It's a matter of size...

[inthesto]

As the thread title suggests, this obsession is indeed of truly phallic nature/proportions, IMHO. I don't really give a damn. I even watch a fair amount of video from streaming sites on full-screen and frequently find it tolerable. I'm much more interested in substance of content - though I will appreciate good video quality, it's not an overriding concern that will spoil the experience for me. In the same vein, I still adore many old movies that survive today in jerky, poor-colour film copies - and would watch them over crappy HD blockbusters any freaking day.

Faggot.

[ZephyrStar]

I'm a quality whore...I demand quality video. But there are plenty of videos with poor quality that I really do like. People did the best they could with the quality at the time, and some concepts are so awesome that you just ignore the quality and get into the video. Plus you get a strong sense of nostalgia when you watch old 320x240 videos I guess when it comes down to quality, my stance is "why would you not do everything in your power to make your work look acceptable since you already spent so much time putting your heart and soul into making it" but I apply that more to my own work than I do to the work of others.

[Qyot27]

50x50 =/= dividable by 16

That's the only thing that stops me from making 16x9 vid ATM :<

What? There's plenty of mod16 16:9 resolutions.

I'm a quality whore...I demand quality video. But there are plenty of videos with poor quality that I really do like. People did the best they could with the quality at the time, and some concepts are so awesome that you just ignore the quality and get into the video. Plus you get a strong sense of nostalgia when you watch old 320x240 videos I guess when it comes down to quality, my stance is "why would you not do everything in your power to make your work look acceptable since you already spent so much time putting your heart and soul into making it" but I apply that more to my own work than I do to the work of others.

Same here, although as I started out when 352x240 VCD encodes were common and even used that format initially for my own vids (and hence am not in the crop of new editors whatsoever), I'm not automatically as concerned about resolution. But these days with my own I judge by the standard I set myself to; for others' videos I'm relatively lax about it, unless the vid is macroblocked out its ass.

I convert most videos I download for DVD anyway, and have a 352x240 profile for HCenc that I use for videos that are in that low-res range - and they look as good as could be expected when played on a TV (on my 13" bedroom TV there's only really a difference in sharpness, but on our HDTV it exhibits worse upscaling artifacts - not as bad as trying to watch badly compressed 'tube FLVs on fullscreen through a PC monitor, though; ironic, considering that a fair portion of the videos I use that profile on originally were 'tube FLVs).

[Nya-chan Production]

50x50 =/= dividable by 16

That's the only thing that stops me from making 16x9 vid ATM :<

What? There's plenty of mod16 16:9 resolutions.

I dont mean 16:9 AR. I mean 16x9. 16 pixels wide, 9 pixels high.

:<

[BasharOfTheAges]

That's ridiculous as anything short of 720p will look sub par. Not to mention a lot of older shows aren't very crisp to begin with.

With the right settings on the TV (and decent cleaning/compression), you'd be surprised at how good things look.

Of course, but you can't expect everyone to spend the time to clean their source. I don't clean my source, it's a fruitless action that can take away from the older feel of some older shows. In fact, I would judge poorly on a video where the editor cleaned their source. The only time I would is if I want to kick up the res to match the other sources i'm using.

What i'm trying to say is, even if you have the nice hdtv (which I do), why the hell would I want to watch an amv on it and judge it's quality based on what i'm seeing from the TV? Thats like saying the video quality on a dvd looks like shit because it doesn't look HD on my HDTV. The only time I should be watching an amv on an hdtv, and judging it's quality as such, is when the video itself is of HD source and resolution. Only then can I accurately make an assessment as to it's quality.

Its stupid cause you are going to see artifacts, no way around it and no matter how good your cleaning and compression is (talking standard dvd resolution on a 720p+ hdtv). Until we are editing with HD footage for every video, using an HDTV as a source of judging quality is, in my opinion, ridiculous and frankly, the opinion of anyone who does do that will hold no weight due to the clear over zealous expectations which they themselves probably don't hold true.

Perhaps my standards aren't as high as you're assuming they are - I do find most of what I watch on my HDTV to be good stuff that looks just fine given the circumstances. When something's problematic it's also easier to see. With my wifi on the fritz, i haven't been streaming first views to the media center anymore, so it's usually only stuff i think is good enough to begin with that i'll watch there anyway (to show others mainly).

[Knowname]

I started out when 352x240 VCD encodes were common and even used that format initially for my own vids (and hence am not in the crop of new editors whatsoever), I'm not automatically as concerned about resolution.

I know :/ these new vids at 1200x768 or whatever just make me scream bloody marie! Seriously... but it's mostly just because I have a really old Matrox video card that chokes a donkey whenever it meets one.... I know I need to upgrade badly. But still these new editors are SO spoiled it's silly! decide on one resolution and stick too it! until HD comes out I will always make videos at 512x384 or somewhere there abouts. OFC the last video I released was in 2007, but anything bigger, for now, just causes size or processing problem IMO.

maybe if I used mp4s I'd go up a notch though... (848x480)

[Bauzi]

O_O

640x360 is for me something like a standard. I don´t think it´s that small. I preffer it over a 848x480 videos wich are made of PAL or NTSC DVDs

I´m not really annoyed of older vids. All the flaws in the video size and quality is like an atmosphere. However there are still limits.

[JudgeHolden]

I'll usually watch new vids on my HDTV as well... I judge them (for quality) based on that and my 1680x1050 monitor resolution.

That's ridiculous as anything short of 720p will look sub par. Not to mention a lot of older shows aren't very crisp to begin with.

With the right settings on the TV (and decent cleaning/compression), you'd be surprised at how good things look.

I actually agree with Bash on this. I just bought a HDTV and played some of my old videos off a DVD I had laying about. They didn't look nearly as bad as I thought they would (in fact a few looked great), now my DVD player does up-convert to 1080p and I had already fiddled with the settings to make my older DVDs look good. So the settings do make a difference. However, for computer playback, I would take a decently encoded lower res video over a processor crippling bit-rate and res any day. I mean, shit, I wanna be able to at least watch the video ....

[Garridy]

However, for computer playback, I would take a decently encoded lower res video over a processor crippling bit-rate and res any day. I mean, shit, I wanna be able to at least watch the video ....

Get a better computer. :/

[Kevmaster]

I'm getting really fucking annoyed by anything over 848x480 or under 640x352.