If I’m tracking this right, 30% width of a 900-wide image would be around 300 pixels worth, which is then enlarged to I’m guessing 1920x1080? That’s a 6x enlargement. It will be blurry because there are simply not enough source pixels to cover the screen, unless I’m misunderstanding some numbers.
Also make sure the project has a legitimate Video Mode, and not Automatic mode. Automatic mode might make your final video be 900x127000 as well.
Automatic intentionally does not apply to images not only because of something like this but also regular many megapixel digital photos. The default video mode if the first thing you import is an image is 1920x1080p25. 900 / 1920 ~= 47%
I think you are on the right thing, however. Maybe a 1280x720 for 16:9 will be better. Basically, anything above 900 wide will be upscaling, and depending on how you zoom in the filter, it might be upscaling. A weird part of the description is “20-30% of the width”. In any case, Shotcut is very capable of doing this without heavy blurriness.
The original image is 1952x3264. Video mode is 1920x1080. In the filter, the width field of the Size parameter is 1920, slightly higher than original but more importantly = video mode width.
It seems you didn’t understand what I want to do, as did the previous commenter. I’ll try to attach an image so you can try to do it like in the video from the first post.
P.S: I couldn’t upload such large files here. I uploaded them to the cloud, I hope you can download them.
The part we don’t understand is whether the image occupies only 900 pixels wide in the final frame (1:1), or if it occupies 30% width of the final frame (requiring downscale), or if the 900-pixel image is filling a 1920-pixel frame (requiring upscale). This is not clear from the description.
Is this resolution being set by the Video Mode, or is it being overridden on the Export > Advanced panel?
Wow, it looks interesting.
I’ve only downloaded the project so far and looked at the changes. It’s like you said. Hmm. Does this mean that in order to zoom out an image, I need to first shrink it in some external image editor?
Let’s say I need to make 70% of the original width (630 pixels). In other video editors, this scaling was performed, although there are certain problems there. So I started looking for a new editor, and I came across this one.
When I wake up, I’ll try to render in different ways, and reduce the resolution of the image in some external editor.
I am currently rendering a project without scaling the image. The quality is quite good. But I don’t understand one thing. Is it an optical illusion or does the image sometimes twitch a little? If it is not an optical illusion, is there any way to fix it?
Here is a 10-second clip where this happens once, at about the 8th second.
P.S: To be honest, I don’t always see this in Media Player Classic. But now I’ve looked at how it plays here in the browser, and it seems like there’s no problem at all…
