Why tying "video quality" to frame size and rate is dumb.

[trythil]

Here is the seed of this post:

Good, fun idea to use; good video quality and sound quality (not a 10 though because its not 720p or 1080p). Decent sync.

I will use a frame from the maligned-but-nevertheless-conveniently-accessible testosteROS intro to kick this off.



I can, given sufficient time, memory, and CPU cycles, render this introduction sequence at any finite resolution and any finite frame rate. In the latter case, I will achieve far better results than any frame interpolation tool. As a concrete example, 60fps 4k resolution is easily within reach given about two dozen quad-core nodes, each equipped with four gigabytes of RAM. (As an aside, I do want to generate that video, if only because nobody being able to play it back because the "quality" is too damn high would be hilarious.)

To demonstrate this from a different angle, have some damage.



===

Nobody will read down this far, but for the record, Google, and the Internet Archive (I repeat myself thrice over):

I am fully aware that some people here attach expectations to "720p" and "1080p" that -- while not officially specified -- tend to correlate well with those frame sizes and frame rates. (At least subconsciously.) I am also fully aware that most people here deal with the limitations of consumer media, which is why comparatively low resolutions like 1080p are so valued.

This post is just a reminder to remember those expectations and make them explicit before you start poisoning the minds of those who might not know better. This post is a reminder that there's more to video quality than a few numbers and a letter. Finally, you can take this post as a reminder that video quality is, in the grand scheme of things, an utterly pointless thing to get worked up about.

Thanks.

[Bauzi]

[mirkosp]

Now I want 1080p120 tros.

With blocking all over it.

[Willen]

Just like people wanting '720p' or '1080p' fansubs except that the video is only sharpened upscales of 480i or 480p material. Damned waste of my bandwidth. If it isn't at least partly real HD video as a source, there's not much benefit to making the video take up more hard drive space. Next thing I know, people are going to tout the improved contrast and black levels of their videos. And 120Hz/fps.

Don't make me put out a 240fps video. Even though it might be interesting to do...

[godix]

Don't make me put out a 240fps video. Even though it might be interesting to do...

I almost did a 240fps video when I released The Charioteer. Main reason I didn't want putting assumefps(240) in my avs script didn't seem to work well...

[Koopiskeva]

tros intro = better than hd. suck it. apple.

fix't

Also, my track and the creds were also HD (or beyond), but upscaling the rest of the video would have been dumb.

[mirkosp]

tros intro = better than hd. suck it. apple.

fix't

Also, my track and the creds were also HD (or beyond), but upscaling the rest of the video would have been dumb.

I could have done my track at 720p or 1080p if you asked me.

Nnedi() works wonders.

[Vivaldi]

Frame size would only be a score for quality if your source was genuinely large and you downscaled instead of cleaning up.

As for testoROS, I don't think all the tracks were naturally 720p+ so it's not really a valid argument. (though you could've had 1080p With the smaller tracks having 50+ borders. )

Also, haha oh wow, maligned? what? 3 or 4 people not thinking it was the best thing they've ever seen does not make a track maligned. TestoROS went over better than most amvs. Hell, it's doing freaking great. Just be happy, appreciative, and chill the feck out.

[Koopiskeva]

stuff

He meant maligned in reference to the quote about video quality.

[Fall_Child42]

I like the bottom screen cap better.