For video, PPI (Pixels Per Inch), and DPI (Dots Per Inch) do not have real meaning. What matters will be the pixel x pixel dimensions of the Video Frame Size.
If you are wishing to fill the viewer's screens on playback, I would create the animations in 1920 x 1080, as that is the highest common video standard. Soon, we will have higher standards for Ultra-HD (or whatever name gets applied), starting at 2.7K, and working up to perhaps 10K. The TV's were recently unveiled for some of these, and with the Retnia (Mac) computer displays, plus the Ultra-HD monitors from Dell, and a few others, there will be a push to larger Video Frame Sizes - just not yet.
I'll redo all my stuff based on your per-pixel measure, rather than the inches I've just done them with.
And by the bye, with your help and Romano's, I got the animations flying beautifully. You should see them; very professional appearance indeed. I'll try to find a way of posting 'em somewhere, once I've got them resized by way of your famous Pixilation Polka.
Also, did you have an afternoon or two to read my long, logorrheaic response to your comments about your career as a cinematographer, and your bit about word processors from the paleolithic? Sorry about the blather, but you opened a door to my memory that had been long closed . . . everything from Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, circa 1954, to learning about computers in 1978.
And . . . what did you start out with? Bell & Howell? Or Skinny Kodak?
PS: Wanna buy a couple of Graphic View IIs? I'll even throw in all the lenses, lens boards, sheet film holders, 25-foot sqeeze-the-bulb pneumatic shutter release, and a couple of 4x5 Polaroid adapters! ... No? ... Well, can't blame you. I need these like I need collar buttons and a hand crank for my pickup.
Not sure that I saw the comments, to which you refer. I only saw your two posts, here and the fonts one. Can you post a URL for that other one please?
Thanks and good luck,
As for the Graphics, I still have my Speed Graphic, with three lenses, and then maybe 100 4x5 sheet film holders, plus two studio 4 x 5's. Gotta' do something with those one day.
Thanks, but others will be more likely to be candidates,
Speed Graphic? Bill, I'm shocked! Shocked! I thought you were one of those classy Linhoff Technika guys! Ah, well, beats having a 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Century Graphic. Or a Graflex SLR in similar size ... which my nutcase cousin John is still using.
Also, what did you start out your cine career with? I'm betting on B&H.
My long-winded chat is at
If there are any candidtates for my old studio view cameras, I'll be damned surprised. Certainly I'm not a player!
Cherry wood, and mahogany are nice, but I was more into the Bucky Fuller school, of "form following function." I always used just what I needed, whether a Speed Graphic, or a Nikon 105.
While I did use a Linhof at one point, most of my 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 cameras were Cambo, but with Schneider, or Nikkor lenses.
At one point, I used a Speed Graphic with Polaroid Type 55, for sporting events for one client. OTOH, I was no Weegee - not by a very long shot!
It was well into the "digital age," that I gave up silver-capture, and drum scans. That was how we did it in advertising photography, way, way back then...
Remember, there are still a few "dinosaurs" roaming this Earth - the meteor did not kill us all...
Welcome to the dinasaur club, bubba. When I worked at DJMC (L.A.), Needham (Chicago), and MacManus John & Adams (L.A.), we used Lucigraphs and press-type (I still have a plastic rub-down tool for press-type, and a rubber-cement pickup square), and had a motorcycle runner to get paste-ups to and from the Stat House in L.A.
And a stripper wasn't some cheezy bimbo but a guy bending over a lightbox with a bunch of negs and rubilith, and a razorblade between his lips while he got everything just ... so!
In Chicago, at Needham Harper & Steers, we had a brilliant renderer named Tom Somethingorother, who could create photo-realistic 4-color ROP art mockups for the quick-and-dirties with pastels. Guy was a genius!
Art directors and artists were exactly that back then, not mouse-pushers.
And remember Kooinor Rapidograph pens? With the changeable nibs? I think I may still have a couple around.
Also, did you take a look at my other post? You'll recognize a lot more from the paleolithic there.
Sounds like we are "twin sons from different mothers."
Personally, I feel that I greatly benefitted from growing up in the time of analog compositing, and also in the days of film, before video, or digital video. A great deal of what we did transferred easily over to digital, and even some of those terms transferred too. The jump to digital was easy for me, and rather than complian about how something needed to be done, or whine that something could not yet be done, I was still filled with amazement and wonder about what COULD be done. Even though it has been over two decades now, I still have that sense of amazement, and I can do it all on my laptop, sitting by my pool, instead of an edit-suite with a Scitex machine, and clunky controls!
I still recall nights and days of rubylith, and physically cutting A-B Roll film into little pieces, joined to yards of black leader. For me, Bins were just that - laundry bins, with a rack above them, with clothespins to hold the physical clips. Each had a grease pencil marking, to identify them, and I had a handwritten chart where each was located above that bin. Just saw one of my grease pencils yesterday.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
BTW - somewhere I still have a full set of Rapidograph pens and nibs, in a holder with a humidifier to keep the ink from drying out. Just do not know where it is - some box from an earlier move I suppose?
Separated at birth!!
I agree with you, yes, about the great advantages of going digital. I was an early adopter with CP/M and an S-100 buss computer that I built and programed in 1978. Jumped into Photoshop and Illustrator in 1993. Built my first website in 1998.
The downside of digital is that people with no hands-on art skills - ie illustration, photography, design - get hired as illustrators, photographers, and designers. And the inherent evil of digital is in the masses of software which offer "creative apps" that allow the uninitiated to click on effects that are merely generic ... and universally available: Imagination and challenging the status quo be damned.
I've seen new type faces that are laughable, and I question whether the guys who've popped them into the mainstream have even heard of Herb Lubalin.
I went to a condo-warming party of a young art-dirctor pal here in Vegas a couple of days after Richard Avedon died. Everyone there was a "creative" as they now call themselves. I commented to someone, "What a sad day. Richard Avedon just died." The other guy said, "Who?" I then made a point to say this to everyone at the party, one at a time. Only one young woman (a writer, by the bye) knew who Avedon was.
I went around again to see who in this bunch had ever heard of Lubalin, Lowey, Eames, Georges Braque, George Lois, Carl Ally, Mies van der Rohe, Paul Bacon, and a few others. General ignorance.
When I worked at Needham, back in 1968, these guys were studied and even looked upon as gods of the graphic and communication arts.
As for writing . . . after reading the first pages of a number of books by local young Awe-Thores who've gotten ink in the suburban insert of our local paper, the Review-Journal, I've come to believe that the word processor is the most evil thing to have happened to literature.
Aside from that, I'm entirely sanguine about the world in general. (Just don't get me started on the current political situation inside the beltway!)