| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Of the choices listed, I'd say 1280x720, but that's not "the" ideal since it depends on the user and the computer and the monitor.
Besides that, dimensions are just one aspect of quality. I've seen 640x480 that looked great, and stuff in larger dimensions that was, well, not. (Too dark, blurry, overly edited, poorly posed, etc.)
|
07-16-08 02:53am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Monahan (0)
|
I agree with Drooler.
My machine handles 1280's like a champ but has major trouble with 1900's. Maybe a new machine will do better, but the bigger issue is the huge space needed for the huge formats for only slightly better sharpness.
If given a choice, I'll stay with the 640's to save on disk space unless the added sharpness is significant enough to go higher.
But a poorly lighted video, or worse, one shot at lousy angles or with a shaky camera, cannot be improved by technical adjustments.
|
07-16-08 07:57am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Denner (0)
|
I go for the 1280x720.
On a "normal" PC and ditto screen this quality will do the trick.
Even with a good system it's hard to see any difference between 1280x720 and 1980x1080 - and besides: it takes up too much more space - and download time.
And the 640x360: that should be for the past.
|
07-16-08 08:22am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
asmith12 (0)
|
At this point I still prefer REALLY GOOD DVD quality (720x480 or similar) to poor "HD" 1280x720 (and please please PLEASE no interlace - it looks HORRIBLE on any panning).
|
07-16-08 10:57am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - asmith12 :
Tech question here. What is "interlace" and how does it have a detrimental effect when there's panning (say, from "point A" to "point B," a-hem)? And why is it an option for vid makers? Does it help with "compression" or something?
I know I could go look it up in my Funk & Wagnall's, but in case you or anyone else could spare a bit of knowledge on the subject, thanks.
|
07-16-08 12:34pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - asmith12 :
I agree, I'll quality over size most any day so long as you're not getting postage stamp sized videos. The largest sized stuff simply takes up too much disk space for what you get back, especially if all you have is standard sized monitor.
|
07-16-08 02:09pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
plan b (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Drooler :
Interlacing is used for older TVs (CRT tubes). To achieve 30 frames per second with smooth, natural movement, they interlaced the video into 60 fields per second. The frame would draw every other line top to bottom and then every other line in the opposite direction. On progressive screens like your LCD computer monitor, interlacing becomes visible as a slight shearing effect (for lack of a better description). It's most visible in fast motion or side panning. Bottom line: it's obsolete and ruins visual quality on modern equipment.
|
07-16-08 02:40pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #7 - plan b :
Thanks. You could write technical manuals, that was so clear.
But I'm a CRT man. I tried the LCD monitor but the pixelation was so visible in photos that I could no longer judge their quality. Whatever is going on with the dithering or what have you (my knowledge is weak on these things), plus the range of viewing angle, I just think the pics and vids look better on a CRT. At least with a Windows machine. Maybe Macs are better with their newer screens (?).
|
07-16-08 02:48pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Toadsith (0)
|
I've always been a proponent of the highest quality video possible and these days that is 1080p. In reality that is 1920 x 1080 (not 1980). Granted sometimes I don't bother downloading the highest resolution possible - it depends a good deal on the quality content. Bad camerawork or lighting can't be fixed by really high resolution video.
That all said, the real question for me is: Why in Sam Hell would anyone download a 5 minute movie clip? The only site I know of that I would even remotely consider that acceptable would be In The Crack due to the very specialty nature of their content - but that is short even for them. While I still maintain that streaming video is the future of internet video (VideoBox, Hulu and Netflix are great examples that future is nearly here) I also believe that forcing your customers to piece together a scene is just plain silly these days - if you don't have broadband in this day and age you either don't want it or live with a compliment of wild creatures as companions.
|
07-16-08 02:50pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
moshic (0)
|
1280 x 720 44%
hm...
i'm sure many site owners would disagree. a lot of members prefer to download full lenght movie right away. so 5 min clips in the same quality as the full movie would require HUGE server harddrives
|
07-16-08 05:26pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
pat362 (0)
|
I picked 640 x 360 because I'm not wasting part of
my allowable 100G download per month quota on the quality of a 5 min clip. Who cares on the quality of a clip. If we were talking an actual scene then I could understand wanting better quality, but
a clip is like saying that the quality of a movie preview will prevent you from seeing that movie.
|
07-16-08 07:05pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
moshic (0)
|
REPLY TO #11 - pat362 :
agree!
|
07-17-08 03:53am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - moshic :
Maybe it is just be, but I would love to see high quality videos at 1080. The bit rate for this to look decent would most likely have to be 8 MBit/s and that would make for some pretty big files. Personally I am okay with that though. on the other hand I understand that not everyone wants to file up their hard drive with just a few hours of video. Me on the other hand do not care about size as long as the video is of stunning quality. I have plenty of hard drive space.
|
07-17-08 03:35pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Drooler :
This thing is quite complicated, see detailed explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace
In short - some (actually most) HD cameras now use modes like 1080i (where 'i' stands for 'interlace'), opposed to 1080p (where 'p' stands for 'progressive'). When you shoot with 1080i (or any other 'i') camera, it makes every frame out of 2 half-frames: first one consists from even 1-pixel rows, second one - from odd 1-pixel rows. But as they're made with some delay between them, fast movement can easily lead to considerable shifts between odd and even rows, and at least to my eye it looks REALLY UGLY and annoying. Obviously, the effect is the most easily seen when camera is panning (because it means that the whole picture moves quite fast).
Editing software can try to deal with it, making "deinterlace", but it has it's drawbacks (loss of detail and so on). But to make things worse, sometimes encoding process seems to re-introduce interlacing back; this I'm not really sure of, but it certainly looks sometimes, even on big non-adult company DVDs :-(.
So I'm not sure what really contributes to this unpleasant effect of interlacing (camera or encoding), but what I know for sure that I really HATE it and it spoils all the fun for me.
|
07-18-08 06:13am
Reply To Message
|
15
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Wittyguy :
Not only that, but also to make decent 1980x1080, it's necessary to make it at 10+MBit/s, otherwise it's pointless. And those who have 1980x1080 (to say "we have HD") encoded @ 1MBit/s are just playing good old number game implying "the bigger - the better" (like those played with CRT monitor inch sizes or with CPU GHz in the past).
|
07-18-08 06:28am
Reply To Message
|
16
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #14 - asmith12 :
Thanks. I went over your message and the Wikipedia article, too.
I guess in sum it amounts to interlacing just being a bad idea for computer-based consumption of video these days. It saves bandwidth (aha! my "compression" guess was in the ballpark), but too much to the detriment of visual satisfaction.
It reminds me of photos at Twistys, analogously anyway, which are stripped of too much data (overly compressed jpegs, which are lossy by nature anyway).
|
07-18-08 12:16pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
1280 x 720 is standard for me. More than that just takes to long to download and takes up to much space.
|
07-21-08 10:20am
Reply To Message
|
18
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #16 - Drooler :
> It saves bandwidth (aha! my "compression" guess was in the ballpark),
> but too much to the detriment of visual satisfaction.
Right, but there is also another side of it: it seems that most of web porn is shoot with amateur camcorders these days :-(, and progressive scan is usually not an option there :-((. Or from a bit different angle: 720p is usually about the same class/price/amount of information as 1080i, but see how much better "we have 1980x1080" looks on site web page (either camera manufacturer site or content web site) than measly "we have 1280x720" :-(.
|
07-22-08 01:03pm
Reply To Message
|
