PDA

View Full Version : what res should I render my reel?


NATEMO
01-07-2004, 05:24 PM
Hi guys just thinking ........
what res should I render my reel?

I was thinking 1024*768

sounds dumb to ask this.. but I have a feeling i might forget somthing :)

thanks

:thumbsup:

azazel
01-07-2004, 05:44 PM
Guess PAL is safe, you can put it on tape, or further downsize for web output.

CapnPanic
01-08-2004, 12:43 AM
unless you plan on submitting your reel on some format other then video, i'm not sure why you would want to render at 1k. i'd say you should just render at video res (NTSC or PAL) depending on where you are and then you can rescale for web.

i.e. render at 720x486 (if you are in an ntsc area) and then scale down to 640x480 or 320x240 for web. :)

Andrew W
01-08-2004, 08:00 AM
You might also want to consider the following:

PAL runs at 25 frames per second.

NTSC runs at 29.97 fps (or 30 fps if you're less pedantic).

If your primary area of concern is animation, this is a big issue, as you will want the smoothest motion possible. I'd recommend animating and rendering for the TV standard of the area you intend to try and work in. If it's Europe for example, then PAL or SECAM, if it's anywhere else then NTSC.

If you're a lighter or renderer by specialisation then I'd favour PAL as it is a better colour standard (though SECAM is better yet) and has higher resolution than NTSC or Never Twice the Same Colour as TV engineers with a senses of humour call it...

Hope that's helpful.

A

NATEMO
01-08-2004, 02:36 PM
thanks guys :D

3D is so cool

stew
01-08-2004, 03:00 PM
When rendering with VHS in mind, make yourself familiar with the field rendering options in your software.

CapnPanic
01-08-2004, 05:35 PM
ah, but fields are a double-edged sword, as if you render to fields, you may get better playback on vhs, but the images will be screwed up if you make a web version as you will see both fields at once. you could de-interlace them after the fact, but then you lose resolution.

plus if you plan on doing a bit of post work on an image with fields, it becomes more complicated. I'd suggest just ignoring fields, unless an animation really needs it, i.e. you are getting alot of strobing with fast moving objects etc.

Andrew W
01-09-2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Capn_Panic
ah, but fields are a double-edged sword, as if you render to fields, you may get better playback on vhs, but the images will be screwed up if you make a web version as you will see both fields at once. you could de-interlace them after the fact, but then you lose resolution.

plus if you plan on doing a bit of post work on an image with fields, it becomes more complicated. I'd suggest just ignoring fields, unless an animation really needs it, i.e. you are getting alot of strobing with fast moving objects etc.

I'd tend to agree with this. Although fields would make motion smoother on a TV, I don't know of anyone who actually renders fields for TV work. No company I've ever worked for has. In my experience most companies doing NTSC work, in fact render to PAL and get it standards converted afterwards. You get a better standards conversion going from PAL to NTSC than the other way round.

But as I said before, sort out what format you're rendering to before you begin work as you'll have to do your animation in the correct frames per second range.

A

stew
01-09-2004, 09:01 AM
OK, forget my comment and listen to the guys that know what they're talking about...

CGTalk Moderation
01-17-2006, 02:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.