Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BladeMan.EXE]

I've tried 1200 by 1000, but it took forever to render and wouldn't even play without slowing it down and skipping a few parts.

480 by 240 works well, but it seems a little small.

[davdud101]

Standard resolutions are:
1080h x 1920w (Full HD)
720h x 1280w (HD)
480h x 854w (480p, HQ)
480h x 640w (LQ)

These are all widescreen or 16:9, except the last one.which I THINK is a 4:3 aspect ratio.

The best quality for the render time is probably 480 tall*854 wide.
Do remember that Anim8or's scanline renderer goes from bottom to top, so I *think* you can sometimes render a larger (wider) image size without sacrificing more time (but if I'm wrong, someone correct me!)

[thecolclough]

...so I *think* you can sometimes render a larger (wider) image size without sacrificing more time (but if I'm wrong, someone correct me!)

going to have to correct you there, i'm afraid - every pixel is calculated separately, so a higher-res version of an image will always take longer to render than a lower-res.  if the images aren't complicated and the render times are generally low anyway, then you might not *notice* much difference between resolutions, but the difference will still be there.

also, as a side note: the usual convention seems to be to express resolutions as WxH, rather than HxW, e.g. 1280 x 720

there's an interesting side-effect from all this: if you go for a letterboxed cinematic widescreen format (approx 2.40:1 ratio, as used by many major blockbuster films e.g. Star Wars, Hobbit etc), then you can simultaneously reduce your pixel count and therefore reduce your render times - 1280 x 540 will render quicker than 1280 x 720 - *and* you can make your camerawork look more pro!  just a thought...

[davdud101]

Yeah, actually thecolclough, you mentioned a lot of stuff I meant to say at some (particularly using the ultra-wide 2.4:1)
I did height by width because it does seem that most 'progressive numbers' are named by height, i.e. 1080p, 480, etc, but width by height the preferred listing. Good additional points!

[cooldude234]

12k 

[thecolclough]

...it does seem that most 'progressive numbers' are named by height, i.e. 1080p, 480, etc...

long story short, that's because anamorphic formats exist.  i REALLY wish they didn't!

E.g. HDV 1080, which only actually codes 1440x1080 pixels, even though it displays at 1920x1080 with the missing stuff interpolated - doesn't make much sense to me either   but the 1080 height stays the same, hence that being the number that was chosen as a shorthand reference for the format.

[cooldude234]

...it does seem that most 'progressive numbers' are named by height, i.e. 1080p, 480, etc...

long story short, that's because anamorphic formats exist.  i REALLY wish they didn't!

E.g. HDV 1080, which only actually codes 1440x1080 pixels, even though it displays at 1920x1080 with the missing stuff interpolated - doesn't make much sense to me either   but the 1080 height stays the same, hence that being the number that was chosen as a shorthand reference for the format.

4k and UDHD resolutions take the width not the height. Who the heck knows why people make these standards this way. When in doubt though just use the non marketing (aka the non-crap) term IE its actual resolution like 3840x2160

also...
LETTER BOXES AREN'T A WAY TO SOLVE YOUR LIFE PROBLEMS don't just add them because you can PERIOD.
;P

[thecolclough]

LETTER BOXES AREN'T A WAY TO SOLVE YOUR LIFE PROBLEMS don't just add them because you can PERIOD.

i entirely agree that letterboxing often gets used in the wrong way and causes problems.  16:9 material letterboxed into 4:3 or vice-versa is really annoying and stupid - unless it's just for a short clip within a longer video, e.g. a documentary in 16:9 using a little bit of 4:3 archive footage.  but that said, just occasionally (e.g. if you want to go 2.40:1 and don't have editing software that supports wider-than-16:9 ratios) letterboxing does have its uses.  like many things in video editing, i think the best advice would be 'proceed with caution' or similar. 

[davdud101]

Though personally I think there is a tendency with Anim8or in particular to produce in 4:3 even though we have 16:9, which for me has always had benefits. I much prefer 16:9.

[kreator]

I Use UK Pal TV sizes 

UK PAL - 576 x 720 (interlaced)
USA NTSC - 480 x 720 (interaced)

widescreen  PAL 1920x1080
                           NTSC 1280x720.

The smaller Size for testing mainly and the widescreen for finals ( Since I have a Widescreen Monitor)

 

[cooldude234]

Though personally I think there is a tendency with Anim8or in particular to produce in 4:3 even though we have 16:9, which for me has always had benefits. I much prefer 16:9.

It's not so much the aspect ratios themselves as they are best suited for their intended monitors and screens (16:9 will look amazing on a 16:9 monitor) but rather when video is transcoded or converted from one resolution format to another. IE taking a 16:9 video and making it 4:3 whilst keeping it's original pixel ratio in tact will create embedded letter boxes which is a waste of image space on that aspect ratio. But having cropped images isn't any better really; the best is having a video at its native ratio (non embedded letterboxes) and just have your video scalar keep it's pixel ratio to 1:1 compared to the monitor.

As for the original post, pick your target resolution and raito to match your project and hardware needs / constraints. IE generally Imax style documentaries will have a higher resolution and wider image than your typical TV show. Most tv shows won't even bother with a wider image because it's not very common for consumers to own wider ratio screens and it's not very practical for consumers most of the time. While if you were to make a movie for the Imax format you would have a wider ratio and a higher resolution because of the Imax standard.

[davdud101]

Oh I'm aware, I just feel like at this point, so many people have HD displays and wide screens or just DON'T prefer pillar boxing. It's good to work for your own system, but it's better to work for (psuedo-)compatibility and aesthetically appeal.
I'd rather watch a letterboxed 16:9 video on a 4:3 screen than ANY 4:3 video on a 16:9 screen (within range of purpose).

[ENSONIQ5]

As for the original post, pick your target resolution and ratio to match your project and hardware needs / constraints.

Exactly.  Your format and resolution should be chosen to match what you are trying to achieve.  Keep in mind though, you can always reduce resolution, but upscaling is a lot more problematic.