Video Dimensions

Bote · Post by **Bote** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:04 am

480X360 would be the best solution for online distribution me thinks. It'll play on 90% of machines unlike 640X480 or higher where a large number of computers cann't play it appropriately. This is mainly a software issue, but having good comp. specs can help a lot.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:08 am

bote wrote:480X360 would be the best solution for online distribution me thinks

Except 360 isnt a multiple of 16 so some encoders will give you garbage around the edges. 512x384 is a safer bet.

Farlo · Post by **Farlo** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:34 am

when i started making amvs a few years ago the common was 320x240, but now 640x480 is most common

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:35 am

4096x4096

Coffee 54 · Post by **Coffee 54** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:38 am

Corran Productions wrote:I think the thing that confuses me the most is that people have already spent many hours making their videos that adding a simple bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script would be relatively quick and painless. I can understand if they just don't know any better though.

It is silly not to add a simple bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script. One question though. What is a bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script?

Fluxmeister · Post by **Fluxmeister** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:58 am

I haven't got it right once yet...

I saw that Shameless was at 480x320... so uhm I've been using that.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:38 pm

godix wrote:It depends on what you consider important. If you're concerned about modem users downloading the video then 320x240 at a somewhat low bitrate is what you need. If you're concerned about quality and to hell with modem users try 720x480 or 640x480 at a somewhat high bitrate.

If by "modem users" you mean "modem users and people with older computers that don't have the most processing power in the world", then yes.

coffee54 wrote:
Corran Productions wrote:I think the thing that confuses me the most is that people have already spent many hours making their videos that adding a simple bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script would be relatively quick and painless. I can understand if they just don't know any better though.
It is silly not to add a simple bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script. One question though. What is a bicubicresize(640,480) to their post-processing script?

http://www.avisynth.org

As for myself, I usually try to make available both locally hosted versions and versions on my own webspace of my videos. My first local video was 640x480, then I made two at 480x352, and my last was 512x384. The versions that go on my own webspace are MPEG-1s, 352x240 for the first two and 720x480 for DV:UI. Exception: AEO:EB, which I absolutely could <b>not</b> get to look good with MPEG-1 compression.

Voices_Of_Ryan · Post by **Voices_Of_Ryan** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:46 pm

Mpeg - 1
352 x 240
VBR
2000, 3000, 2000 -
2 type,
Buffer 0 (Auto)

Highest quality

Matrix - Cg/Animation

Works on ALL computers.
Looks nice.
Thanks Machine : )

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:59 pm

Looks nice... to blind people who dont know how to encode things well.

VegettoEX · Post by **VegettoEX** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:36 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Looks nice... to blind people who dont know how to encode things well.

There's something to be said for "99.9% cross-compatibility"... but that's an entirely different conversation ^^.

There's really just a difference between ignorance as to "knowing how to encode" (wow, what a subjective phrase THAT is! :P) and choosing to do so in a certain way for a certain reason.