ahh thanks! it was at d1 dv ntsc .91. I changed to to square pixels and we are good to go. but I am experimenting with HD so thats probably why I changed it in the beginning. Do you have any good links to producing 32bit projects? PARs and other settings. realistic limitations etc...
(PS I still dont have the option here to select question answered)
If you want to work in HD, i suggest you to setup your comp at 1920x1080, 24fps (for movie or web) or 23,976 (for TV), with a 1.0 Par (square pixels).
Then if you want to use 32bpc, just select to option inside your comp settings. Be aware that not all plugins works @ 32bpc, if not, a warning sign (a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark) will alert you next to the effects name. Using non 32bit effects can produce bad results (in the best case, they just "flatten" your bpc to 8 or 16 for all layers affected by this effect).
Hope that helps.
The color bit-depth of the project is agnostic to the PAR, and vice versa.
32-bit (high dynamic range) is used to allow you to obtain and work with higher luminance and color information.
It has multiple benefits, but it will be more computationally intensive.
Not all effects work with HDR imagery, and you should keep in mind your final output format, regardless of your working color bit depth.
ok, i will work with that advice, definitely. however, just curious about frame rates. I thought I read somewhere for hd, one should use 59.94 fps. I also maybe read that that is what is used for HD but onecan "simulate" had with 24 fps. Is that kind of where you are going with this or is it the final output that I should set my fps for. Like for instance maybe 59.94 is useless unless your outputting to hd film or something? or when should i use 59.94 fps?
By agnostic, I meant that HDR has nothing to do with PAR.
They are apples and oranges.
Frame rates continue to get more and more confusing as new formats are introduced, and new flavors of HD are cooked up, but here are a few brief pointers:
- There's a difference between field rate and frame rate
- 59.94i refers to an interlaced 29.97 frame rate
- 59.94p refers to 59.94 progressive (whole) frames per second
The frame rate you use should be decided upon based on your final delivery.
It's entirely possible that you may need to deliver 720p 59.94, 1080i 59.94, NTSC 29.97, etc... all for one project.
Define what your delivery specs are, and work from there.
ok, great advice! So, lets say I want to just produce one single video in HD just as a test to show my supervisors that I am building HD capabilities (since ive already kind of blurted it out). The dimesions are 720x480 and the final output will be an HD monitor /tv that we have here in the office (is there a diffeernce between a hd computer monitor and an hd television). I am just inetersted in impressing a few people fast. Currently this my AE HD test includes a glowing object (32 bit glow effects) moving across screen for only 5 seconds.
maybe bring in a 16 bit photograph (wish I had a 16 bit video and/or 32 bit one) since we normalyl work with 8bit, the 32 bit in hd should be impressive? I will make faux video out of it by zooming in and panning a bit. any more tips with my more specifics?
1 person found this helpful
cool. looks like i got some reading to do. thanks all!!!
1 person found this helpful
heres where i get confused. there is all this talk about the projects dimensions to produce hd. but what does "size" of the video have to do with the "quality". I DO understand this relationship in Photoshop ie; 300 dpi at 5x5 or 72 dpi at 5x5 ect...Can I make a hd video that is very small in its physical onscreen size?
...or is it just all 72dpi no matter what and then when the document dimensions are soo large and you then "shrink it" to fir on a monitor, those pixels compress to appear "high def". does that make any sense? if i am still waay off, i dont want to be that guy asking all the dumb questions
Can I make a hd video that is very small in its physical onscreen size?
If you did scale down HD video, then it would no longer be HD, right?
Read what Rick Gerard says about video and DPI in this thread.
Scale down the physical size, not the quality. So, in theory, can't I have a 1"x1" hd video if I were inclined to?
To draw a parallel in the print world, lets say I have a photo that is 5"x5" at 300 dpi. I can change it to 72dpi the document goes up to 20"x20". and the reverse as well. So in my digital world, I have a certain size I will need to stay within 10" x 7.5" (720x540). This "physical size" is a corporate standard for presenations. Can I stay within that exact size and pump up the resolution to HD?
Unfortunately, no you can not.
Video does not work like print.
If you downsize (read, resample) an HD frame into a smaller sized frame, you are losing information. Period.
1 person found this helpful
ok, but can I set the physical size to be small when I export in the render queue? i just dont understand how I control the physical size that will be shown on computer monitors. for this example lets say I dont have any video footage to work with, just shapes and graphics created nativley in AE.
You can render to whatever size you want.
You can precompse your HD comp and nest it in a SD comp, and render from that if you wish.
Or, you could use the stretch options in the Render Queue to downsize your comp.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are only a few HD frame sizes (image dimensions).
Generally speaking, you have 1920x1080, and 1280x720.
Those are the two flavors that you have to work with in HD.
Some codecs create variations on those sizes based on pixel shape, but that's it for HD.
Once you depart from one of those frame sizes, you're simply not displaying HD material, beit created in AE, or shot in camera.
If you present a frame size that was downsized HD, then it is no longer an HD frame.
If you want to show your client a certain piece "in HD", then you may want to make sure you're showing them a true HD file, and not a downsized verison.
There's an old tutorial that I did for Creative Cow that talks about square and rectangular pixels. The theory is still applicable even though this tutorial only deals with SD. It's a good read. You'll find the Dr Strangepixel tutorial here.
One of these days I'll rework this tutorial for HD and it's about 2000 variants.
ok, im starting to get it, but i have a fair bit of reading and testing ahead of me. thanks again.
i just read that creative cow post. very comprehensive.