling as the frame). Turn the mask layer on (do not invert the mask). Now, you can zoom your image up in size as desired w/o having to worry about moving beyond the confines of the frame.

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Dale, you pointed out something on your way to other things that I didn't think about simply because I never, not ever, resize my photos. I keep them at 300 ppi and at their original dimensions, which tend to be up in the thousands. But I shouldn't assume that everyone in the world does things the same way I do. But heck, everyone should!

So, people, it's best to not downsize any photo that you want to zoom in on.

Anyway, I sat one day with the multiple albums of my family and measured pictures to see, in particular, what the most common ratios were and then which ratios I liked best. The winner all the way around was 6 inches by 8 inches--the 3:4 ratio. It somehow framed the photos most naturally. Because of this, I've begun using that ratio for most of the frames I create, though there are exceptions when other ratios just plain work better.

When it comes to masks, I find that the biggest challenge is in finding a way NOT to use them so that Gold people can have a few styles too. My ultimate solution to this challenge is for every Gold user to upgrade to Producer. That would sure work, don't you think?

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I never, not ever, resize my photos either. I want the highest pixel density I can get! It's particularly important when zooming in on a photo (an example, making a portrait image fill the frame to use as a backdrop). I use my photos as is. I use a mask that's sized to the photo or to a dimension that I want (so I can zoom in).

PSP layers tho can only be created up to a certain pixel dimension. Anything above that point and PSP divides it by 100. For me, this limit is 1600 pixels. Anything above that is truncated (i.e., 1650 becomes 165).

WRT the mask tho, I recommend using as high a pixel dimension as possible, generally (above a certain size tho and ProShow reduces the dimension automatically). I found that when I used minimum pixel dimensions for my gradient/solid layers and added a vignette to round the corners, I got stairstepping in the rounded corners. By increasing the dimensions as much as PSP would let me (keeping the same ratio), I found that the stairstepping was reduced considerably. If you're going to keep the mask rectangular, there's probably nothing wrong with mutiplying the dimensions by only 100 (i.e., 4x5 = 400x500; 2x3 = 200x300, etc).

I too am finding that most of the older photos are close to the 3:4 ratio. I've been doing everything in 3:2 tho . . . I just might have to adjust! There's a lot of those old fotos around!

I'm having a heck of a time trying to figure out how to do things in Gold since I can't rely on masks! It's hard to go back to that kind of program. I am finding that considerable compromises must be made in the way things are approached. No keyframes and no masks. Sure makes rethinking some approaches mandatory!

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Dale, I do believe you've just managed to confuse me, but don't be proud of yourself since it's an easy thing to do. It sounds as if you're saying that, even though, for instance, the 16:9 ratio can calculate out to 1792 x 1008 pixels, ProShow will refuse to use that size, dividing it by 100 and turning it into something like 17 x 10 pixels, which can't, of course, be right. Would you try explaining this in a different way?

I agree, there are some things that can't be done in Gold unless a style is divided up into a series of styles, and even then there are effects that absolutely require a mask. Since Photodex is separating Gold and Producer in an extremely logical manner, the only thing we can do is try to convince Gold people that they're missing out on some of the greatest fun.

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I'm over medicated ... godda coad. Proshow divides by 10. 1750x 1625 will become 175x162 (my example in the previous post was correct but my math wasn't). I'm feeling awful . . . time for more dayquill. My brain is all gray fuzz right now.

Unfortunately for a number of folk, the cost isn't worth it to trade up to Producer. But they get SO MUCH more if they do!

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Well, I'm not going to be asking you any deep philosophical questions until next week.

(Feel better soon, good buddy.)

Barbara