AMV Size

This forum is for the general discussion of Anime Music Videos.

Postby SuperFusion » Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:27 pm

640 X 480 and 624 X 360
SuperFusion
 
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL

Postby Ileia » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:19 pm

SnhKnives wrote:I always make mine 640x(insert 4:3 or 16:9 here)


either 640x360 or 640x480


Agreed. I can't say that I personally stick with that due to my cropping and whatnot, but, in a perfect world, those are the ideal sizes, as far as I'm concerned.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Postby dokool » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:20 pm

TheFungus wrote:512x384

I've always been fond of that setting for fullscreen videos.
User avatar
dokool
Sir Gaijin Smash
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Postby Heroine of Time » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:23 pm

O EM GEE!!!

So many sizes to choose from...well here's a related question...

If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well? Cuz I really need it so WMM can stop freezing on me.
Heroine of Time
 
Joined: 27 Jun 2005

Postby Scintilla » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:32 pm

Heroine of Time wrote:If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well?

As I stated a few posts upthread, encoding your video to a lower resolution usually means you can get away with a lower bitrate while still keeping visual quality high, which means a smaller filesize.

If you're talking about lossless encoding, visual quality isn't in question, but the lower resolution still means you have less information to store, which results in smaller files.
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:
User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
 
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Quo

Postby Kai Stromler » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:39 pm

Heroine of Time wrote:O EM GEE!!!

So many sizes to choose from...well here's a related question...

If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well? Cuz I really need it so WMM can stop freezing on me.


There is a balance between screensize, filesize, and quality. Basically, you get two of three.

If you want a large screensize and good quality, the file is going to be frickin hyuuge.
If you want a large screensize but a small filesize, the video is going to look like crap.
If you want good quality in a small filesize, the screensize is going to be smaller.

Of course, with a smaller screensize than the source materials is going to be losing picture information, but there is this thing human brains do called closure that makes compression codecs work, and the same principle applies to downsized screens.

hth,

--K
Shin Hatsubai is a Premiere-free studio. Insomni-Ack is habitually worthless.
Death... is Just The Beginning | so essentially it works like bacon
Coelem - Tenebral Presence single now freely available
User avatar
Kai Stromler
 
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Location: back in the USSA

Postby Keeper of Hellfire » Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:40 pm

Kalium wrote:..., and 848 by 480 for 16:9.

That's something I never would do - enlarge the vid (even if a DVD player exactly does this). So for 16:9 I would end up around 720x400.
User avatar
Keeper of Hellfire
 
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: Germany

Postby Ileia » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:01 pm

Kai Stromler wrote:
Heroine of Time wrote:O EM GEE!!!

So many sizes to choose from...well here's a related question...

If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well? Cuz I really need it so WMM can stop freezing on me.


There is a balance between screensize, filesize, and quality. Basically, you get two of three.

If you want a large screensize and good quality, the file is going to be frickin hyuuge.
If you want a large screensize but a small filesize, the video is going to look like crap.
If you want good quality in a small filesize, the screensize is going to be smaller.

Of course, with a smaller screensize than the source materials is going to be losing picture information, but there is this thing human brains do called closure that makes compression codecs work, and the same principle applies to downsized screens.

hth,

--K



I think it's possible to have all three of those comfortably, though that's pretty friggin' difficult and most of us aren't NEARLY there yet.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Postby Otohiko » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:04 pm

I wouldn't say 66mb is small for a 3:52 AMV... :roll:

Actually, I could pimp my better-known 7.5 minute video that looks good at 720x360, while being only 70mb in size, but I won't. Plus it's actually fairly explainable due to the semi-static nature of many of its' sections :roll:
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Ileia » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:11 pm

Otohiko wrote:I wouldn't say 66mb is small for a 3:52 AMV... :roll:


I'd say it's a happy medium for the quality and size of the video.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Postby Otohiko » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:17 pm

Oh, I'm not arguing. It's certainly more than a fair deal for the crisp visuals of that little vid :)
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Arigatomina » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:54 pm

As a dial-up user, I naturally prefer videos that are reasonably compressed. This means the smallest resolution possible without having pixellation problems, usually 480x352.

When I download a high quality 98mb 640x480 video, I run it through VirtualDub with a light filter (just in case), resize to 480x352, and get an xvid 1st pass encode at 60mbs or less and little noticeable change in visual quality (to my admittedly un-professional eyes). That's the only way I'd keep these vids. I don't buy enough cdrs to store 100mbs per 3 minute amv (7 'perfect' vids per cdr) when I could have 17 'great' vids instead.

It seems to be a 'local' issue. People upload the highest quality version under the 100mb cap, for the sake of storage and posterity. Whether or not today's 'casual' viewers can download that huge video, or watch the insanely high bitrate without the computer crapping itself, is a moot point.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby [Mike of the Desert] » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:45 pm

IcyCloud wrote:I generally prefer to have a vertical resolution of greater than 400.


x2
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
[Mike of the Desert]
 
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Location: Earth -> Europe -> Italy -> Rome -> Cerveteri -> Sasso -> Home -> Mike's Room
Status: Lonely

Postby Beowulf » Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:00 pm

Who could possibly give a shit about how good your compression is. Once you reach a critical threshold (that 90% of the videos nowadays reach) the difference is negligable to both the eye and to the server.

Wank.
Wank.
Wank.
User avatar
Beowulf
 
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Location: in the art house

Postby Scintilla » Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:22 pm

Beowulf wrote:Who could possibly give a shit about how good your compression is. Once you reach a critical threshold (that 90% of the videos nowadays reach) the difference is negligable to both the eye and to the server.

That depends on whose eye you're talking about.

Personally, my eye for video quality has improved a lot in the two years I've been making AMVs.
Whenever I go to Cyanna's house and see cartoons playing on the big-screen HDTV in her basement, the first thing I notice is always the mosquito noise around all the edges.
It can be the same way with videos. I find blocks and artifacts distracting (not to mention ugly after a certain point), and I'm sure other people do too, and so I'd prefer to minimize distractions in my own videos.

Plus, if I have to pay for my own bandwidth, you'd better believe I'm going to try to squeeze every last bit of quality out of every [insert unit of data here].

Plus, I've come to enjoy the postprocessing process: it's nice to see the videos look better (and cut down the filesize), and it's fun to experiment with new filters and functions. :)
Especially when you have a video that just will not compress nicely, like I had earlier this month; it becomes a challenge of sorts.


And I highly doubt that 90% of the videos nowadays reach that threshold you're thinking of.
There are still a lot of people here who do not read the how-to guides, you know. Many of those people upload crappy-looking WMV files (or crappy-looking AVIs, or whatever) because they don't know better. I've seen plenty even in the past year.
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:
User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
 
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Quo

PreviousNext

Return to General AMV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests