screenshot resolution

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

In article , BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

you'll gain more pixels by going full screen but the quality depends on
the resolution of the original video and any scaling to get it to full
screen.

and it's much easier to simply extract the desired frames than trying
to print screen.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:37:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

you'll gain more pixels by going full screen but the quality depends on
the resolution of the original video and any scaling to get it to full
screen.

and it's much easier to simply extract the desired frames than trying
to print screen.

That is true but you usually find that the frames in video are fairly
low resolution anyway.
If you are doing a print screen use the highest resolution your
monitor supports and still gives a real "full screen".

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:31:10 -0500, BillAhearn wrote:
If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

A print screen takes a screenshot of the current screen at the current
screen resolution. The process doesn't involve changing the screen
resolution.

Going full screen depends on the application which modifies the screen
resolution. It may use the native screen resolution which is supported by
the monitor (i.e. the monitor's maximum screen resolution); or keep using
the current screen resolution; or in case of Intel display adapter: use
display driver's highest screen resolution (above monitor's maximum screen
resolution) where actual screen resolution used would be the monitor's
native resolution, and the GPU does the image scaling.

In message ,
writes:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:37:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

My first instinct is to say no, at least if you mean _useful_
resolution.

you'll gain more pixels by going full screen but the quality depends on
the resolution of the original video and any scaling to get it to full
screen.

Yes, you'll get more _pixels_. If the isn't an integer multiple, you'll
_lose_ data.

and it's much easier to simply extract the desired frames than trying
to print screen.

Yes - what are you using to view the video? Most standalone players have
a "snapshot" function (often, as in VLC, with a camera icon on it). If
you're viewing as part of a web page of some sort, you're at the mercy
of the page designer.

That is true but you usually find that the frames in video are fairly
low resolution anyway.

If playing in VLC, you can find out the resolution of the original file
(it's under "CoDec"). I think most other standalone players have a
similar function.

If you are doing a print screen use the highest resolution your
monitor supports and still gives a real "full screen".

Unless the original material has higher resolution than your monitor, I
_wouldn't_ do that.

If you're doing PrintScreen, experiment with Alt-PrintScreen too,
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hate people who quote Shakespeare at you but are proud that they can't add
up. Stupid People. - Carol Vorderman (Radio Times, 1-7 March 2003)

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:10:57 +0000, wrote:

In message ,
writes:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:37:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

My first instinct is to say no, at least if you mean _useful_
resolution.

you'll gain more pixels by going full screen but the quality depends on
the resolution of the original video and any scaling to get it to full
screen.

Yes, you'll get more _pixels_. If the isn't an integer multiple, you'll
_lose_ data.

and it's much easier to simply extract the desired frames than trying
to print screen.

Yes - what are you using to view the video? Most standalone players have
a "snapshot" function (often, as in VLC, with a camera icon on it). If
you're viewing as part of a web page of some sort, you're at the mercy
of the page designer.

That is true but you usually find that the frames in video are fairly
low resolution anyway.

If playing in VLC, you can find out the resolution of the original file
(it's under "CoDec"). I think most other standalone players have a
similar function.

If you are doing a print screen use the highest resolution your
monitor supports and still gives a real "full screen".

Unless the original material has higher resolution than your monitor, I
_wouldn't_ do that.

If you're doing PrintScreen, experiment with Alt-PrintScreen too,
--

The quality isn't good where I just don't want to make it worse than it is.

I'm simply streaming movies off youtube or web sites at low resolution like
240p.h264.mp4 or 480p.h264.mp4 or 720p.h264.mp4 and then finding a frame I
like and hitting print screen and then I edit the PNG file in photoshop and
fotosketcher in artistic ways.

It's not a high precision task where I'm just asking about the difference
in resolution between the original small view inside a web page and the
full screen view inside that web page at full screen.

Going full screen takes a while for the "Press escape to exit full screen"
to go away, and then I lose the moment and have to keep scrolling back and
forth constantly to get it back.

If I don't gain resolution by going full screen then I'd rather not wait
for that "Press escape to exit full screen" to constantly come up hundreds
of times as I capture the screen.

If hitting full screen gains resolution then the wait hassle might be worth it.
If hitting full screen doesn't gain resolution then the hassle isn't worth it.

BillAhearn wrote:


The quality isn't good where I just don't want to make it worse than it is.

I'm simply streaming movies off youtube or web sites at low resolution like
240p.h264.mp4 or 480p.h264.mp4 or 720p.h264.mp4 and then finding a frame I
like and hitting print screen and then I edit the PNG file in photoshop and
fotosketcher in artistic ways.

It's not a high precision task where I'm just asking about the difference
in resolution between the original small view inside a web page and the
full screen view inside that web page at full screen.

Going full screen takes a while for the "Press escape to exit full screen"
to go away, and then I lose the moment and have to keep scrolling back and
forth constantly to get it back.

If I don't gain resolution by going full screen then I'd rather not wait
for that "Press escape to exit full screen" to constantly come up hundreds
of times as I capture the screen.

If hitting full screen gains resolution then the wait hassle might be worth it.
If hitting full screen doesn't gain resolution then the hassle isn't worth it.

One word: Youtube-dl

https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl

https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/download.html

https://yt-dl.org/downloads/2019.02.18/youtube-dl.exe

8,017,264 bytes

SHA256 87c073632798ea5b8d515814c87dbd49f1e13b07ec285d2bfd 6757b8506d19c9

*******

I run mine in a Linux Mint VM.

paul@HOME ~ $ youtube-dl --list-formats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83K8wV7Z0gE
[youtube] 83K8wV7Z0gE: Downloading webpage
[youtube] 83K8wV7Z0gE: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] 83K8wV7Z0gE: Extracting video information
[youtube] 83K8wV7Z0gE: Downloading MPD manifest
[youtube] 83K8wV7Z0gE: Downloading MPD manifest
[info] Available formats for 83K8wV7Z0gE:
format code extension resolution note
139 m4a audio only DASH audio 49k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.5@ 48k (22050Hz)
140 m4a audio only DASH audio 128k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.2@128k (44100Hz)
160 mp4 256x144 DASH video 108k , avc1.4d400b, 25fps, video only
133 mp4 426x240 DASH video 242k , avc1.4d400c, 25fps, video only
134 mp4 640x360 DASH video 575k , avc1.4d401e, 25fps, video only
135 mp4 854x480 DASH video 1155k , avc1.4d4014, 25fps, video only
136 mp4 1280x720 DASH video 2310k , avc1.4d4016, 25fps, video only
137 mp4 1920x1080 DASH video 5093k , avc1.640028, 25fps, video only
17 3gp 176x144 small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
36 3gp 320x180 small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
43 webm 640x360 medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k ===
18 mp4 640x360 medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
22 mp4 1280x720 hd720 , avc1.64001F, mp4a.40.2@192k (best)

To download in a specific format:

cd /d C:\some\place\unique\I\will\be\able\to\find

youtube-dl --format 137 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83K8wV7Z0gE

*******

L: is my RAMDisk, which makes less noise when doing something
like this. Select the output folder first, then put a series
of BMP files with names like a000000.bmp a000001.bmp and so on.
This converts an entire movie into BMP files. JPG is also
an option. I think the -q:v 1 option is an attempt to select
"highest quality", which might be more important for the JPG
choice. The BMP by comparison, does not compress, and is a
pig on storage.

cd /d L:\movieout

C:\FFMPEG\bin\ffmpeg -i L:\bears.mp4 -f image2 -q:v 1 -c:v bmp a%06d.bmp

(Take the latest "static" build from the release versions
at the bottom here. Some of the nightly builds in the past
were "missing a DLL", and are a more risky download. For
example, the 4.1.1 might work. In some cases, WinXP might
require a previous version, like maybe 3.4.2. Don't throw away
a version which doesn't work in WinXP, as you might have some
other OS it works in.

https://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/win32/static/

The main selector is a bit ugly, depending on your browser.

https://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/

And don't do that on a Hollywood movie, as a two hour movie
takes 200-400GB or more of space for the BMP files. Even for
JPGs it's going to be big. However, for a 10 minute
video on Youtube, you can probably manage it.

You can still store such things on a hard drive. Just
don't expect File Explorer to behave nicely :-)

I can "review" a folder of JPEG files with Avidemux 2.5. It
has the ability to "play" a folder containing thousands of
carefully numbered files such as a000000.jpg. The frame
number is in the player controls at the bottom of the screen,
and will enable you to guesstimate which JPGs you want for
your artwork.

So there's really no reason to involve screenshots at all.
The BMP being collected here, gets "all the bits" that
were encoded into the representation. If the movie is
encoded at 1920x1080, that's how big each JPG would be.
Blowing it up via "Interpolation" does not add any
resolution. The only additional source of information
is temporal, in that the frames before or after
a selected frame, could in theory be processed to
produce a better still image. I don't know what
tool, or how to do that...

Paul

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
The quality isn't good where I just don't want to make it worse than it is.

I'm simply streaming movies off youtube or web sites at low resolution like
240p.h264.mp4 or 480p.h264.mp4 or 720p.h264.mp4 and then finding a frame I
like and hitting print screen and then I edit the PNG file in photoshop and
fotosketcher in artistic ways.

So you're not viewing a file in something like VLC, and I sense that you
don't want the bother of downloading or using any other software.

If you _know_ the videos are 240, 480,or 720, then going full-screen
will not give you the resolution your display has - it can't give you
more information than there is in the original video, only more pixels.
When you do your screen capture with PrtScn (or Alt-Prt-Scn), I presume
the first thing you do is crop the resulting image to just the video
window from the webpage. When you do that, what size - in pixels - is
the resulting cropped image? I suspect it's _already_ more than 240 at
least.

It's not a high precision task where I'm just asking about the difference
in resolution between the original small view inside a web page and the
full screen view inside that web page at full screen.

Going full screen takes a while for the "Press escape to exit full screen"
to go away, and then I lose the moment and have to keep scrolling back and
forth constantly to get it back.

If I don't gain resolution by going full screen then I'd rather not wait
for that "Press escape to exit full screen" to constantly come up hundreds
of times as I capture the screen.

If hitting full screen gains resolution then the wait hassle might be worth it.
If hitting full screen doesn't gain resolution then the hassle isn't worth it.

It depends on (a) what resolution the original video is (b) whether
going full screen does anything other than just drawing bigger.

If the original video is low resolution, then you're not going to get
more whatever you do!

If the original video is high or higher resolution, then its between the
coding of the web page, your browser, and possibly the hardware in your
system as to whether going full screen gives you any benefit.

It'd be fairly simple to find out: find a video with fine detail, and
compare captures taken by your two methods (unless the fine detail is in
that part of the screen, no need to wait for the "press Esc" to
disappear for the purpose of this test). It _may_ vary between websites
though.

A suitable? video to try on would be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE - lots of different test
cards (the first one is on for a minute; others - details below in the
YouTube page). (Click SHOW MORE.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero? He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:54:04 +0000, wrote:

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
The quality isn't good where I just don't want to make it worse than it is.

I'm simply streaming movies off youtube or web sites at low resolution like
240p.h264.mp4 or 480p.h264.mp4 or 720p.h264.mp4 and then finding a frame I
like and hitting print screen and then I edit the PNG file in photoshop and
fotosketcher in artistic ways.

So you're not viewing a file in something like VLC, and I sense that you
don't want the bother of downloading or using any other software.

If you _know_ the videos are 240, 480,or 720, then going full-screen
will not give you the resolution your display has - it can't give you
more information than there is in the original video, only more pixels.
When you do your screen capture with PrtScn (or Alt-Prt-Scn), I presume
the first thing you do is crop the resulting image to just the video
window from the webpage. When you do that, what size - in pixels - is
the resulting cropped image? I suspect it's _already_ more than 240 at
least.

It's not a high precision task where I'm just asking about the difference
in resolution between the original small view inside a web page and the
full screen view inside that web page at full screen.

Going full screen takes a while for the "Press escape to exit full screen"
to go away, and then I lose the moment and have to keep scrolling back and
forth constantly to get it back.

If I don't gain resolution by going full screen then I'd rather not wait
for that "Press escape to exit full screen" to constantly come up hundreds
of times as I capture the screen.

If hitting full screen gains resolution then the wait hassle might be worth it.
If hitting full screen doesn't gain resolution then the hassle isn't worth it.

It depends on (a) what resolution the original video is (b) whether
going full screen does anything other than just drawing bigger.

If the original video is low resolution, then you're not going to get
more whatever you do!

If the original video is high or higher resolution, then its between the
coding of the web page, your browser, and possibly the hardware in your
system as to whether going full screen gives you any benefit.

It'd be fairly simple to find out: find a video with fine detail, and
compare captures taken by your two methods (unless the fine detail is in
that part of the screen, no need to wait for the "press Esc" to
disappear for the purpose of this test). It _may_ vary between websites
though.

A suitable? video to try on would be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE - lots of different test
cards (the first one is on for a minute; others - details below in the
YouTube page). (Click SHOW MORE.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero? He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1

It is correct I am only viewing the web videos in a browser using whatever
viewer the web browser uses at whatever resolution the video is which is
usually pretty bad.

That's why I don't want it to be worse than it already is.

I take about two snapshots per video using the print screen button (alt
print screen worked too) where there there are hundreds of these videos
and I don't want to spend the time to download every video since I don't
need the video once I take the snapshot.

Then I crop the snapshot with any editor where the crop is an odd shape for
each snapshot and then I add backgrounds and filters and effects using
photoshop or fotosketcher.

The crop is never a simple shape like an on axis ellipse or rectangle which
is why I need the whole image first before I crop it, where I sometimes use
the magic wand to begin the cropping of areas.

Since the original snapshot is so bad in resolution it's hard to tell if
the full screen is any different than the normal sized video in the browser
in resolution.

I understood that there are pixels when in full screen which must mean that
they're duplicated. Is that pixel duplication of any benefit? I do not
know.

BillAhearn wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:54:04 +0000, wrote:

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
The quality isn't good where I just don't want to make it worse than it is.

I'm simply streaming movies off youtube or web sites at low resolution like
240p.h264.mp4 or 480p.h264.mp4 or 720p.h264.mp4 and then finding a frame I
like and hitting print screen and then I edit the PNG file in photoshop and
fotosketcher in artistic ways.
So you're not viewing a file in something like VLC, and I sense that you
don't want the bother of downloading or using any other software.

If you _know_ the videos are 240, 480,or 720, then going full-screen
will not give you the resolution your display has - it can't give you
more information than there is in the original video, only more pixels.
When you do your screen capture with PrtScn (or Alt-Prt-Scn), I presume
the first thing you do is crop the resulting image to just the video
window from the webpage. When you do that, what size - in pixels - is
the resulting cropped image? I suspect it's _already_ more than 240 at
least.
It's not a high precision task where I'm just asking about the difference
in resolution between the original small view inside a web page and the
full screen view inside that web page at full screen.

Going full screen takes a while for the "Press escape to exit full screen"
to go away, and then I lose the moment and have to keep scrolling back and
forth constantly to get it back.

If I don't gain resolution by going full screen then I'd rather not wait
for that "Press escape to exit full screen" to constantly come up hundreds
of times as I capture the screen.

If hitting full screen gains resolution then the wait hassle might be worth it.
If hitting full screen doesn't gain resolution then the hassle isn't worth it.
It depends on (a) what resolution the original video is (b) whether
going full screen does anything other than just drawing bigger.

If the original video is low resolution, then you're not going to get
more whatever you do!

If the original video is high or higher resolution, then its between the
coding of the web page, your browser, and possibly the hardware in your
system as to whether going full screen gives you any benefit.

It'd be fairly simple to find out: find a video with fine detail, and
compare captures taken by your two methods (unless the fine detail is in
that part of the screen, no need to wait for the "press Esc" to
disappear for the purpose of this test). It _may_ vary between websites
though.

A suitable? video to try on would be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE - lots of different test
cards (the first one is on for a minute; others - details below in the
YouTube page). (Click SHOW MORE.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero? He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1

It is correct I am only viewing the web videos in a browser using whatever
viewer the web browser uses at whatever resolution the video is which is
usually pretty bad.

That's why I don't want it to be worse than it already is.

I take about two snapshots per video using the print screen button (alt
print screen worked too) where there there are hundreds of these videos
and I don't want to spend the time to download every video since I don't
need the video once I take the snapshot.

Then I crop the snapshot with any editor where the crop is an odd shape for
each snapshot and then I add backgrounds and filters and effects using
photoshop or fotosketcher.

The crop is never a simple shape like an on axis ellipse or rectangle which
is why I need the whole image first before I crop it, where I sometimes use
the magic wand to begin the cropping of areas.

Since the original snapshot is so bad in resolution it's hard to tell if
the full screen is any different than the normal sized video in the browser
in resolution.

I understood that there are pixels when in full screen which must mean that
they're duplicated. Is that pixel duplication of any benefit? I do not
know.

If the video resolution is higher than your screen
resolution, then taking screenshots doesn't give you
all the resolution available.

if a movie is 320x240 and your screen is 1024x768, then making
the video full-screen doesn't give any extra resolution.

If a movie is 3840x2160 and your screen is 1024x768, the
video player scales down the video and throws away detail.
In this case, the screenshot looks worse than an actual
frame from the movie.

I took a sample RED video, and processed it.

https://www.red.com/sample-r3d-files

The video is 1.4GB. It's 7 seconds roughly, of video content.
The camera is fixed in place. The scene has a small amount of
activity, but not enough to stress anything. The video is
actually recorded at 8192x4320 and 24 fps.

http://downloads.red.com/sample-r3d-...dcode_16x9.zip

The format from the RED camera, won't open in anything.
That's the first problem. We need a tool for conversion,
a tool with poor output options.

https://www.red.com/downloads/option...ternalId=16144

REDCINE-X PRO

REDCINE-X PRO allows you to open and work with your REDCODE
RAW R3D files. An advanced coloring toolset, integrated timeline,
and post effects suite works to provide a professional,
flexible finishing environment for your R3D files.
Includes RED PLAYER and REDLINE. 7/20/201 50.5.0 SIZE:154 MB

https://s3.amazonaws.com/red-4/downl...0.5_64-bit.msi

154,284,032 bytes

Those people just don't know how to write software. When the
program is running, it rails a core waiting for input
in the form of "Open a clip", "Open in viewer", "Export",
then select JPG images and set your resolution. I reduced
the resolution to 3840x2160 and that gave me a folder with
840MB of pictures. I rendered as JPG to make it easier to
re-make a movie of it.

Using AVIDemux 2.5, I selected .mp4 as output, opened the folder
full of JPG images, and the resulting file was 7MB for the
7 second film (no sound). This is a single frame of it.

https://i.postimg.cc/qR5ZYzJw/H004-C...-8-0000114.jpg

Now, if you fit that picture to your screen and take a screenshot,
it looks worse than the source image. That means you've lost
resolution, if you're taking screenshots of super-high-res
video. For ordinary 720x480 video (like off a DVD), a
screenshot can hardly degrade that, and buying a 3840x2160
LCD screen and making the video full screen, doesn't buy you
anything. The video looks like this.

https://i.postimg.cc/0jL58kfd/washed-out.jpg

You can see the high frequency content at the top in the
grass blades, is just "ruined". The video is approx 318000 bytes
for 12 seconds worth. Resolution inside the video is 320x240
(you can select that when making the video and reducing
the resolution in it to make the file smaller). Blowing that
one up doesn't help - it looked bad even a 320x240 on the
screen. The full screen should be 1280x1024.

You can use the Download Original Image to get the file
in the same state as I uploaded it.

Paul

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
It is correct I am only viewing the web videos in a browser using whatever
viewer the web browser uses at whatever resolution the video is which is
usually pretty bad.

That's why I don't want it to be worse than it already is.

I take about two snapshots per video using the print screen button (alt
print screen worked too) where there there are hundreds of these videos

(It hadn't occurred to me that you might be operating your _browser_
full screen: if you are, then the only benefit that Alt-PrtScn will give
is that the captured image won't include the taskbar.)

and I don't want to spend the time to download every video since I don't
need the video once I take the snapshot.

Yes, I got that. I think some of the other contributors to this thread
haven't (-:.

Then I crop the snapshot with any editor where the crop is an odd shape for
each snapshot and then I add backgrounds and filters and effects using
photoshop or fotosketcher.

The crop is never a simple shape like an on axis ellipse or rectangle which
is why I need the whole image first before I crop it, where I sometimes use
the magic wand to begin the cropping of areas.

Well, it probably _is_ worth your while just doing a test capture/crop
or two where you _do_ just crop to the rectangle the video occupies in
the browser when you're not viewing full screen, just so you can
_compare_ the resultant image with the same one viewed full screen.
(That video I gave you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE -
would be a good check, but might be unrealistic as its 1080, which the
videos you're normally using probably aren't.) If you take one
non-full-screen-and-then-cropped-to-the-video-rectangle image, and one
captured full screen (of the same scene in the same video), and switch
back and forth between them in an image viewer set to show them at the
same _size_, this should give you some feel for whether going
full-screen gives you any benefit. Are you willing to do this?

Since the original snapshot is so bad in resolution it's hard to tell if
the full screen is any different than the normal sized video in the browser
in resolution.

I understood that there are pixels when in full screen which must mean that
they're duplicated. Is that pixel duplication of any benefit? I do not
know.

Not necessarily just duplicated: depending on the browser, the video
viewer provided on (used by) the web page, and possibly your hardware,
there may be some _interpolation_ - i. e. in-between pixels are some
sort of averaging, smearing, or similar of the known pixels. People
argue for ever over whether interpolation is worthwhile or not.

What size - in pixels - is the extracted part of the video, when it
appears in your final artwork?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes.
- Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:22:09 +0000, wrote:

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
It is correct I am only viewing the web videos in a browser using whatever
viewer the web browser uses at whatever resolution the video is which is
usually pretty bad.

That's why I don't want it to be worse than it already is.

I take about two snapshots per video using the print screen button (alt
print screen worked too) where there there are hundreds of these videos

(It hadn't occurred to me that you might be operating your _browser_
full screen: if you are, then the only benefit that Alt-PrtScn will give
is that the captured image won't include the taskbar.)

and I don't want to spend the time to download every video since I don't
need the video once I take the snapshot.

Yes, I got that. I think some of the other contributors to this thread
haven't (-:.

Then I crop the snapshot with any editor where the crop is an odd shape for
each snapshot and then I add backgrounds and filters and effects using
photoshop or fotosketcher.

The crop is never a simple shape like an on axis ellipse or rectangle which
is why I need the whole image first before I crop it, where I sometimes use
the magic wand to begin the cropping of areas.

Well, it probably _is_ worth your while just doing a test capture/crop
or two where you _do_ just crop to the rectangle the video occupies in
the browser when you're not viewing full screen, just so you can
_compare_ the resultant image with the same one viewed full screen.
(That video I gave you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE -
would be a good check, but might be unrealistic as its 1080, which the
videos you're normally using probably aren't.) If you take one
non-full-screen-and-then-cropped-to-the-video-rectangle image, and one
captured full screen (of the same scene in the same video), and switch
back and forth between them in an image viewer set to show them at the
same _size_, this should give you some feel for whether going
full-screen gives you any benefit. Are you willing to do this?

Since the original snapshot is so bad in resolution it's hard to tell if
the full screen is any different than the normal sized video in the browser
in resolution.

I understood that there are pixels when in full screen which must mean that
they're duplicated. Is that pixel duplication of any benefit? I do not
know.

Not necessarily just duplicated: depending on the browser, the video
viewer provided on (used by) the web page, and possibly your hardware,
there may be some _interpolation_ - i. e. in-between pixels are some
sort of averaging, smearing, or similar of the known pixels. People
argue for ever over whether interpolation is worthwhile or not.

What size - in pixels - is the extracted part of the video, when it
appears in your final artwork?

I loved that video which is designed for test screenshots!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE
I had to turn off the sound though which you'll know why!
My monitor is 1680x1050 and an normal final result is 845x904.
How can I upload the test screenshots to you?

BillAhearn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:22:09 +0000, wrote:

In message , BillAhearn
writes:
[]
It is correct I am only viewing the web videos in a browser using whatever
viewer the web browser uses at whatever resolution the video is which is
usually pretty bad.

That's why I don't want it to be worse than it already is.

I take about two snapshots per video using the print screen button (alt
print screen worked too) where there there are hundreds of these videos
(It hadn't occurred to me that you might be operating your _browser_
full screen: if you are, then the only benefit that Alt-PrtScn will give
is that the captured image won't include the taskbar.)

and I don't want to spend the time to download every video since I don't
need the video once I take the snapshot.
Yes, I got that. I think some of the other contributors to this thread
haven't (-:.
Then I crop the snapshot with any editor where the crop is an odd shape for
each snapshot and then I add backgrounds and filters and effects using
photoshop or fotosketcher.

The crop is never a simple shape like an on axis ellipse or rectangle which
is why I need the whole image first before I crop it, where I sometimes use
the magic wand to begin the cropping of areas.
Well, it probably _is_ worth your while just doing a test capture/crop
or two where you _do_ just crop to the rectangle the video occupies in
the browser when you're not viewing full screen, just so you can
_compare_ the resultant image with the same one viewed full screen.
(That video I gave you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE -
would be a good check, but might be unrealistic as its 1080, which the
videos you're normally using probably aren't.) If you take one
non-full-screen-and-then-cropped-to-the-video-rectangle image, and one
captured full screen (of the same scene in the same video), and switch
back and forth between them in an image viewer set to show them at the
same _size_, this should give you some feel for whether going
full-screen gives you any benefit. Are you willing to do this?
Since the original snapshot is so bad in resolution it's hard to tell if
the full screen is any different than the normal sized video in the browser
in resolution.

I understood that there are pixels when in full screen which must mean that
they're duplicated. Is that pixel duplication of any benefit? I do not
know.
Not necessarily just duplicated: depending on the browser, the video
viewer provided on (used by) the web page, and possibly your hardware,
there may be some _interpolation_ - i. e. in-between pixels are some
sort of averaging, smearing, or similar of the known pixels. People
argue for ever over whether interpolation is worthwhile or not.

What size - in pixels - is the extracted part of the video, when it
appears in your final artwork?

I loved that video which is designed for test screenshots!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSFgolB7HHE
I had to turn off the sound though which you'll know why!
My monitor is 1680x1050 and an normal final result is 845x904.
How can I upload the test screenshots to you?

There are plenty of image upload sites that require accounts
to use them. This is one that doesn't require an account.
For one or two images, it isn't worth setting up an account.

When it generates a URL pointing to the uploaded image,
test that URL in a second browser to make sure the picture
is as you intended. (I upload in Seamonkey and verify in
Firefox.)

And for the older links it used, the ".org" got
changed to ".cc" after the government whacked the site,
and they had to change their provider. This site consumes
something like 1PB/month of bandwidth (cost around $40,000
for the bandwidth each month). This was listed on their site
when they got in trouble (they were using an all-you-can-eat
account to host this).

https://postimages.org/

Tinypic is also an option, but the .js and adverts on the page
border on "booby trapped" so I can't recommend that one.
Imageshack also used to be account free, but has gone
to the dark side, so they're no longer an option. I lost
all my pictures that were on there.

Paul

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:31:10 -0500, BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

Use VLC and take snapshots with the hotkey.
[]'s

//To take snapshots in VLC:

Make sure that the video for which you want to take the snapshot
is playing.
When you reach the part of the video which you want to save as a
picture, pause it if you want.
Press the shortcut for taking snapshot. ...
In Windows: SHIFT + S.
In Linux: CTRL + ALT + S.
In Mac OS X: Command + ALT + S.//
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a work of FICTION !!!! - Orwell

In message , Shadow
writes:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:31:10 -0500, BillAhearn
wrote:

If I press print screen when a video is playing at any given resolution,
do I gain resolution by going full screen and then pressing print screen?

Use VLC and take snapshots with the hotkey.
[]'s
[]
WHY do people not READ what someone says?

He has clearly said, several times, that he's talking about using the
video player functionality of various websites, such as YouTube, and is
_not_ interested in downloading the videos.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind
- Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code"