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 :(
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\.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote author=“JoeMamma”] 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?
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).
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.
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)
*Humbly removes stubbly corn cob from orifice.*
It’s all good…
