AWA 2010 - Pro downloads active; Expo 4 days left, August 20

[Vlad G Pohnert]

And why can't SD projectors be used for HD content in mp4 again?

Excuse me (I don't know US con scene, obviously), it's just that all the local (Czech, Hungarian, Slovakian, etc) cons I know of screen 720p mp4s (and other formats) just fine.

Sure they can if your playing off VGA.., but a lot of main events room play off DVD players (inlcuding AWA) and that's 720x480...

Vlad

[BasharOfTheAges]

\best you can do with HD right now is may 5,000-6000 lums andf they are EXPENSIVE. Sure you can get a 10,000 lums, but that is out of anyone's budget even to rent!

IIRC, Anime Boston rents several of them in that range. They had a single 10,000 lumen one in 2009 and, I think, 3 or 4 of them in 2010. They also have a tech budget of "insane".

[godix]

And why can't SD projectors be used for HD content in mp4 again?

Excuse me (I don't know US con scene, obviously), it's just that all the local (Czech, Hungarian, Slovakian, etc) cons I know of screen 720p mp4s (and other formats) just fine.

Cause if you pump a signal to a SD projector that is higher than it is able to display, the projector automatically down coverts it. So, realistically, there is no quality difference between a SD file and a HD file, the projector will display both pretty much the same.

Actually, I tell a minor lie. The HD can actually look worse than a SD video. If the projector has to convert then it might fuck everything all up. At *BEST*, it'll end up looking merely equal to a SD encode. So just go with the SD encode to begin with so there is no conversion that might fuck up. It's kinda one of those rules of projectors, feed it whatever resolution is native for the projector. Assuming, of course, the editors submit decent quality SD encodes.

[Pwolf]

Also to add to what Godix said, at NDK this year someone submitted a 720p 60fps video and it had to be converted the night before the contest because it wouldn't play over the projector. I'm a firm supporter for uniform conversion of videos for playback at a con and preferably MPEG2 as the medium. The audience isn't going to notice or care unless it's macro blocked to shit in which case you have more problems then just SD vs HD.

[SailorDeath]

At acen the video switcher is also a scaler. THe output from the AMV machine is 1024x768 and that in turn fed to the scaler that outputs a 1024x768 picture. Additionally if a DVD player is connected, the 720x480 image is scaled to 1024x768. Obviously the AR is set by the player to 4:3 so the "Black Bars" get added for widescreen footage. The playback software we use is the AMV Play app which is perfectly capable of handling mp4 video. I think the only thing it won't play that MPC can play is swf animations. Any HD video is simply downscaled to 1024x768. WHile that resolution isn't HD it's still sharper than SD so if you're using HD footage there should be a noticeable difference.

[kholaras]

Everything being said is spot on in my experience, relative to the situation at AWA, and, as I understand it, what other cons have to deal with. You can get away with a higher definition projector, at a lower 'quality' with regards to brightness/contrast in smaller rooms for a number of reasons, including the fact that the room is smaller (meaning viewers will be closer to the screen, room can be darker due to less turnover and splash lighting from the screen, cabling to the projector is shorter, etc etc). And that's assuming that the projector is even operating at the native resolution you expect (ie HD) rather than just being an HD-compatible (translation: yea, it'll take the input signal and turn it into complete blarfo quality video as godix mentioned).

Things start to break down exponentially at the larger sizes (both with respect to room size and complexity of programming, which I'll come back to). The larger the screen the more lumens you have to throw out the front because your screen area is increasing in two dimensions. Double the size, you have to have quadruple the lumens to have equivalent lux (light intensity per unit area). Then consider the fact that we have 50' of cabling running through the truss, suspended 20' in the air, with a cabling drop nearly 50' away from where the computers actually are. That's a LONG way to throw a high resolution video signal. The primary symptoms of this are going to be judder in the signals, visble in pixel level blurring with adjacent (probably same row) pixels and horizontal/vertical sync signals which will probably manifest as more blurring. Worst case scenario is probably horizontal tearing.

Then there's the choice of signals that have to get to the projector. If it's just an amv or video room you hook in a computer or dvd player and you're done. Well, 2 computers (or closer to 9 if you're Vlad) to cover failover and redundancy. If you have any diverse content in the room, you need even more connectivity options, including dvd players, video mixers, panelist connections for laptops, etc etc. This means switchers, scalers, scan converters, and more cabling. Our main events room is even more complicated since they also have a live video camera (aimed at the stage and fed back to the projector screens so folks in the back can see), back stage monitoring feeds (essential for events like the cosplay contest, etc) and the like. Could we hook in a computer to support high def content? Yea, and we're looking at it now. It's just a question of how much hassle vs the payoff. I know pretty well how much hassle it is since in my second year of staffing we had to make an emergency scramble to play the awards live off of one of my computers (over a Netstream card). Not fun.

Can we support HD? And by 'we' I mean conventions in general and by HD I mean 720 as upscaled VGA 1024x768. Yea. Will we? Definitely. When? Soon. There's a few issues that need to be ironed out, not the least of which is what format/encoding options to accept. If you haven't already, I highly suggest looking at quu's posts down in the encoding section or on his livejournal pages.

[Vlad G Pohnert]

I agree with everythin0g that is said... ALSO, running a AMV room is differnt then what may be in Main. The bottom line is so long as the audiance can see something in a decent size and quality they don't care. Cons have to guage what kind of money they have vs other costs they need ot invest. Putting a tong of budget money into HD does not mean a better con or contest by far... I have been Director of Site and Chair for Animethon (4.5K con) and had to work out budgeting for Main. HD woudl of costs a lot more and we would of had to divert money from other events and the audience really would not see enough of a difference to justify the costs to them and take away costs...

At Sakura-Con this year, the main event room was all HD and the contest there looked like crap (just ask anyone there) due to the playback equipment... It looked way better in the AMV Room running off nestreams via component upscaled to 1024 x768 VGA on a 10K lums SD projector... Netx year I plan to be running 1024 x 768 VGA and again upscalign anythign else to that via a 10K SD projector until the pricing comes down on high lums HD projectors

In the end, I'll be more then happy with one format and nothing but HD (720/1080) at foramt throughout at cons, but it's not going to happen over night. At this point however, for smaller to mid size cons, SD will still be dominating.

Vlad

[Phantasmagoriat]

Thanks for the responses everyone It is certainly nice to hear on the convention playback side of things.

But what about the Pro/Judging/Download side of things, where those issues are not a problem?

Certainly I want to make the audience happy, but I think I value the opinion of other editors/judges more. To maximize that experience would be as easy as what we do here on the org: allow our own downloads. I don't think it makes sense to restrict the downloaded viewing experience when we are so used to a higher standard of quality daily on the org.

[godix]

But what about the Pro/Judging/Download side of things, where those issues are not a problem?

I repeat, AWA was willing to work with me on providing a judging video in the resolution I designed it for, even though I quite intentionally broke all the 'rules' of video resolution by designing at 1600x480 (a resolution so weird it has no name). My idea being, and this applies to judging as well, that computers are not limited to the standard resolutions. VLC/MPC/whatever are just as able to display 1600x480 as 720x480. It's only projectors that would look like shit trying to display that (well, dvd's also if anyone burned the contest to DVD to watch on a TV).

Point being, if editors wanted HD versions available for judging, all they had to do was ask. I'm quite sure AWA would have worked with them.


Also, it occurs to me that this is kinda a chicken/egg issue. Editors don't want to submit HD stuff to cons that can't display HD. Cons don't want to get HD projectors if they have few HD vids submitted. Since rumor seems to be that (some) cons are/have already upgraded to HD, I'd suggest that editors specifically make a HD video for them. Help show off why the extra cash for the HD projector was worth it.

[kholaras]

While it's generally true (but not universal), it's much better to have a computer or a dedicated scaler adjust the resolution than it is to trust that the manufacturer didn't cut corners and install the cheapest, lousiest piece of garbage scaler in a projector/TV.

Anyway, godix is kinda getting to the heart of the matter. For his video he approached us regarding the issue he discussed. The compromise I offered is exactly the same as I extended to Kham, have a scaled down (and hard letterboxed since the vertical resolution was narrower than usual) SD widescreen mpeg, a distribution equivalent mp4, and then a full size mp4. These videos were the exception, not the rule and it was understood by all parties that the first of the three is what would be played at the con. The higher resolution version was made available but nobody would be forced to watch it.

Everything was screened at the con as SD (said so right up front in the rules) so I'm guessing a fair number of folks, even if they edited in higher resolutions, sent us scaled versions that they resized themselves. I think (and this number is off the top of my head so don't hold me to it) we got 4 720p entries. Keep in mind however that I've stated a number of times (but maybe needed to emphasize it even more if people are still missing it) that the mp4's were distributed as a bandwidth courtesy first and foremost, with secondary aspects to evaluate the general response, viability, and discover any associated technical issues (which sparked quu's encoder evaluation).

Speaking of which, I'm sure quu's still working on hammering some of this stuff, and I need to poke Zarx, but to everyone encoding mp4's:

More is not always better. 12+ reference frames on 3.1/3.2 profiles (ie 848x480) breaks pretty damned near every hardware acceleration scheme on the planet (4608000 / (Height X Width) floored = max frames = 11). 1280x720=9 I believe, and 1080p is 4.