If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
screenshot resolution
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" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|