Anthony Gonçalves - Submissions - Cut-Out Player Faces Megapack
85007087
Background and Stadium Packs
Timeline
@77david54, it's not a bad cut, but I don't understand why you went to the trouble of finding a smaller, lower quality source of him not looking at the camera when such an excellent source was available.
Screenshot of still videos will never be as good as a high-quality photoshoot image, irrespective of the video quality.
Sorry but i do not agree at all. Already i find the other horrible source for this player. The image is missing pixels and the player does not look like that at all in real life. My source is from february 5 , 2021 , the other source must be from august 2020. It's a shame that the player lowers his head a bit on my source.
For me , other than that , my source is clearly superior to the other source. It is a pity that the cuts out faces are not in 500 X 500 pixels , there the difference is obvious. You tried to zoom in on both?
The other source is already in 300dpi. My source is therefore greater if i pass it in 300dpi. Afterwards , you put on the cut out face in megapack you want.
Not all players will always choose the one in the megapack.
Sorry but i do not agree at all. Already i find the other horrible source for this player. The image is missing pixels and the player does not look like that at all in real life. My source is from february 5 , 2021 , the other source must be from august 2020. It's a shame that the player lowers his head a bit on my source.
For me , other than that , my source is clearly superior to the other source. It is a pity that the cuts out faces are not in 500 X 500 pixels , there the difference is obvious. You tried to zoom in on both?
The other source is already in 300dpi. My source is therefore greater if i pass it in 300dpi. Afterwards , you put on the cut out face in megapack you want.
Not all players will always choose the one in the megapack.
I don't understand what you mean by ‘missing pixels', can you be more specific? Regardless, wherever possible, the subject of the cutout should be looking directly at the camera. Because his head is tilted downwards and he's looking away from the camera, it isn't useful as a source image.
I also disagree - your source is not “clearly” superior by any means. The fidelity of the image is poor; because it is a screencap from a video and not a photograph from a professional photoshoot the source has been compressed too much, and the cutout is blurry. I've viewed both cutouts resized to 500px and the only “obvious difference” I can see is that the blurry edges of the hair in your cutout become more apparent… 😕
The image being at 300dpi (dots per inch) is also completely irrelevant - dpi is used for sizing images for printing, and isn't used for computer screens. Instead, images on computer screens are determined by pixel dimensions. Web images are at 72 by “default” and there's no need to change it from that unless you're printing out the cutout images.
@77david54, it's not a bad cut, but I don't understand why you went to the trouble of finding a smaller, lower quality source of him not looking at the camera when such an excellent source was available.
Screenshot of still videos will never be as good as a high-quality photoshoot image, irrespective of the video quality.