fao sleepytom - res/codec issues for big gigs

[mondo]

tom (et al)

i know we have discussed this before but....
ive got a big gig - big 10000 lumen projectors , big stage and big screen etc.

bit worried about pixelation though it is to be expected with such a huge screen

i am rendering new clips to showcase motion dive tokyo and the new midi interface etc

standard MD clips are QT 320x240 res cinepack codec (!)

im planning to test out higher res clips upto QT 640x480 motion jpeg A and photo jpeg codecs - the reason for this is that ill also be using clips with VDMX for future gigs

bit worried about laptop lag on triggering clips and will probably also render 400x300 res too as a comparison.

in your view what else should i watch out for in the rendering process to ensure clean clips/reduced pixelation

my gut feel is that ill get pixelation whatever, but i would like to avoid clip lag - my new lappy is pretty fast and 100gb/1024ram empty!
:confused:

[robotfunk]

best start would be to make the internal resolution exactly half of the output res, horizontally and vertically.
so 320x240 if your ouput is 640x480 etc
this will give the nicest scaling up.

one up would be to have the exact same resolution internally as what you are outputting. this will be heavy on your lappy tho.

any other ratios between internal and output res will look inferior.

[KillingFrenzy]

I try and use a mix of "low res" from my laptop and DVD and DV material that is higher/cleaner resolution. That way it is less apparent when something is jagged out from the laptop.

[DFUNC]

Just my 2 cents.

Remember that when you "double" the size, you have 4x the data.

I use 640x480 and a 640x480 output with GRID2. I have to use an external Firewire drive, because the internal would be too slow. If you have a 3 minute loop with MJPEG-A, you easily end up with a file over 1 GB.

But I never felt pixelated on big screens. Else blur the focus of the beamer a bit. ;)

And I haven't found a VJ app that mixes layers/effetcs at 640x480. At least not smooth on my laptop. Thats why I also work at full PAL with a V4 and some DVDs I burned (on 2 dvd players).

[mondo]

mmmm

i am using dv tape and the cg8 as back up - and i am aware of the crunchy sizes of clips at 640 res - extarnal hardrive option is interesting but motion dive may still have access to file lag - i gotta check

remember that i am meant to be showcasing motion dive tokyo which does kinda work well large projected size - does anyone render at 400x300 as a middle ground option?

ill have to check the barco projector output - it'll be big!

btw - motion dive mixes content at 640 res but
s l o w l y

i think its a memory issue - but 1024 mb should help
ill report back when ive tested out this w/e

[DrBuano]

hi there, why dont you just stick with the 320x240 size but run uncompressed clips or use something like sheervideo to chunk down the file size a bit while retaining all of the pixel info.

like Dfunc says this set up would probably work best with and external 7200rpm firewire drive, and even better if you could run FW800 between drive and laptop

[sleepytom]

Originally posted by mondo

remember that i am meant to be showcasing motion dive tokyo which does kinda work well large projected size - does anyone render at 400x300 as a middle ground option?

well there goes my suggestion of using some decent software

err try mjpeg qt 80% quality @ 640x480 or and 400x300 and even 384x288 if your coming from PAL source

a faster external drive might help but it rather depends how poor the director QT playback is.

if the audience is a long way from the screen then it is harder for them to spot the pixels

suggestions of uncompressed / sheer really don't make sence - 320x240 is low res - using no compressor will not reduce pixelization significantly - having said that the blockyness that is seen in cinepak is often due to the colour subsampling so switching to a better codec will help a lot (although 80% mjpeg is faster and nearly as good quality as sheer)

[mondo]

"try mjpeg qt 80% quality @ 640x480 or and 400x300"

spot on tom as i thought = thanks

ive tested mjpeg against photo jpeg

smaller file size with the latter with non-discernible quality drop - any reason i should NOT be using the photo jpeg codec btw?