Any 1080P AMVS?

[J-0080]

My 24" LCD has a native res of 1920x1200 so 1080p video doesn't even fill up the entire screen. It sure does look nice though.

My native resolution is 1680x1050 and it doesn't even fill that.

I've been waiting for Advent Children to come out on Blu Ray forever. I would upgrade to Blu Ray just to watch that shit.

I wonder how many people will buy the AC blu ray just for a prolonged scene of Sephiroth impalling and lifting Cloud :/

I'd be more likely to get it for the Final Fantasy XIII demo.

[x_rex30]

720p and I'm good to go. No need to go out of your way to make such a huge jump from 480p all the way to 1080p. You people who are trying to do that are nuts and just trying to be the first in something. Everyone, focus on 720p for now if you want to make HD MVs.

If you do try to make hd movies, use actual hd sources and if not that, at least try to take advantage of more frames per second. If you aren't even going to try to put high frame rate to good use or hd footage, then don't bother.

[Brad]

720p and I'm good to go. No need to go out of your way to make such a huge jump from 480p all the way to 1080p. You people who are trying to do that are nuts and just trying to be the first in something. Everyone, focus on 720p for now if you want to make HD MVs.

If you do try to make hd movies, use actual hd sources and if not that, at least try to take advantage of more frames per second. If you aren't even going to try to put high frame rate to good use or hd footage, then don't bother.

Are you saying that you want people to start adding frames to the otherwise film framerate of most HD content?

And I certainly don't see the harm in doing 1080p in addition to 720p, assuming you're working from blu-ray source which is 1080p to begin with. It's no different from the current standard of 480p videos that use DVD source. You keep it at what it originally was.

[EvaFan]

Adding more frames to HD content would just make it harder to get good playback on PC's. I did some encoding research with 1080p of my own with x264 and found it not at all worth it. There is too many x-factors currently. There are people with computers that can't handle the video stress, there are people who use crappy video players and there are too many codec variations or different ways to watch it. Some players use external programs like FFdshow for the codecs they lack and some use their own internal ones. They decode differently when it comes to x264 cause its still in development. There is no way to determine exactly what your viewer is going to see with HD x264 content as is unless they use everything you do technically. Time just needs to pass for more x264 development and people buying more better computers before HD becomes mainstream.

Another thing to consider is the 100mb file limit. If you can get a 4 minute long amv under 100mb with 1080p completely void of macroblocks then please share your secret cause I've tried about 6 times with different x264 settings each time and have yet to come close. The problem is the necessary bitrate to maintain perfect quality is too high. An average 848x480 video is said to need at least 300kb/sec datarate just to go without macroblocks, if you start going lower you will begin seeing them.

Basically if you don't have your own servers your pretty much screwed. Even if you do have your own server I'm guessing people would rather download a smaller 720p version more capable of the 100mb file limit (though it probably would still be cutting it very close) cause it's more download friendly and is better then normal quality.

I think the simple answer is, more time is needed for x264 development and people getting a hold of better computers as their prices go down from other technological improvements before considering 1080p on the org.

Just my 2 cents. I'm not gonna copy and post my research but it can be found on my org journal.

[Bauzi]

Eva-Fan pretty much said it. I just want to say that I would create 1080p Videos if I would have the hardware for it. I might try 720p with my system one day, ´cause I was eable to render a 720p vid from x264 files, but it was a very close thing that could have fail easly. I just don´t think that I have enough free disc space for all the lossless stuff, but hdd aren´t that expensive Just detailed effects at this ressoltion might end in tons of work

I jut stick with my 480p DVDs for now
That´s why I won´t use 848x480 for them. 768x432 is fine for me

[Qyot27]

Adding more frames to HD content would just make it harder to get good playback on PC's. I did some encoding research with 1080p of my own with x264 and found it not at all worth it. There is too many x-factors currently. There are people with computers that can't handle the video stress, there are people who use crappy video players and there are too many codec variations or different ways to watch it. Some players use external programs like FFdshow for the codecs they lack and some use their own internal ones. They decode differently when it comes to x264 cause its still in development. There is no way to determine exactly what your viewer is going to see with HD x264 content as is unless they use everything you do technically. Time just needs to pass for more x264 development and people buying more better computers before HD becomes mainstream.

That's why hardware testing would be important. As long as the video is certain to play on something like those KiSS models or one has (circumstances granted) the ability to author standard-compliant Blu-ray discs, then the source streams would be fine - as I wouldn't expect anyone to distribute an actual Blu-ray image for their video, just a file that can be popped into said authoring program. It'd really be no different than those that offered VCD-compliant MPEG1 files for download in the past.

Something at that res might not jive with computer hardware just yet, but the benefit of watching 1080p on a computer monitor is fairly moot if you go with the common consensus that 1080p is only really valuable at screen sizes above 40" or whatever it is (this is of course excluding the possibility of someone using their HDTV as a monitor).

[x_rex30]

720p and I'm good to go. No need to go out of your way to make such a huge jump from 480p all the way to 1080p. You people who are trying to do that are nuts and just trying to be the first in something. Everyone, focus on 720p for now if you want to make HD MVs.

If you do try to make hd movies, use actual hd sources and if not that, at least try to take advantage of more frames per second. If you aren't even going to try to put high frame rate to good use or hd footage, then don't bother.

Are you saying that you want people to start adding frames to the otherwise film framerate of most HD content?

I'm saying they could take advantage of it or at least use actual hd source.

Like in Auriga, it's quite unique with original effects and a high frame rate.

I would think it's more important to have hd footage just saying it would be nice to do some amv editing with more frames if you are doing something like panning frames or speeding up clips.

[Brad]

720p and I'm good to go. No need to go out of your way to make such a huge jump from 480p all the way to 1080p. You people who are trying to do that are nuts and just trying to be the first in something. Everyone, focus on 720p for now if you want to make HD MVs.

If you do try to make hd movies, use actual hd sources and if not that, at least try to take advantage of more frames per second. If you aren't even going to try to put high frame rate to good use or hd footage, then don't bother.

Are you saying that you want people to start adding frames to the otherwise film framerate of most HD content?

I'm saying they could take advantage of it or at least use actual hd source.

Like in Auriga, it's quite unique with original effects and a high frame rate.

I would think it's more important to have hd footage just saying it would be nice to do some amv editing with more frames if you are doing something like panning frames or speeding up clips.

Alright, but you do realize that the whole adding frames business is really quite a chore (unless you intend to speed up all of your clips). He had to use a special plug-in to do the frame interpolating. I've played around with the plug-in and it's not the simplest thing in the world to get the motion looking right. So, no I don't think it will or even should become "the new thing to do" as opposed to making a video in 1080p, which by comparison is much simpler and more feasible.

[EvaFan]

Adding more frames to HD content would just make it harder to get good playback on PC's. I did some encoding research with 1080p of my own with x264 and found it not at all worth it. There is too many x-factors currently. There are people with computers that can't handle the video stress, there are people who use crappy video players and there are too many codec variations or different ways to watch it. Some players use external programs like FFdshow for the codecs they lack and some use their own internal ones. They decode differently when it comes to x264 cause its still in development. There is no way to determine exactly what your viewer is going to see with HD x264 content as is unless they use everything you do technically. Time just needs to pass for more x264 development and people buying more better computers before HD becomes mainstream.

That's why hardware testing would be important. As long as the video is certain to play on something like those KiSS models or one has (circumstances granted) the ability to author standard-compliant Blu-ray discs, then the source streams would be fine - as I wouldn't expect anyone to distribute an actual Blu-ray image for their video, just a file that can be popped into said authoring program. It'd really be no different than those that offered VCD-compliant MPEG1 files for download in the past.

Actually i found that the best way to get it all to work out right now was to take your final product and just run it through a transcoding program that makes video files for ps3/xbox360/DVD players that support x264/AC3 combo. This way people can watch your HD amv on HDTV's/sound systems in perfect quality. A simple program like mkv2vob (It was intentionally made for the ps3) would work. However you would have to make an mkv file out of your final product which just means rendering your video stream and audio stream separately. Then just use a program like mkvtools=>mkvmerge to combine them for your mkv. There are other transcoding programs too. Problem there is still the necessity of your own server for the file.

[RonnieDaking]

do any one know a list of animes in HD