Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
That's some great looking vid there. When you say "at full HD" what do you mean? You don't mean that monster "nostril the size of my monitor" size that I talked about do you?
|
Yes I think that was what I meant
Full HD means usually either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 resolution. While it may seem excessive for those who get used to SD sized picture, HD is the trend now. Everything looks better in HD except for closeups (those monitor sized nostrils you mentioned), but I hate closeups and we never shoot then anyway so that's not a problem.
When you can get crystal clear picture in HD, it looks really good with it's big image. But as I mentioned earlier, I just cannot get same crystal clear image Hollywood trailers are showing. So when I view our or other program's HD vids (which have the same problem, not sharp enough at full HD) I usually downres my player to about 900 horizontal pixels. It looks sharp enough at that size and is still bigger and more fun to watch than SD.
Anyway, what's the point of shooting HD at all if you downres it to SD? Picture will look better than original SD footage of the same resolution, but not that much better imo to worth the hassle. The point is in providing customers with full HD resolution and let them decide what to do with it - either view as is, or downres their players and view smaller picture if that's more convenient. True HD has many advantages. But when you go streaming and cannot encode even at 3mbps which is minimum for HD to look any good at full resolution, the entire point of using HD is lost. Or maybe I'm missing something?
Quote:
|
I use Adobe Premiere to encode these things. When I was using the Premiere Pro CS3 version it looked like crap until I clicked on the "de-interlace" check box in the "Output" tab. That's when I was able to take it down to 1,200 kps without it looking like a bunch of squares.
|
We shoot progressive and thus do not need to deinterlace, so that wouldn't help. We'll tweak it of course, but it'll not help much. Because, as I've already said, even raw 100 mbps DVCPro HD footage looks considerably worse than 3mbps 1280x720 Hollywood trailers.
No wonder though, in spite of them using 4K cameras or 4K film scans (we use 1/3" semi professional camera), and then downresing their videos to 1280x720. I once got raw footage from 4K Red One camera, and when you crop any part of it at 1280x720 it doesn't look any different from what we shoot with our cam. But when you downres the whole image to 1280x720, that's the whole different story. That footage looks amazing to say at least.
Quote:
|
But when I walk away, and watch vids on other paysites and acclimate my eyes to that...my shit looks good to me afterwards. I guess our eyes get used to seeing either compressed or uncompressed video.
|
Yeah I know that effect
But still, it looks not nearly as good as I had hoped for. Maybe I'm just being overly critical though and customers will be just fine with the look of it.
What's bothering me is that giving customers downloadable full HD vids is one thing, while streaming them is very different story. With downloadable vids they can select any resolution they like from 1280x720 down, but with the streaming vid they have only two options - size of the player and full screen. Not to mention lesser bitrate, which takes away most of then fun you have with HD.