Digital Art Zone

Ascania - 03 August 2012 08:16 AM

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.

holly wetcircuit - 01 August 2012 10:03 AM

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.

Garstor - 04 August 2012 09:07 AM

holly wetcircuit - 01 August 2012 10:03 AM

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”?

JoeMamma2000 - 04 August 2012 04:53 PM

Garstor - 04 August 2012 09:07 AM

holly wetcircuit - 01 August 2012 10:03 AM

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.

holly wetcircuit - 01 August 2012 10:03 AM

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

JoeMamma2000 - 03 August 2012 02:02 PM

Ascania - 03 August 2012 08:16 AM

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.

Ascania - 05 August 2012 06:14 PM

JoeMamma2000 - 03 August 2012 02:02 PM

Ascania - 03 August 2012 08:16 AM

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.

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

Ascania - 07 August 2012 06:11 PM

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.

evilproducer - 07 August 2012 06:51 PM

Ascania - 07 August 2012 06:11 PM

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.