Latest post Thu, Apr 3 2014 2:15 PM by Marianna. 38 replies.
Page 1 of 3 (39 items) 1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Tue, Mar 25 2014 9:12 AM

    • Sef
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Maarssen, The Netherlands
    • Posts 1,008
    • Points 13,650

    Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Up to now, I've been working on my PAL HDV Projects in 1440x1080. That was an advice, long time ago. But I don't remember why I have to use 1440.

    I started a new Project and decided to use now the 1920x1080 Raster Dimension. I can capture my HDV tapes without a problem. And I can transcode my TL to DNxHD 185 MXF.

    So now my question is very simple: is there any advantage in using 1440 in stead of 1920?

    PS I studied the Help Documentation, read a dozen of threads, but nowhere I could find the answer to my simple question.

    MC6.0.5, QT version 7.7.3, AvidFX 6.2(64bit), Squeeze Pro 8.5.0.41, AvidDVD 6.4.4 (still in my system, but I don't use it anymore), Boris Continuum... [view my complete system specs]

  • Tue, Mar 25 2014 9:46 AM In reply to

    • Vilem
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 10 2010
    • Prague
    • Posts 1,433
    • Points 15,780

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    The project used a 1440x1080 square pixels for maintaining the aspect ratio of 16:9. Avid allows this resolution DNxHD 120TR codec, which should reduce some undesirable artifacts in the video. But truth be told, I never observed any differences.

    Personally, I would stay at 1920x1080 - advantage, everything renders in full resolution HD. (Graphics, titles, etc.)

    V.

    AVID MC2020.12, HP Z620 - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2620, Quadro P2000 - driver 442.50, RAM 48GB - DDR3, BM Intensity Pro 4k - 10.11, W10 - 64bit Professional... [view my complete system specs]
  • Tue, Mar 25 2014 10:37 PM In reply to

    • jwrl
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Melbourne, Australia
    • Posts 8,426
    • Points 97,495

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Vilem:
    The project used a 1440x1080 square pixels for maintaining the aspect ratio of 16:9.
    Should be 1440x1080 anamorphic pixels, surely?  Square pixels would give you a 4:3 aspect ratio.
    Vilem:
    Personally, I would stay at 1920x1080 - advantage, everything renders in full resolution HD. (Graphics, titles, etc.)
    Me too.  Same reason.

    MC 7.0.4 - Asus P6T Deluxe V2 mobo - Intel i7 920 2.66GHz - Windows 7 Ult64 SP1 - nVidia Quadro FX 1800 - 16 Gbyte low latency DDR3 RAM - Internal 8 Tb... [view my complete system specs]
  • Tue, Mar 25 2014 11:22 PM In reply to

    • Marianna
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Avid
    • Posts 11,521
    • Points 235,025
    • Avid Beta Moderators
      Avid Customer Advocate
      Avid Developer Moderator
      BlogAuthor
      SystemAdministrator

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    jwrl:
    Vilem:
    Personally, I would stay at 1920x1080 - advantage, everything renders in full resolution HD. (Graphics, titles, etc.)
    Me too.  Same reason.

    +1

    Douglas

    Director of CSM | Customer Advocate [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Mar 26 2014 6:15 AM In reply to

    • Vilem
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 10 2010
    • Prague
    • Posts 1,433
    • Points 15,780

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    jwrl:
    Vilem:
    The project used a 1440x1080 square pixels for maintaining the aspect ratio of 16:9.
    Should be 1440x1080 anamorphic pixels, surely?  Square pixels would give you a 4:3 aspect ratio.
    Vilem:
    Personally, I would stay at 1920x1080 - advantage, everything renders in full resolution HD. (Graphics, titles, etc.)
    Me too.  Same reason.

    Of course, lost in translation .. Wink

    V.

    AVID MC2020.12, HP Z620 - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2620, Quadro P2000 - driver 442.50, RAM 48GB - DDR3, BM Intensity Pro 4k - 10.11, W10 - 64bit Professional... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Mar 26 2014 9:05 AM In reply to

    • Peter Beek
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Jun 1 2010
    • Harderwijk Netherlands
    • Posts 77
    • Points 995

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    If your TV is Full HD (1920 * 1080) then you should work also in 1920 * 1080 for the best results.

     

    Peter

    Case : Antec P180. Power : Antec BP500U. Motherboard : Asus P6T deluxe V2. Processor : Intel Core I7 920. Memory : Kingston 8 GB Dimm DR3. Graphic Card... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Mar 26 2014 9:21 AM In reply to

    • Sef
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Maarssen, The Netherlands
    • Posts 1,008
    • Points 13,650

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Thanks for your advice. As I remember, if I use 1440 then the TR (thin raster) is available. But it makes no sense to have that thin raster unles it would produce a better video. I'm not intersted in fast editing. I've time enough....

    Yes, my TV set handles Full HD 1920x1080.

    I will use 1920x1080 in future projects.

    Thanks again.

    MC6.0.5, QT version 7.7.3, AvidFX 6.2(64bit), Squeeze Pro 8.5.0.41, AvidDVD 6.4.4 (still in my system, but I don't use it anymore), Boris Continuum... [view my complete system specs]

  • Wed, Mar 26 2014 9:34 AM In reply to

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    If your source footage is HDV then it is 1440. The option to work 1440 is that retaining that resolution ensures no scaling of the pixels horizontally happens until you choose to do it. The media data is no bigger than it needs to be and media composer can handle the footage easier because it's running native resolution.

    If your project is 1920 then your 1440 sources have to be scaled to fit and if you then make media it's storing more pixels than the original 1440.

    The balance normally is when to convert to 1920 so other non 1440 assets can be introduced withot scaling them down to 1440.

    So many folks just choose to work 1920 straight off. You are then resigned to letting MC do the scaling.

    Ingest edit and output at 1440 and you can use any 3rd party app do the scaling up to 1920 and have more control and potentially better quality. That said if your source is HDV quality isn't really a consideration...

    ACI Moderator. I'm not employed by Avid or work for them. I just do this in my spare time. Normally using the current Media Composer version on My... [view my complete system specs]

     

    Broadcast & Post Production Consultant / Trainer  Avid Certified Instructor VET

     

    QC/QAR Training - Understanding Digital Media - Advanced Files * Compression - Avid Ingest - PSE fixing courses and more

    All bespoke and delivered onsite at yours. Or delivered via hosted Zoom session.

     

    T 07581 201248 | E pat@vet-training.co.uk | W www.vet-training.co.uk |

     

    Filed under:
  • Wed, Mar 26 2014 11:58 AM In reply to

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    For those of us still working with HDV material, one of the issues is space taken up in the AvidMediaFiles folder.  If you capture thin raster HDV, the files are much smaller than if you use DNxHD-145 1920x1080, somewhere around  5 or 10x less size or so. So a one hour tape captured thin raster 1440 HDV only takes about 15 gigs or so, vs. much  more storage space the other way.

    I had one project a while back that was 25 tapes. And with HDV material, you are limited quality wise no matter how you bring the material in.  I don't go to top quality until I do a mixdown of the edited material.

    MC 6.0.4,Gateway FX6800, i7 920 Processor, Windows 10 Pro (upgraded from Win 7 Pro 64 SP1), 6gb Ram, GeForce GT 710 (2gb), 2 JVC HM170U Camcorders, 1 Canon... [view my complete system specs]
  • Thu, Mar 27 2014 12:17 AM In reply to

    • jwrl
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Melbourne, Australia
    • Posts 8,426
    • Points 97,495

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Roger Van Duyn:
    If you capture thin raster HDV, the files are much smaller than if you use DNxHD-145 1920x1080
    Quite true.  And unless you have a really high powered system Avid will perform like a wounded dog.

    HDV or any other long GOP codec is not designed for editing, but for acquisition.  Yes, you get compact files, but at a significant cost in terms of speed.

    MC 7.0.4 - Asus P6T Deluxe V2 mobo - Intel i7 920 2.66GHz - Windows 7 Ult64 SP1 - nVidia Quadro FX 1800 - 16 Gbyte low latency DDR3 RAM - Internal 8 Tb... [view my complete system specs]
  • Thu, Mar 27 2014 6:27 AM In reply to

    • Wm.Busby
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • LA, Cali
    • Posts 377
    • Points 4,405

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    One thing I noticed that was odd (and I asked about here long ago but didn't really get any definitive answer) is in a 1440x1080 project with HDV material and do a mixdown at DNxHD 145TR it doesn't stay 1440x1080, it becomes 1920x1080. It's as if "TR" is ignored altogether.

    HP Z400 (W3520) 2.67 ghz quad core, 12GB ram, Quadro K2000 (Nvidia driver 310.90), Win 7 Pro 64, MC 5.5.3, Quicktime version 7.6.9, KVM switch, dual 20"... [view my complete system specs]

    Forum etiquette rule #1: FILL OUT SYSTEM SPECS IN PROFILE! :)

  • Thu, Mar 27 2014 11:43 PM In reply to

    • jwrl
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Melbourne, Australia
    • Posts 8,426
    • Points 97,495

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Wm.Busby:
    in a 1440x1080 project with HDV material and do a mixdown at DNxHD 145TR it doesn't stay 1440x1080, it becomes 1920x1080.
    How did you determine that?  Did you check the actual media file with something like MediaInfo or Gspot?  It may just be that Avid reports it as 1920x1080 even though it's maintaining the original thin raster format.  I could understand them doing that to minimise potential confusion.

    If Avid decribes 145TR as being equivalent to 185/220 then to be so it would have to maintain the 1.33:1 pixel aspect ratio.

    MC 7.0.4 - Asus P6T Deluxe V2 mobo - Intel i7 920 2.66GHz - Windows 7 Ult64 SP1 - nVidia Quadro FX 1800 - 16 Gbyte low latency DDR3 RAM - Internal 8 Tb... [view my complete system specs]
  • Fri, Mar 28 2014 12:06 AM In reply to

    • Wm.Busby
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • LA, Cali
    • Posts 377
    • Points 4,405

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    I had checked with Media Info, QT info and also AE interprets it as 1920x1080 as well

    HP Z400 (W3520) 2.67 ghz quad core, 12GB ram, Quadro K2000 (Nvidia driver 310.90), Win 7 Pro 64, MC 5.5.3, Quicktime version 7.6.9, KVM switch, dual 20"... [view my complete system specs]

    Forum etiquette rule #1: FILL OUT SYSTEM SPECS IN PROFILE! :)

  • Fri, Mar 28 2014 1:56 AM In reply to

    • jwrl
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Melbourne, Australia
    • Posts 8,426
    • Points 97,495

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    That seems very strange indeed.  It all seems a little pointless, and calls into question what the figures mean in the TR codecs.

    MC 7.0.4 - Asus P6T Deluxe V2 mobo - Intel i7 920 2.66GHz - Windows 7 Ult64 SP1 - nVidia Quadro FX 1800 - 16 Gbyte low latency DDR3 RAM - Internal 8 Tb... [view my complete system specs]
  • Fri, Mar 28 2014 8:26 AM In reply to

    • Sef
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Maarssen, The Netherlands
    • Posts 1,008
    • Points 13,650

    Re: Again: 1920x1080 or 1440x1080

    Pat Horridge:

    If your source footage is HDV then it is 1440.

    Now it is again confusing. My camera (Canon HV20) tells me that it records on HDV 1920x1080. I guess these are pixels. For some reason pixels are important as is also the raster size. What the raster size means, I don't know.

    I capture in the standard way HDV 1080i MXF. I think that for the capture process, it makes no difference? The choice for Project setting 1920 or 1440 leads to a different set of Transoce codecs. Maybe indeed the size of transcoded files will be dependant on the Project setting. I will do some testing on this...

    MC6.0.5, QT version 7.7.3, AvidFX 6.2(64bit), Squeeze Pro 8.5.0.41, AvidDVD 6.4.4 (still in my system, but I don't use it anymore), Boris Continuum... [view my complete system specs]

Page 1 of 3 (39 items) 1 2 3 Next >

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller