Aspect ratios today

RichardChaosRichardChaos Posts: 0
edited December 1969 in Carrara Discussion

I guess I am still OLD school and do my animations at 640 x 480 (4:3) ! LOOKS like everyone have gone to 720 x 480 16:9 What do all of you animate in?

What is the gold standard today?

Comments

  • larsmidnattlarsmidnatt Posts: 2,747
    edited July 2012

    To answer the question for aspect rations I would definitely go 16x9 because most laptops, monitors and TVS use that aspect ratio today.

    Slightly off topic
    Last video I did a bit over a year ago and I did it at 1080p. It was an ICLONE video so it didn't take too long to render. If resources were not a limitation I would say 1080p should be the target, but I know with my hardware even rendering 720x480 videos with good daz lights would take years. LOL. I'm sure Carrara would be a bit better but it still has more complex lighting than what I was using in iCLone so upping the resolution would come at a price.

    What is the animation for, a website? IF so 720x480 ain't too bad but monitor sizes are a lot bigger than that now. ~640x480 was great when rendering for VHS, because TVS only had about that many lines of resolution. It is still an ok resolution today but if people watch the video full screen it wont look as good because it won't be sharp.

    Of course I know making something HD will take 10times longer to render :(

    Post edited by larsmidnatt on
  • RichardChaosRichardChaos Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Yea for right now my videos are for internet, and using on my professional site as samples of what I can do! Yea I think it's time to go 720x480 for sure.

    I also render all m,y videos at a very high quality and res. THEN of course can dumb them down.

    I was working on an animation about my area based on personalities around here and let it go last year but am considering picking back up! BUT I did start with some segments at 640x480 so will have to re-do those.

    I hope this new mac I will get this week will help!

    LOL I was looking around my work area and I am going to have to MOVE my 5 computers around one more space to make room for a new one! Time to retire a couple of them.

    MAN what to do with 2 flat 19 inch ViewSonic CRTS!

    BUT looks like I will have one more render machines and thats always good. SO have my new one and this old Power mac G5 and an old G4 that seems to render faster than my G5\.

  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    1280x720 - good compromise between size and the exploding render times for full HD.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited August 2012

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 4:3. I think you're picking it up from FCP, or iMovie. iMovie originally used as it's default codec DV stream. FCP uses DVC Pro. The standard resolution for DVC Pro is 720X480, If I recall, the extra pixels are because DVC and DV Stream use a round pixel as opposed to a square pixel. You want fun? Try using Photoshop to create layers for a motion menu and not know that!


    Edited to correct typo.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • RichardChaosRichardChaos Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 5:4. I think you're picking it up from FCP, or iMovie. iMovie originally used as it's default codec DV stream. FCP uses DVC Pro. The standard resolution for DVC Pro is 720X480, If I recall, the extra pixels are because DVC and DV Stream use a round pixel as opposed to a square pixel. You want fun? Try using Photoshop to create layers for a motion menu and not know that!

    How did you know! Yes thats where I picked that up! Seems thats half the resets in FCP and Motion!

    Man i cant wait to get my new CS6 Master Suite with AFter effects and Premier! I have no idea why I went APPLE for decades there! I had used AE and Premier before and loved them.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited December 1969

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 5:4. I think you're picking it up from FCP, or iMovie. iMovie originally used as it's default codec DV stream. FCP uses DVC Pro. The standard resolution for DVC Pro is 720X480, If I recall, the extra pixels are because DVC and DV Stream use a round pixel as opposed to a square pixel. You want fun? Try using Photoshop to create layers for a motion menu and not know that!

    How did you know! Yes thats where I picked that up! Seems thats half the resets in FCP and Motion!

    Man i cant wait to get my new CS6 Master Suite with AFter effects and Premier! I have no idea why I went APPLE for decades there! I had used AE and Premier before and loved them.


    Richard, I'm not sure where you're going with this. The 720x480 resolution isn't a flaw. The above mentioned Codecs were supposed to be industry standard or at least compatible as far as I know. I'm sure AE and Premiere follow the same resolution scheme if not the same Codec.


    The reason that half the resolutions for those presets are 720X480 is because that was the standard resolution compatible with most TVs. I don't know all the history, but when Apple introduced iMovie, most of the digital video cameras used DV Stream for their compression. Most likely because Apple and Sony collaborated on Firewire, which Sony called iLink or something like that. It was vetted and adopted as a standard by the IEEE and called IEEE1394.

  • holly wetcircuitholly wetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*


    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    The short answer is 1280x720. This is the sweet spot between Broadcast HD and Youtube/web video.

  • RichardChaosRichardChaos Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*


    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    The short answer is 1280x720. This is the sweet spot between Broadcast HD and Youtube/web video.

    NOTED HOLLY I will render at that from now on... Looks like my render time has just doubled!

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited December 1969

    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*


    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    The short answer is 1280x720. This is the sweet spot between Broadcast HD and Youtube/web video.


    At least in my case I plead half remembered misinformation and early on-set senility. I still maintain Richard is off the mark by blaming Apple for his abject lack of aspect knowledge. ;-) *Humbly removes stubbly corn cob from orifice.*


    P.S. Holly, thanks for the link! It's very helpful. I think I saw that before, but had forgotten about it.

  • holly wetcircuitholly wetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    lolol :-P It's all good...


    I tidied up that page so hopefully it's a little clearer....

  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,382
    edited December 1969

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 4:3.


    I dunno, I kind of agree with RichardChaos. I think 720x480 16:9 is pretty awesome. Heck, I just saw the latest Batman at 720 and it was an awesome movie. So I don't think you can generalize. And I don't think we should force our opinions on anyone or anything like that...if he wants to use 720 or whatever, or even different pixels and stuff then I think we should support him.


    I'm not sure why people think it's "misinforming poindexter" or whatever to pick how he renders it. Sometimes it can be faster or slower, and if he wants it that way then he should be able to do it like that. Personally, I think it's just awesome if he does it like that, or any other way for that matter. I pick 640 sometimes, and I think that on Youtube they'll let you put that on there. And that's like a regular setting you can choose, so it must be a good one or they wouldn't have it.


    But I think all that math and ratios and stuff is way to confusing, and you don't really need it, just pick the one you want and if you like it then keep it. Or change it if you don't, cause it's really pretty easy.

  • holly wetcircuitholly wetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    JoeMamma said:
    if he wants it that way then he should be able to do it like that. Persona, I think it's just awesome if he does it like that, or any other way for that matter.

    ;-) Oh I agree. There are other sizes I use for myself that have nothing to do with "video".... (for my visuals I use 1024x1024 for animated textures, sometimes 640x640).


    But when someone is asking about screen ratios and such, one is asking about those"video industry" numbers, because they will be dropping the footage in a NLE and if one doesn't provide the actual size and ratio the NLE will resize it..... You don't animate, so you needn't worry about such things.


    Now it's such a nice day. Why try to stir trouble? :kiss:

  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 4:3.


    I dunno, I kind of agree with RichardChaos. I think 720x480 16:9 is pretty awesome. Heck, I just saw the latest Batman at 720 and it was an awesome movie. So I don't think you can generalize. And I don't think we should force our opinions on anyone or anything like that...if he wants to use 720 or whatever, or even different pixels and stuff then I think we should support him.

    720x480 is NTSC DV size and equivalent to 640x480 on the computer screen (which, unlike tvs, uses square pixels).

    HD 720 is 1280x720

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited December 1969

    720X480 is not 16:9. It's closer to 4:3.


    I dunno, I kind of agree with RichardChaos. I think 720x480 16:9 is pretty awesome. Heck, I just saw the latest Batman at 720 and it was an awesome movie. So I don't think you can generalize. And I don't think we should force our opinions on anyone or anything like that...if he wants to use 720 or whatever, or even different pixels and stuff then I think we should support him.


    I agree with you that he should render at whatever size he wants, but if you think I'm offering an opinion, as opposed to information, then perhaps you should refer to ascania's post. 720x480 is standard 4:3 using round pixels, and 720p is 1280X720 and is 16:9. That's not an opinion. If he wants a smaller size and still wants the 16:9 aspect, he could render at 720X405.

  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Joe, not to rain on your parade, but squares and circles have identical height-to-width ratios. TVs use rectangular pixels (their implementation on CRTs was for technical reasons round)

  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,382
    edited December 1969

    Ascania said:
    Joe, not to rain on your parade, but squares and circles have identical height-to-width ratios. TVs use rectangular pixels (their implementation on CRTs was for technical reasons round)


    Huh? When did I ever say anything about squares and circles and height to width ratios? Or maybe you're talking to a different Joe? And what parade? Is someone having a parade here? 'Cuz that sounds like fun.


    I was just trying to support the OP, not get into a big technical discussion. That kinda stuff is too complicated for me. Squares and circles and aspects and stuff. Ouch, gives me a headache. My only point was that I saw the new Batman in 720 and it was awesome. So if you make a movie in 720 it'll be awesome too.

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*

    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    I've been looking for that link again! Great resource. It is now in my bookmarks.

  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,382
    edited December 1969

    Garstor said:
    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*

    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    I've been looking for that link again! Great resource. It is now in my bookmarks.


    Be careful, there's an alarming amount of misinformation in those tables.

    BTW, what's "poindexter"?

  • holly wetcircuitholly wetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Garstor said:
    There is an alarming amount of misinformation in this thread. *pushes snooty poindexter glasses up nose*

    Here are some "quick" numbers and their industry names:
    http://www.3d.wetcircuit.com/editorials/what-video-resolution-should-i-use/


    I've been looking for that link again! Great resource. It is now in my bookmarks.


    Be careful, there's an alarming amount of misinformation in those tables.

    BTW, what's "poindexter"?

    LMAO! You are free to make up your own numbers. I certainly don't mind. ;-P

  • argus1000argus1000 Posts: 456
    edited August 2012

    The short answer is 1280x720. This is the sweet spot between Broadcast HD and Youtube/web video.

    I used to render with that. Now I progressed to REAL HD, that is 1920X1080

    Post edited by argus1000 on
  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 0
    edited August 2012

    Ascania said:
    Joe, not to rain on your parade, but squares and circles have identical height-to-width ratios. TVs use rectangular pixels (their implementation on CRTs was for technical reasons round)


    Huh? When did I ever say anything about squares and circles and height to width ratios? Or maybe you're talking to a different Joe? And what parade? Is someone having a parade here? 'Cuz that sounds like fun.

    Nah, apparently I was mixing you up with evilproducer, who insistend that tvs use round pixels instead of the computer's square ones.

    Sorry for that.

    Post edited by Ascania on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited August 2012

    Ascania said:
    Ascania said:
    Joe, not to rain on your parade, but squares and circles have identical height-to-width ratios. TVs use rectangular pixels (their implementation on CRTs was for technical reasons round)


    Huh? When did I ever say anything about squares and circles and height to width ratios? Or maybe you're talking to a different Joe? And what parade? Is someone having a parade here? 'Cuz that sounds like fun.

    Nah, apparently I was mixing you up with evilproducer, who insistend that tvs use round pixels instead of the computer's square ones.

    Sorry for that.


    No, I wasn't insisting that TVs used round pixels. I was saying video editors such as FCP and iMovie used codecs that used rounded pixels and that 720x480 was equivalent to 640x480 standard TV displays. When "printing to video" (as FCP calls it) it most likely converts it to square pixels. I've had no issues with image distortion when watching video from FCP or iMovie copied to VHS.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    How sharp the corners of the pixels are has got nothing to do with it. Their width is the important part.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 7,565
    edited December 1969

    Ascania said:
    How sharp the corners of the pixels are has got nothing to do with it. Their width is the important part.


    I will readily admit that I don't know all about the difference between round pixels and square pixels, I do know that in FCP and iMovie that the video appears wider horizontally (and that if I create an image mask in Photoshop for use in FCP, it had better match the 720X480 pixels, otherwise it doesn't line up. When converting to something like VHS, (which I did years ago, before DVDs became so ubiquitous), there was no distortion going to 640x480 and no noticeable cropping. There were, however issues capturing video from analogue sources that did show distortions or appeared narrower than the editing canvas.


    All that aside, which I'm sure we could debate about until the cows come home, my main point is that 720x480 is more akin to a 5:3 standard aspect ratio picture and not a 16:9 aspect ratio which is what the OP was thinking, and what I initially posted to correct.

  • holly wetcircuitholly wetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Ascania said:
    How sharp the corners of the pixels are has got nothing to do with it. Their width is the important part.


    I will readily admit that I don't know all about the difference between round pixels and square pixels...

    ...

    All that aside, which I'm sure we could debate about until the cows come home, my main point is that 720x480 is more akin to a 5:3 standard aspect ratio picture and not a 16:9 aspect ratio which is what the OP was thinking, and what I initially posted to correct.


    Evil, The standards that have irregular ratios are called "non-square" because the pixels are RECTANGULAR. When they say "square pixels" they mean the pixel width and height are equal (like a square). When the ratios are "non-square" it means there are the same number of pixels but they are being stretched to make a different size. It's not that their corners are rounded, it's that they are being displayed as rectangles, i.e: "non-square". For each pixel the width is longer than the height or vice versa.


    Someone has confused you by interpreting "non-square" to mean pixels with rounded corners.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel