Do you edit 720x480?

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

Do you edit 720x480?

Postby Zarxrax » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:23 pm

One of the most confusing sections of Read ErMaC & AbsoluteDestiny's Friendly AMV Guides is the part about aspect ratios and resizing. I feel that much of this complexity comes from the fact that it gives you a choice of editing at the original resolution of 720x480, or resizing to square pixels. My removing the parts about editing at the original size, this could greatly simplify the guide.

My opinion is that situations where you can edit at the original size are few and far between, and even when you CAN do that, there isn't much benefit from doing so.

First off, editing at 720x480 is rather situational, for instance:
- you can't really mix different series, because they all need to at least be cropped differently, and if they use different aspect ratios then it simply isn't an option at all

There are two primary arguments for editing this way that I have heard. I would like to attempt to debunk them.

1) If your source is 4:3, you lose a lot of resolution by downsizing to 640x480. Then when you send it to a convention, you have to resize back to 720x480. It would look much nicer if you had the original 720x480 quality.

It probably wont look any better. Seriously. Take your 720x480 footage, save a still image from it. Then do a Spline16Resize(640,480).Spline16Resize(720,480)
I can't see any difference at all unless I zoom in pretty close, and even then its still a VERY minor difference. The truth is, the resizer compensates for that lost resolution pretty darn well.

2) If you are editing anamorphic footage, your lossless intermediate files will be a lot bigger.

From my tests, lossless lagarith files in yv12 colorspace at 848x480 tend to be about 10% bigger than 720x480 files. In the grand scheme of things, that's not very much at all, really.
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

Postby Zarxrax » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:25 pm

Typo that might be confusing:
My removing the parts about editing at the original size, this could greatly simplify the guide. --> BY removing
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

Postby 808-buma » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:30 pm

yes, I do edit in 720x480 most of the time... as I don't want to add the resizer line to my scripts until I have to at the end when I do my finals. The only problems I've run into on this however is when I use my keyframe editor (or what passes for it in the version of Magix I have) which sorta acts goofy between PAR's (so if my source is 720x480 and I output to same, I get strange motion anomalies in my output file, but if I do 640x480, it comes out okay... go figure - but I digress).

However, I do agree that maybe removing the 720x480 resolution editing option would simplify things down a bit in the guides.

maybe I should try it for my new video?
Image
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
808-buma
 
Joined: 25 Apr 2005

Postby LantisEscudo » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:53 pm

I edit in 720x480, mainly because resizing is an extra step that I don't really need to do. Plus, when I'm submitting to a con or encoding for my compilation DVD, it's already the right resolution. Really the only time I need a different resolution is for the distribution copy, and that's already being run through AviSynth to add the bumpers anyway, so the resize is trivial to add.

It would simplify the guide to remove it, though, and like you said, it's simple to resize for con entry.
User avatar
LantisEscudo
 
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Location: Vermont

Postby Kalium » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:13 pm

I did when I had a weaker computer.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby Brad » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:46 pm

I always prefer to edit with square pixels (640x480 for 4:3, 848x480 for 16:9).

I'm a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. If I'm working with 16:9 footage (which is what I tend to always work with), I don't want to be editing with footage that looks squashed. It also makes effects-work much nicer when it comes to things like text, graphic design type things, etc. I don't want to have to be mentally thinking in "squashed" mode. I can understand SOME of the arguments for editing in 720x480, but for me, the con's far outweigh the pro's.
Image
Ask Brad an After Effects Question! - Forum - Site
User avatar
Brad
 
Joined: 20 Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby LivingFlame » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:55 pm

So...what's the problem with tacking an AR flag onto a final video, again? It was one of those things I never quite understood the reasoning behind. I'd never convert to square pixels for any of my freelance jobs (shot on and captured from DV tape, mind you), so why is it so different for AMV editing?

Though, as far as this hobby is concerned, I also don't see a problem with converting to square pixels either, especially if it's just for online distribution.
... yea ...
User avatar
LivingFlame
 
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: Closer than you think...

Postby Pwolf » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:04 pm

Yea it could simplify it but I think some better explanation about converting to different PARs might be good. I think a good explanation about PAR is better then simply removing a section.


Pwolf
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Postby Bauzi » Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:06 am

I only use 720x480 for cons and meps. I tend to add different AR for 4:3 and 16:9.

Generaly I edit in 768x432 (PAL DVD footage. yeah yeah screw me now :P ), because it´s a multiple of 16 and it´s somehow for me the original frame size with square AR. Am I wrong? I mean the DVD is in 720x576 with AR for 16:9, so is 768x432 really the same framesize in square pixels 16:9?
Upscaling to 848x480 is a waste in my eyes when my footage comes from dvds. Maybe it´s usefull for detailed effects, but for simpel videos I don´t see any pros in this ressolution. The codec can encode it with smaller framesize and just let it resize at playback. I would consider this ress if I downscale some HD footage due to hardware issues. ^^

I also use 720x528 for 4:3 (720x528 isn´t 4:3 at square pixels btw) videos (PAL 720x576 footage again). It´s a multiple of 16 and I render the x264 stream with a SAR for 720x540 (-> 4:3 with square pixels). Is this a good idea?

I think that both methods are not really wrong, but I´m interessted if they´re logical or technical (like "not wating filesize with unnecessary resizing of the original frames) true too.
Image
Image
User avatar
Bauzi
 
Joined: 21 May 2004
Location: Austria (uhm the other country without kangaroos^^)
Status: Under High Voltage

Postby Scott Green » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:51 am

Bauzi you're so fucking confusing.... you make me actually use my brain when i read your logics, ugh

-__-
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Scott Green
Greenwhore
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Status: The Dark Tower

Postby Bauzi » Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:13 am

Scott Green wrote:Bauzi you're so fucking confusing.... you make me actually use my brain when i read your logics, ugh

-__-

Bad or good thing? I know that I told you something like that, but in the end I have no proof for it (and I guess I told you that too :P ).

Let´s see what´s really "true" :P
Image
Image
User avatar
Bauzi
 
Joined: 21 May 2004
Location: Austria (uhm the other country without kangaroos^^)
Status: Under High Voltage

Postby Willen » Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:55 am

I like the idea of editing in 720x480 to reduce/eliminate resizing. That being said, only my current project (which is stalled) is actually being produced that way. I decided to try editing with AVS files again (via fake AVIs) and wanted to reduce the amount of filters in the chain. All the other videos that I've worked on (finished and not), I've used square pixels.
Having trouble playing back videos? I recommend: Image
User avatar
Willen
Now in Hi-Def!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: SOS-Dan HQ
Status: Melancholy

Postby Zarxrax » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 am

Don't you guys crop the black junk from the sides? You would need to resize after you do that anyways wouldn't you?
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

Postby Unlimited Rice » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:23 pm

I edit with the project settings in 720x480 but when i want to check how the video looks in the end, I export the piece I want to see in the correct AR. After editing my video the 720x480 resolution, seeing the piece in the correct AR after all that time just makes me feel better. :P
User avatar
Unlimited Rice
 
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Location: FL.

Postby Qyot27 » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:02 pm

I've not edited in 720x480 for a rather long time, but the only justifications I could give myself for doing it are if I knew that:

A) I wasn't mixing sources
B) Doing any sort of effects work (although when I would use 720x480 I made sure to have 0.9 set, so it probably wouldn't hurt but I don't like to second-guess myself if I can keep from it)

Otherwise I have to echo the standard arguments for editing with square pixels.

As for the black borders, most sources I have don't have huge ones (4 or 6 pixels on either side, maybe 8 sometimes, with few exceptions *like the first season of Mahoromatic, or the old crappy Manga Ent. releases of the Eva films or X/1999*, all of which I would try to scale correctly), and my eyes can't really tell the difference between the original and one that has a 8-16 pixel width distortion. Same with widescreen material - I don't go through the trouble to resize to 640x360 and then crop it down to 640x352 because I'm not that much of a perfectionist, and I can hardly tell the difference.
User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs

Next

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest