|
|
kroko
First message : 2007-03-30 14:22:32
kroko
 |
what would be the best resolution (px) solution for animation, if it's likely to be exported as dvd. i want to go widescreen (16:9).
i'm new to video. i know that 16:9 HD DVD is 1280x720px. ... that is hell of a render time, that i don't have (the deadline...:)). can smaller resolutions be applied while still getting a good quality. what is the resolution for SD DVD? your experience?
thanks in advance,
kroko
| Reply
|
|
|
kroko
First message : 2007-03-30 14:22:32
kroko
|
what about rendering scene in 853x480px and then upscaling to 1280x720p in apple fc compressor? would this produce good results?
| Reply
|
|
|
albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
albert
|
Kroko,
Are you working in NTSC or PAL? (North America or Europe?).
For NTSC, if you want to make a DVD for a DVD player I do not think HD DVD is very common, and machines that use the higher resolution upsmple for you.
Here is what I do:
16:9 widescreen DVD is 720x480 pixels at 1.2 pixel aspect ratio (wider pixels, makes the image wider, also note that 720x480 at .9 pixel aspect ration is 4:3 image).
Therefore to downsample (get best quality) I have typically used 854x480 square pixels (spect ration 1:1) and then downsample in a program like premiere pro or after effects to 720x480 NTSC pixel aspect ratio 1.2).
Frame rate for NTSC is 29.97 interlaced, so I use 30fps when rendering. For smoother video you would ideally use 60fps to make nice interlaced video but Studio won't let you render more than 40fps).
Note that if you are working in Europe the frame rate is different, closer to film (24fps) but interlaced.
I hope this helps. When true HD DVD is easy to make then I will re-visit this (how much is a Blueray DVD burner?).
Albert
| Reply
|
|
|
MikeFirst message : 2006-11-12 13:39:51 http://web.mac.com/mlennie1Operating system : OS 10.5 RAM : 8Go Computer model : Mac Pro Processor : QuadCore Graphic cardType : PCI Card name : ATI Video memory : 128 Mo Quiktime : 7.5 Network card : ethernet
Mike
|
I suggest a few experiments in testing how long the movie will take to render and pick the size best suited. Also have a look at your movie and decide if you really need to have as much movement, sometimes short movies are easier to watch. Try including some stills.
Mike
| Reply
|
|
|
kroko
First message : 2007-03-30 14:22:32
kroko
|
thanks Albert for Your time, the info given was just what i needed!
well, but i still have some questions:)
1) You are rendering the movie in 72dpi, right?
2) i'm in europe- riga,latvia. and i know about PAL and NTSC, and i'm sick of different standarts:) but... would it really matter if i made the movie same as You (NTSC). i remember even the old VHS times:), when all players understood both standarts. what i'm trying to say- decent dvd player & tv takes both standarts. or am i totally wrong?
if so- what would be the workflow for getting widescreen (16:9) PAL standart?
3) the dvd will be shown on 24" apple displays (driven probably on macmini) and, as i was told, on a big TV. the second scares me, therefore orginally i asked about that greater resolution. but as i understood from You, SD DVD (720x480 NTSC pixel aspect ratio 1.2) whould perform with good overall picture quality, couse of dvd players upscaling possibvilities.
maybe You' ll be my savior:)
thanks in advance,
reinis
| Reply
|
|
|
Albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
Albert
|
Hi Reinis,
I think you have it right. I once made a wedding DVD for a friend in Germany and he was able to play it on a set top (normal) DVD player on his TV. I think it is only a problem if you are trying to play a PAL DVD on a north american NTSC system.
If you are going to use a set top DVD player then you are correct. However if you are going to play from a computer DVD player or hard drive you have the option to use any resolution or playback rate that the computer and optical drive can handle. This may be up to the full resolution of the screen which could be 1920x1200 or higher. If this is your intention then you must experiment a bit. Use the apple H264 codec, but be careful of color shifting/fading. I have had problems using this codec and must usually pump up the saturation in an editing program like after effects so that the final H264 Quicktime MOV file looks normal.
What would I do? I always render a maximum of 854x480 and then downsample to 720x540 at pixel aspect ratio 1.2. This way I can put any of my work on a set top DVD player and mix with real video footage without any problems.
I hope this helps.
By the way, my father was Latvian and born and lived in Riga until WWII when he escaped the occupation. He died a Canadian citizen but lived in the US in Arizona. I am a Canadian from Vancouver working in the US but 1/2 Latvian and 1/2 Polish.
Regards from Boston,
Albert
| Reply
|
|
|
Albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
Albert
|
oops - meant to say "downsample to 720x480"
also the dpi is not so relevant - unless you are printing what you are really concerned with is the absolute value of pixels (854x480 or whatever the apple monitor resolution is). I think monitors average 72dpi if you look at one inch, but this depends on the physical size of the pixels, like a laptop dispay may be only 17" but 1920x1200 resolution which would put it way higher than 72dpi.
| Reply
|
|
|
Albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
Albert
|
PS: since you are rendering for an apple display which will have a pixel aspect ratio of 1 and you are playing from a mac mini I would probably use 854x480. This will give 16:9 aspect ratio, and can be downsampled for a typical set top DVDplayer later if you desire at 720x480 square pixels. Also use 29.97 or 30 frames per second.
I have found that higher resolutions can lead to a lot of problems (dropped frames, tearing, long render times, long post production times, less compatable with set top formats etc)
| Reply
|
|
|
Albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
Albert
|
oops again - late here and just put my daughter to bed. Last post should have said "downsample to 720x480 non-square pixels 1.2
| Reply
|
|
|
Reinis
First message : 2007-03-30 14:22:32
Reinis
|
Your "by the way, im latvian" made me forget all the render thing and got me in that latvian way of thinking about our nation's past/present/future tragedies and sucesses. about all THAT, what just can't fit into one forum message... ehh, if You still have some latvan in Your blood, You probably know what i'm talking about. and hope You pass some liiiitle bit to Your daughter too;)
for the render:
everything is pretty clear now. 854x480 renders. (one thing i still consider is rendering using tga image sequence, not as mov., and only afterwards putting it together in qucktime pro as uncompressed .mov) then i'll convert mov file in desired format (as 16:9, 1.2 px aspect ratio m2v for max quality SD DVD) using apple compressor+ probably some color/intensity corrections, deinterlace checkboxed. and then- all the editing thing in final cut&export to dvd. and i will make it ntsc because of greater framerate->better quality. voala!
liels paldies for sharing the knowledge and time.
with greetings from Latvia,
Reinis
| Reply
|
|
|
Albert
First message : 2006-07-09 03:51:01
Operating system :
RAM :
Computer model :
Processor :
Graphic card
Type :
Card name :
Video memory :
Quiktime :
Network card :
Albert
|
I do not speak any latvian, but luckily I work with someone who does:
Prieks ir mans
| Reply
|
|
|
Kurt
First message : 2007-02-16 04:25:21
Operating system : OS 10.5
RAM : 2Go
Computer model : MBP
Processor : DualCore
Graphic card
Type : PCI-E
Card name : Nvidia
Video memory : 128 Mo
Quiktime : 7.5
Network card : ethernet
Kurt
|
Where does this 854x480 thing come from? And why use Compressor? That's killing flies with a Bazooka.
If your final display is a 24" iMac you have more format freedom then on a SD DVD hardware player.
Solutions:
- HD on Mac
Create series of frames in Artlantis using small (1280) or large (1920) HD resolution @ 25 fps - progressive, square pixel. From Final Cut Pro or Quicktime Pro I suggest exporting Motion JPEG @ 75%. That's the setting for the best information/filesize ratio. Yes, for a longer movie that's quite a file size in HD. Remember to stay in progressive. I mean, that's the great benefit not to have a video cam in the movie -> DVD workflow.
Would be great if you could playback this MJPEG file, but if you have to compress:
Use FFMpegX or VisualHub or WMV Studio Pro to produce a HD x264 or DivX5 or WMV9 file. Keep in mind that HD x264 needs quite a CPU, but all Intel Macs should be able to handle it.
- SD on Mac and hardware player
Create SD movie as described above, again MJPEG 75% is best. I always thought 720x404 squared pixels @ 25 fps would be the 16:9 DVD format? At least I used it with great success.
Why Compressor? Just drop the resulting file in iDVD and that's it. Or use the authoring app that comes with Roxio Toast.
Remember to use the "QuickTime reference file" options whereever possible. No need to export more often then necessary ;)
- HD on hardware player
There is no real resolution for home users/prosumers yet. There are hardly any Blueray/HD-DVD burners yet. And the best HD disc reader is a XBox360 or PS3 :D You could savely say that almost all the HD stuff - outside of product demos - you see is feeded from computers, not hardware players.
| Reply
|
|
