Standards for AMV's these days??

AaronScott · Post by **AaronScott** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:28 pm

Hey guys.

I haven't made an AMV for a while (6-12 months i think) and when i made them my standards where 320x240 resolution and i made them in the almighty (joke) WMM2.

I have premiere and after effects n ow and read the "working with DVD" guide by Vicbond and it said AMV's are all made in 720x480 these days, and my question is, is this the common standard?

I ask because i'm worried that my Hellsing rip, good as it is, looks a bit fuzzy when watching it that big, but when t's only 50% that size, which is my old standard, it looks superb.

Summary Question: does it matter to you whether the resolution of an AMV is 320x240 or 720x480 (or arround)?

badmartialarts · Post by **badmartialarts** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:31 pm

Personally, I don't care, but some people are looking for DVD quality footage with Hollywood-class rotoscoping and effects work.

Midrange quality isn't hard to attain though, even with WMM as your editing tool.

I still like one video on my old computer that was 160X120 or something absurdly small like that. It was a great video. Couldn't watch it full screen, though.

L0ner · Post by **L0ner** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:53 pm

had one of those 2..really good amv though when you watch it full screen you could count the pixels ^_^

though many people indeed use 720x480

i use it 2....but when smaller means better quallity plz make it smaller ^_^

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:59 pm

Resolution doesn't play as huge a role as you might think. Rather, encoding quality should be judged by the overall look - if it's clean and looks smooth, that's all that matters. How do you get to that? It depends on the individual video, you just have to understand how encoding works and how to get best results out of it.

In terms of size, in some videos the resolution (within reasonable bounds) doesn't make a lot of difference in either filesize or in quality. In others, it might be a huge change.

Read the guides. They'll help you figure out what to look for. Otherwise, the only standard is that your video looks clean and moves smoothly. How you get there is a matter of encoding competently.

devilmaykickass · Post by **devilmaykickass** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:12 pm

I'd say 480X352 beats the hell out of 720X240...in the overall long run anyway.

Though my upcoming vid will be the first that I've actually encoded higher than 352X240, and 320X240 can give a beautiful result if you balance it correctly with the bitrate and start out with nice source footage. 400X300 gives an outstanding result as well.

But for DVD quality at the lowest filesize, and the lowest bitchrate(not bitrate), I'd definitely say 480X352. The bit about all videos being 720X240 is false though, and I personally think 720X240 is rediculously big, unless the editing makes it essential to the visual quality, like "What Lain Bought on eBay" where a low resolution would ruin the clean look of the images.

Pyle · Post by **Pyle** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:19 pm

'Bitchrate'

XD

Just make it 320x240, that way it's easier to cover up the green lines and quality mistakes in the vid.

L0ner · Post by **L0ner** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:21 pm

or people like using big footage to work with....

just like in photoshop..it works in my eyes better to have an wallpaper with a resolution of 1660X1200 and then reducing it to 1024x768 then only 1024x768

well thst my view...and yes encoding dous play a big role in it of course and i also know how to do that ^_^...

but look at some amv's that use diffirent kinds of anime in it..you can really see the diffirene by the resolution of the footage ^_^

SuperFusion · Post by **SuperFusion** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:04 pm

The best resolution IMO is 512X384. =/

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:31 pm

If you're using 720x480 without some sort of aspect ratio correction, you're stupid. Read, and be enlightened.

devilmaykickass · Post by **devilmaykickass** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:08 pm

trythil wrote:If you're using 720x480 without some sort of aspect ratio correction, you're stupid.

Yeah, thats another argument of mine that I forgot to mention...

Of course, it seems to be popular without any aspect ratio correction and all the people looking fat-headed.