You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

[Q]What resolution?

Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 9:01pm

Post 1 of 10

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

This may be addressed. I did some quick searching and couldn't find it though. Be gentle, please! wink

So what resolution do you all like to see plugins at?

As an example, I'm rendering a particle effect in Maya right now. A failed attempt at the Cyclops beam, but it was too cool as a particle weapon to just throw away.

We produce a fair bit of commercial video, so we tend to do all renders at 1080p and then scale to fit (or track it natively in Maya). We then archive them at 1080p for possible later use. So I'm looking at this particle weapon and thinking - bringing it in to a 2D package and making it generally useful, I'm going to need (atleast) 3 camera angles. I'm going to need matching splatter. And I should produce it in three or four colors. Figure 10 seconds is a reasonable length to meet any need.

Figure my render farm at home is ~30Ghz. I'm looking at four days of rendering at even 1024x768, let alone 1080p.

So what resolution would you like to see these things at?

Here's a low-res jpeg of the kinda thing I'm talking about. Square Pixel of a D1.



So - the question(s) is (are) - Continue it? At what resolution? If people care here about resolution, I'll happily just let these things crunch... I don't have all that many home projects that need the full render farm...

[edited to add: Each variation will run around 25MB @ 1024x768]

Last edited Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 9:06pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 9:04pm

Post 2 of 10

Andreas

Force: 4943 | Joined: 9th Apr 2002 | Posts: 2657

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

higher resultion = better. it all depends on what the modem d00des want. I want as High quality as possible
Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 9:09pm

Post 3 of 10

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Thanks for that *fast* response. I totally agree with you from my perspective.

I should really put on the Nomex to say this - I have trouble using the word "modem" and "video producer" in the same telephone book, let alone right next to each other. wink It's hard for me to imagine getting any work done with the need for stock footage, effects, upgrades, scripts, blahblahblah - and doing it on a modem.

Are the modem users prevelant here?- I guess that might be the more appropo question...
Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 10:09pm

Post 4 of 10

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I would have to say that 1024x768 is overkill, at least for Alamdv. Everyone here works with DV (NTSC or PAL), so there's no need to make it any bigger than 720x560 (or whatever the vertical resolution is for PAL). Just make sure when you make a plugin to prevent it for spilling out of the quad.
Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 11:04pm

Post 5 of 10

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I'm really carefull with the quad. My goal is always to have the effect fill the quad (as you see above) at its longest point, with identical framing border on each side. That way you get the maximum length (and resolution) without making placement impossible.

Seems two disimilar opinions between you and Andreas. Both plugin authors yourselves. Interesting... I'd be inclined to go 576 progressive lines to meet the PAL needs too, in that case, because render time would be cut by a factor of 4... wink
Posted: Tue, 27th Jan 2004, 11:08pm

Post 6 of 10

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Id go with 640x480 or 720x480 (or 720x560). You dont want to make it too big where the effect is hard to place in the footage.
Posted: Wed, 28th Jan 2004, 7:40am

Post 7 of 10

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

One thing to keep in mind is that the maximum size of a plug-in that they will let you upload is 50 MB zipped. if you are rendering a 10 second plug-in with several variations at 1080, I don't think you will be able to compress it that small. If you can, great, but I don't think you can, at least not if you are using TIFF images with proper alpha channels. Another thing to keep in mind is that if the whole plug-in is a stream similar to the one in your image above, you could greatly reduce the vertical resolution to reduce file sizes, as it is just full of unnecessary black.

I generally figure that 720 X 480 is the minimum size I want to use for a plug-in, so that it can be used full screen if someone wants, without pixelation. As was mentioned, most people here are using DV footage, so 1080 might be a bit overkill, but a bit of resolution beyond that of the footage is always a good thing. The biggest I'd recommend is 900 X 600 or so. If you want to be generous to all of our PAL users, you could add a bit more vertical resolution.

BTW - I am on a dial-up connection -- not by choice, but because DSL is not available where I live. smile

And as far as Brettsta's comment about a bigger effect being harder to place in the footage, in Plugger, when you are building your plug-in, there is an option to fit the plug-in to the imported footage, which can be useful if you do go with a higher resolution.
Posted: Wed, 28th Jan 2004, 8:57am

Post 8 of 10

Andreas

Force: 4943 | Joined: 9th Apr 2002 | Posts: 2657

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well, I like closeups and want to be able to have it look good in a large size..And I guess others want that to..
but minimum is PAL(720x576 ?) for me...
Posted: Wed, 28th Jan 2004, 9:00am

Post 9 of 10

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

>> you could greatly reduce the vertical resolution to reduce file sizes, as it is just full of unnecessary black.

Naw, black compresses like 80% with like LZW...

My frames uncompressed are ~73KB. So ten seconds runs around 22MB.

You can upload larger than 50MB from ftp to FX, right?

Anyway - compressed it will be around 11MB/variation (assuming DV2 can read LZW compressed TIF.)

But I do hear the sentiment. I'll probably go back and chop the black and alpha channel size. Maya gets testy about it, so I just use an imagemagick script afterwards.

I figure I'll do the primary variation at 1024x768 and the sub variations at Quantel/PAL... smile Then everyone's happy and I save 70% on my render times. Only the primary is a straight line, the variations are all on the angles to and away so it can be rotated without deforming to cover most instances.

Primary is done, var. 2 is 90% completed, var 3 is 20% completed...

Thanks, Axe! I just noticed a PM (sorry, didn't see it before), to which I'll respond. Don't think I was being rude! Not used to the interface here yet!
Posted: Wed, 28th Jan 2004, 9:29am

Post 10 of 10

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

I checked with malone about the plug-in upload, and he said 50 MB is the max for any plug-in upload. Generally I try to get all the variations into 1 plug-in if I can, but if you want to submit them seperately, you certainly can. You might even end up with more force points if you did it that way.

It's cool you got the file sizes down that much, though; it's better that I expected. Look forward to seeing the plug-ins!