animatrix

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:47 am

Simple. Don't resize it back down.

A 960x480 AMV would look spectacular. ^.^

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:55 am

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:57 am

720 x 480 resized to 960 x 480 wide screen would look signifigantly better then 640x360. Trust me.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:08 am

I am looking at it from a feasibility stand point. You'll need more bits to compress it because not only is it higher res, you're also blowing up some of the artifacting. That and most people are not going to run it @ that res. On a TV would it really make much difference? You do hit the wallt here around 640x480... Then the extra processing time required to apply effects and encode the thing... No I don't think it's worth it...

I am thinking also of an analogy where you have a certain amount of ink and you spread it out over one piece of paper, then you try spreading the same amount of ink over a larger piece of paper. You will not get as good of results. Downsampling is more along the lines of concentrating colors, upsampling is more like spreading them up...

And most people here are not going to put it on a TV, they'll put it up on the web. Where 640x480/512x384/512x288/320x240 would be more desirable for playback and filesize reasons...

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:11 am

You use more ink; Up the bitrate.

That's why anamorphic is used, to get the most possable pixels used to carry actual video data, not black bars,

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:20 am

Yeah but they're sampling from high-resolution analog film, that can be up to "5000x5000" pixel in resolution. So in essence the movie studios have already downsampled the video...

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:30 pm

Well, lets give you an example using a 16:9 Anamorphic comparison. However, we'll be using 240p instead of 480p, but the principals are still the same:

Here we have the original image at 16:9, resolution 427x240

Now, we scale it down to 352x180 (And add black bars just so it's a nice happy 352x240

Now, we try the anamorphic approach. Squeezing our 427x240 image into a 352x240 frame. (It's stretched out, yes)

Now we stretch this anamorphic 352x240 image back out to 427x240, this is a resize, not a copy of the first image. It HAS been scaled up from the 352x240 anamorphic image. (Looks a LOT like the first image, dosn't it?)

The human mind dosn't seem to very good at noticing the loss of quality when an image is shrunk horozontially. As long as the vertial lines of resolution remain, it looks pretty clear.

Tash · Post by **Tash** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:57 pm

Ok besides all this confusion, what a good resize resolution for internet distribution using 2:11:1. Not talked about in guides.

Jebadia · Post by **Jebadia** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:30 pm

the one I mentioned, 640x272, that's what I used for PENiS

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:14 am

Look, this is what you retards (izumi and gabe) are talking about

The anamorphic image (704x480):

The image upsized, scaled horizontally (848x480):

downsized, scaled vertically (704x400):

I guess the first one does look better.