Do you edit 720x480?

[Zarxrax]

One of the most confusing sections of Read <a href=http://www.a-m-v.org/guides/avtech31/>ErMaC & AbsoluteDestiny's Friendly AMV Guides</a> is the part about aspect ratios and resizing. I feel that much of this complexity comes from the fact that it gives you a choice of editing at the original resolution of 720x480, or resizing to square pixels. My removing the parts about editing at the original size, this could greatly simplify the guide.

My opinion is that situations where you can edit at the original size are few and far between, and even when you CAN do that, there isn't much benefit from doing so.

First off, editing at 720x480 is rather situational, for instance:
- you can't really mix different series, because they all need to at least be cropped differently, and if they use different aspect ratios then it simply isn't an option at all

There are two primary arguments for editing this way that I have heard. I would like to attempt to debunk them.

1) If your source is 4:3, you lose a lot of resolution by downsizing to 640x480. Then when you send it to a convention, you have to resize back to 720x480. It would look much nicer if you had the original 720x480 quality.

It probably wont look any better. Seriously. Take your 720x480 footage, save a still image from it. Then do a Spline16Resize(640,480).Spline16Resize(720,480)
I can't see any difference at all unless I zoom in pretty close, and even then its still a VERY minor difference. The truth is, the resizer compensates for that lost resolution pretty darn well.

2) If you are editing anamorphic footage, your lossless intermediate files will be a lot bigger.

From my tests, lossless lagarith files in yv12 colorspace at 848x480 tend to be about 10% bigger than 720x480 files. In the grand scheme of things, that's not very much at all, really.

[Zarxrax]

Typo that might be confusing:
My removing the parts about editing at the original size, this could greatly simplify the guide. --> BY removing

[808-buma]

yes, I do edit in 720x480 most of the time... as I don't want to add the resizer line to my scripts until I have to at the end when I do my finals. The only problems I've run into on this however is when I use my keyframe editor (or what passes for it in the version of Magix I have) which sorta acts goofy between PAR's (so if my source is 720x480 and I output to same, I get strange motion anomalies in my output file, but if I do 640x480, it comes out okay... go figure - but I digress).

However, I do agree that maybe removing the 720x480 resolution editing option would simplify things down a bit in the guides.

maybe I should try it for my new video?

[LantisEscudo]

I edit in 720x480, mainly because resizing is an extra step that I don't really need to do. Plus, when I'm submitting to a con or encoding for my compilation DVD, it's already the right resolution. Really the only time I need a different resolution is for the distribution copy, and that's already being run through AviSynth to add the bumpers anyway, so the resize is trivial to add.

It would simplify the guide to remove it, though, and like you said, it's simple to resize for con entry.

[Kalium]

I did when I had a weaker computer.

[Brad]

I always prefer to edit with square pixels (640x480 for 4:3, 848x480 for 16:9).

I'm a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. If I'm working with 16:9 footage (which is what I tend to always work with), I don't want to be editing with footage that looks squashed. It also makes effects-work much nicer when it comes to things like text, graphic design type things, etc. I don't want to have to be mentally thinking in "squashed" mode. I can understand SOME of the arguments for editing in 720x480, but for me, the con's far outweigh the pro's.

[LivingFlame]

So...what's the problem with tacking an AR flag onto a final video, again? It was one of those things I never quite understood the reasoning behind. I'd never convert to square pixels for any of my freelance jobs (shot on and captured from DV tape, mind you), so why is it so different for AMV editing?

Though, as far as this hobby is concerned, I also don't see a problem with converting to square pixels either, especially if it's just for online distribution.

[Pwolf]

Yea it could simplify it but I think some better explanation about converting to different PARs might be good. I think a good explanation about PAR is better then simply removing a section.


Pwolf

[Bauzi]

I only use 720x480 for cons and meps. I tend to add different AR for 4:3 and 16:9.

Generaly I edit in 768x432 (PAL DVD footage. yeah yeah screw me now ), because it´s a multiple of 16 and it´s somehow for me the original frame size with square AR. Am I wrong? I mean the DVD is in 720x576 with AR for 16:9, so is 768x432 really the same framesize in square pixels 16:9?
Upscaling to 848x480 is a waste in my eyes when my footage comes from dvds. Maybe it´s usefull for detailed effects, but for simpel videos I don´t see any pros in this ressolution. The codec can encode it with smaller framesize and just let it resize at playback. I would consider this ress if I downscale some HD footage due to hardware issues. ^^

I also use 720x528 for 4:3 (720x528 isn´t 4:3 at square pixels btw) videos (PAL 720x576 footage again). It´s a multiple of 16 and I render the x264 stream with a SAR for 720x540 (-> 4:3 with square pixels). Is this a good idea?

I think that both methods are not really wrong, but I´m interessted if they´re logical or technical (like "not wating filesize with unnecessary resizing of the original frames) true too.

[Scott Green]

Bauzi you're so fucking confusing.... you make me actually use my brain when i read your logics, ugh

-__-