Jump to content

 
Photo

Maps for video?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,088 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

I have a new client that needs, among other things, a map for HD video production. It's a basic regional map that they will animate a zoom effect onto, going from a continental scale to regional to local (possibly fading between various resolutions of the same map).

I've never produced specifically for video and I am wondering if there is anything I need to be aware of in therms of formats, color profiles, image dimensions etc that are particular to image production for video?

What I know right now is that it will be HD video in 16:9 aspect ration and they will do the animation work, I only provide the image. I started a mock up using their specs for image dimensions of 1920 x 1080. I noticed that when I changed units from inches to pixels Illustrator automatically changed the document preset to HDTV 1080 (convenient, though I don't really know what else that changes). I also noticed that although I set my Illy map to 1920 x 1080, it exported to jpeg and tif as 8000 x 4500 pixels. Same aspect ratio I think, but much larger image. I guess this is a function of my setting the image resolution to 300 dpi, but I don't exactly understand the conversion factor here. Any one here with some experience in producing for video or simply has a better understanding than I do of what's going on with the pixel dimensions on export?

Thanks,

Dave

GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#2
Charles Syrett

Charles Syrett

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Canada

I've created maps for TV programs a number of times over the years, and my experience has always been the same. No matter how much I try to advise the client (who usually has her/his own video producer) relative to scale, legibility, resolution, etc., they still end up thinking that a map is the same as a photograph, and can be treated the same (zoom in/out, etc.).

(Just take a moment or two and let that sink in.)

OK, recovered? That's been my consistent experience. A couple of times I've viewed the end result, and....well, never mind. :blink:

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

#3
Adam Wilbert

Adam Wilbert

    Legendary Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellingham, WA, USA
  • United States

I've got 0 experience with maps-for-video so take this with a grain of salt...

I think starting your map at 1920 x 1080 might be a mistake, since that will be the full frame extent of the graphic before any camera moves. I would probably work out the camera moves with the producers first, storyboard that, and then create the map around the moves. For instance, if you were going to do a horizontal pan of 50%, the image would need to be designed at 2880 x 1080 (what's at the center of the frame at the beginning of the pan would be at the left edge at the end). The same would apply to zooms. Start with the tightest the shot will be, make that 1920 x 1080, and then work backwards to get the full size that the graphic needs to be. If you start at 1920 x 1080, and zoom into that, it's just going to get pixelated.

Also keep in mind that many people will probably be viewing this at 720p or even 480p, so be sure to check legibility at a variety of output resolutions.

Of course, that is all based off the assumption that you're providing raster images. If they're looking for vector artwork that they'll animate, then none of that will matter.

As far as the resolution goes, if you choose "Screen" or "72 ppi", it should produce the actual 1920 x 1080 image. Even though you're working in pixels, Illustrator is still resolution independent until the final raster output. It assumes 72 ppi is a pixel for pixel output resolution. So if you take (1920 pixels / 72 ppi) x 300 ppi, thats where 8000 pixels is coming from. In Illustrator dialog boxes, anywhere you see "screen" as an output resolution, it should really say "actual pixels".

Adam Wilbert

@awilbert
CartoGaia.com
Lynda.com author of "ArcGIS Essential Training"


#4
SaultDon

SaultDon

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BC
  • Interests:Environmental/Wildlife GIS, Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy
  • Canada

I started a mock up using their specs for image dimensions of 1920 x 1080. I noticed that when I changed units from inches to pixels Illustrator automatically changed the document preset to HDTV 1080 (convenient, though I don't really know what else that changes). I also noticed that although I set my Illy map to 1920 x 1080, it exported to jpeg and tif as 8000 x 4500 pixels. Same aspect ratio I think, but much larger image. I guess this is a function of my setting the image resolution to 300 dpi, but I don't exactly understand the conversion factor here.


A very brief explanation of DPI (as I understand it...)


DPI = Printed dimensions
PPI = Digital dimensions
At least that is what is intended, but may not always be so obvious depending on the software you are using! Caveat emptor.

These two terms are often crossed over and presented as the same thing... You may need to look at how illy is presenting you with these options... Sometimes you put in a number for DPI but it is actually for PPI or vic-vers.

Is there a toggle for 'resample' image where you change the DPI?

Pixels/Dots per inch:

A 1920px by 1080px image @ 72dpi will output to "26.66666...x15in". This may be what illy defaulted too when you input your initial dimensions for width and height.

(px / dpi = in)
(1080 / 72 = 15)
(1920 / 72 = 26.6666...)
Increasing that DPI to 300 from 72 is about a 4.17x increase...
Therefore, 1920 x 4.1666.... = 7999.9998 (or 8000 px) and 1080 x 4499.9999 (or 4500 px)

#5
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,088 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

I've created maps for TV programs a number of times over the years, and my experience has always been the same. No matter how much I try to advise the client (who usually has her/his own video producer) relative to scale, legibility, resolution, etc., they still end up thinking that a map is the same as a photograph, and can be treated the same (zoom in/out, etc.).

(Just take a moment or two and let that sink in.)

OK, recovered? That's been my consistent experience. A couple of times I've viewed the end result, and....well, never mind. :blink:

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com


Judging from the sample video they gave me this is essentially what they will be doing, simple zoom in and out. I think understand that the resolution at full zoom needs to be high I'm just not sure if they have a way of working with a single very hi res image or use multiple resolutions that fade into each other. I'll be determining that as we communicate but their being in Australia and my being In California makes timely communication awkward.

GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#6
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,088 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

Adam and Don,

Thanks, it was the divide by 72 before the 300 dpi multiplier that was confusing me. But that makes sense now.

I think in a way that accident showed me that I will indeed need an image much larger than screen size since at 8000 x 4500 pixels the tight zoom level is just right, just before you can begin to see pixelation. In fact it may a little too large.

They will, as far as I can tell, not be doing anything other zooming in from full continent to regional areas highlighting the specific location of interest as it zooms in. There are no other details on these maps other than shaded relief, hypsometric tints and state boundaries. So not a lot of detail to worry about rescaling. I think they label on their end.

GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->