Jump to content

Screen Resolution


Devin Johnston
 Share

Recommended Posts

Depends on a lot of things. Since you're in the U.S., I would for suggest 720x480. If you get a HD-DVD recorder, due out this month I believe, you have the option of playing back at 1280x720 or 1920x1080. You also have the option of rendering at high def resolution and down converting to standard dvd quality. When you do, everything will be remarkably sharper and have less problems like flickering and pixel dancing, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing is going to play off of a DVD player so on a wide screen TV, I know that standard TV resolution in NTSC is 720x480 but I figured a wide screen format would require a different resolution since the aspect ratio was different. Is that wrong?

 

Standard old-fashioned NTSC is 525 x 525 with the overscan top and bottom removed to result in a 4:3 proportion, and is interlaced.

 

The 720x480 (sometimes written as 720x486) is for progressive scan. You need to find out if your piece needs to be interlaced, probably the 1080i format

 

There was a post at cgTalk by Simon Wicker that covers a lot of this:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=3447493&postcount=1

 

from it:

 

DV NTSC: 720x480, pixel aspect ratio 0.9:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

DV NTSC widescreen: 720x480, pixel aspect ratio 1.2:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

D1 NTSC: 720x486, pixel aspect ratio 0.9:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

D1 NTSC: 720x540, pixel aspect ratio 1:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

D1 NTSC widescreen: 720x486, pixel aspect ratio 1.2:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

D1 NTSC widescreen: 864x486, pixel aspect ratio 1:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

...

 

HDTV 1080/29.97: 1920x1080, pixel aspect ratio 1:1, render from cinema @ 30fps

HDTV 1080/24: 1920x1080, pixel aspect ratio 1:1, render from cinema @ 24fps

 

He suggests no reason to render interlaced, if its needed the output app will do it. I don't know either way but he seems to.

 

By the way, I've always rendered to the 720x480 size, and been happy with it. But hi-def TVs are getting bigger and sharper, and maybe that size will no longer impress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing is going to play off of a DVD player so on a wide screen TV, I know that standard TV resolution in NTSC is 720x480 but I figured a wide screen format would require a different resolution since the aspect ratio was different. Is that wrong?

 

I forgot to address this:

 

The difference is not the resolution, its the Pixel Aspect Ratio. Widescreen simply uses a non-square pixel to make the image wider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ernest that helps, I just though since the screen was different the resolution was to but I'm glad it's not because I'm doing this in Maxwell and I didn't want to increase my render times any more than they are now.

 

Oh, red flag!

 

Notice that doing widescreen involved non-square pixels. The render engine has to know that. Can MWR do a PAR other than 1:1? If so, go with the 720x480@PAR .9 If not....uh, well.... render to 864 x 480@1:1, but no.

 

Let's see, Photoshop CS will convert a PAR, but the issue is not having your image distorted. The DVD burning software forces a PAR, outputting to Quicktime is where I came up with the 720>864 conversion.

 

Before you do anything find out about MWR and its PAR abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry what is PAR?

 

Manta, it's really a mess, were not actually producing the video that will be done by a marketing company that has yet to be picked by the client. Basically I'm just providing the animations and they are going to assemble it so because we don't know who were working with yet I don't have any idea what there using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a PAL guy, so I hope I'll not mess up the numbers ;-)

 

For NTSC widescreen the final output will have to be NTSC widescreen MPEG2.

I think the numbers above are right... in which case it's 720x486 with a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1.2

 

If your render software can't do different pixel aspect ratios, then you can render to 864x486 in square pixels, and the image covers the same size, so you will have no stretching or cropping issues later.

 

The exact sequence of what you need to convert and when will depend on the way you produce the final edited source for the MPEG encode, and what software you encode with.

 

Either way there should be no disadvantage with rendering at 864x486, other than the loger render times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way there should be no disadvantage with rendering at 864x486, other than the loger render times.

 

EXCEPT

 

if the encoding software forces a PAR on you. You need to test these things. Make a test frame at 864 x 486 that has a circle in the middle going from top to bottom, and another shape, maybe an oval, that goes from the left edge to the right. Make it a 10 second 'clip' and export it as if it was your final footage. Check the result for cropping and proper proportion. Then you'll know for sure what you're doing.

 

What's the answer on Maxwell and non-square pixels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...