![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
New to me. Others may have already posted or know about this.
I have been making projects/compositions in After Effects at 2400*600 and rendering at the same size. Earlier I made a mistake and rendered at 800*600 giving me a squashed clip when looked at in a media player BUT when played back in avenue at 800*600 and output to the TH2go it was stretched back into its original aspect ratio. Anybody got any thoughts on this? I need to do some more tests to see what is happening to the quality but on the one clip I have it appears to be ok.
__________________
What if the hokey cokey really is what it's all about...? |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's called Anamorphic
its a good idea if your finding your clips don't playback smoothly as your reduced resolution will be less taxing to playback.
__________________
Putting the cross into crossplatform www.vjstore.org Free Clips!! AVHire.net Equipment Rental for VJs by VJs |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Brilliant. I had wondered what people were talking about when refering to anamorphic and had never made sense of stuff refering to it. I am shit at reading technical documnets.
Are there any useful tips, as I think I have seen an anamorphic setting in the render options?
__________________
What if the hokey cokey really is what it's all about...? Last edited by PCProject; 17th June 2011 at 09:38 PM. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's the same as having a "16:9" video stored as a PAL (or NTSC) 4:3 video. You simply have x pixels across and y pixels down, stretched to whatever shape the output/screen is.
I've had a thought recently to using video scaled to 512x512 (262144 pixels total): a bit less horizontal resolution, but greater vertical resolution than 640x480 (307200 pixels total), overall 85% of the higher pixel count. Why do this? Well, graphics hardware likes to do things in dimensions that are powers of 2. If you want 640 pixels wide, that might occupy a buffer or texture that is 1024 pixels wide. Similarly, you could try rendering your clips at a slightly reduced triple-head resolution, say 2048x512 (1048576px), and see what performance benefit that gives you. Maybe 1024x512 (524288px) will be good for you, if you're finding 800x600 (480000px) to be okay. -spxl |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
it is however worth remembering that when using avenue some odd things happen with some of the effects if the clip sizes are different to the final composition output size. ( i only mention that as i know you are an avenue user dave )
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well my thinking was for a gig where there are 3 x 800*600 native projectors available this might be my best approach for content and lose a little on the overall resolution.
__________________
What if the hokey cokey really is what it's all about...? |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
you know I've never bothered with the higher res triplehead stuff, I make everything at 1920x480. even if the beamers are XGA, it still looks good, and the performance of my machine is right where i want it.
just sayin.. |