Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5215327 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:59:00 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.7] (CPE-72-135-117-181.new.res.rr.com [72.135.117.181]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LkPNz-1VtLEv0UGp-00bXLx; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:12:03 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_536BF3B4-1A5B-429E-A083-5DBD0FB6D44E" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: [AE] posting 720 v. 1080 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:12:07 -0500 References: To: "After Effects Mail List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ZoBKSdB4uVKwETmLOyaBLzMwHIcd6duuZf+eeIsCIHY 36BeD/ba23D+vJ/qUq1mYRs64Qm5yby8HmTbaoGjqYDE8E9jHx 7u0QaPr6opbAEo6uu93fdBnjiSesaxVmuQiuo4uhFQRwzojYWb HLvbEeYPrFHu5RvRNV9hxyAN+mS5Dbo+qFK+aR/HkTcpQ/Thj5 J//6g80QbWCpnzN0O5tC/VxGvXOPuL07PPhErrTehYtiljzCcC o1TP9BXvnQiUGI/KAnUzEiAKbjW7mUlqiC2li9F21BjUZo15i5 XJvbYbXIqZc9bI/YQZKk6XEWSIGIc0l1JaFbk6x5bO13NSY7G2 XMrfGFqPSfsIq4W6i5soBLtImQiJ8ZNSfq3BspiDRaiv+5Yo97 Xc7ePrNNFgFKQ== --Apple-Mail=_536BF3B4-1A5B-429E-A083-5DBD0FB6D44E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 for several years I was all 720 mostly because thats what my camera = shot, as did cameras like HVX-200. then I started getting more 1080 from = my own shoots and external footage coming in.=20 on a G5 it ate 720 pretty easily, about as well as SD but kinda choked = on 1080. enter 8 core intel boxes which handle 1080 just fine. I see no = significant difference between handling 720 vs 1080 at any real level on = this hardware, unless you might be talking 10bit uncompressed... but who = does that any more ? there are decent codecs to choose from, even if = they aren't cross platform as we'd like, you can still work within your = own ecosystem one way or the other ok. I see no additional expense to 1080 vs 720 at all outside of perhaps a = little more drive space which is simply trivial in the big scheme of = things. one reason I did 720 for a long time was simply that most TV sets where = of the 1280 and 1366 variety and simply didn't show full res 1080. that = changed about 5 years ago. Now I couldn't imagine doing 720 for = deliverables. I will on some occasions use 720 from old projects. Using = PP's CUDA scaling in RT its ok, although I probably notice the cameras = are a bit noisy compared to what we now have to shoot with, even dslr's. the reality is that youtube will take 4K. 1080 is 1:1 pixels on most = people's screens these days. iMac 27" ? most consumer sets are a true = 1920X1080 these days being fed from Roku, ATV, computer or cable box.=20 I really find no really go reason to produce 720 content anymore, = especially as we look at 4K shooting & post to deliver 2K / 1080 for = now, and 4K in the near term future of say, 5 years. S On Sep 18, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: > Questions are OK. >=20 > I do 720 for YouTube, because that's what some clients want. >=20 > Onto the broadcast questions=85 >=20 > Shoots are mostly 1080 (XDCAM HD), 2K and 4K (Alexa/KiPro). Some are = P2, which is 960 x 720, squished. =20 > Might have to blow up SD (BSP or DigiBeta to ProRes, most likely) from = time to time. >=20 > Client is small agency, and wants me to choose. They'll pay for 1080, = but I need to justify it. That's why I'm concerned over this idea of 2% = better quality for 35% more expense. >=20 > Here's something else: If I do the MPEG2 encoding (I do, because it's = faster for me to encode, and upload and MPEG2 than it is for me to = upload ProRes422 or DNxHD, which they'll accept), the bit rate they spec = is 45 Mbps-constant. =20 >=20 > So, a 1080 encode should look worse than a 720 encoded at the same bit = rate. >=20 > Maybe that answers my own question. I calculate that by the time I = encode, the difference in a 1080 will be more than 2% better. >=20 > Does that sound right? >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:50 PM, David Baud wrote: >=20 >> I am assuming the video source is 1080, if any? >> First question I will ask is where will you show that spot? >>=20 >> . TV broadcast : 1080 even so some broadcaster might air in 720. = Gives you more option later >> . Internet : 720. Why bother? :-) >>=20 >> I would also take into account the life span of that particular spot, = and trying to keep all your options open for later. Unless money is no = issue :-) >>=20 >> Sorry more questions, than answers. >>=20 >> David Baud >> K O S M O S P R O D U C T i O N S >> david@kosmos-productions.com >> www.kosmos-productions.com >>=20 >> On Sep 18, 2013, at 17:59 , Jim Curtis wrote: >>> If your client let you make the choice between delivering your spots = in 720 or 1080, and they were 30% editing in Pr CC w/CUDA, and 70% moGFX = and color-correcting and finishing in Ae, which would you choose, and = why? >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_536BF3B4-1A5B-429E-A083-5DBD0FB6D44E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 for = several years I was all 720 mostly because thats what my camera shot, as = did cameras like HVX-200. then I started getting more 1080 from my own = shoots and external footage coming in. 

on a G5 = it ate 720 pretty easily, about as well as SD but kinda choked on = 1080.

enter 8 core intel boxes which handle = 1080 just fine. I see no significant difference between handling 720 vs = 1080 at any real level on this hardware, unless you might be talking = 10bit uncompressed... but who does that any more ? there are decent = codecs to choose from, even if they aren't cross platform as we'd like, = you can still work within your own ecosystem one way or the other = ok.

I see no additional expense to 1080 vs 720 = at all outside of perhaps a little more drive space which is simply = trivial in the big scheme of things.

one reason = I did 720 for a long time was simply that most TV sets where of the 1280 = and 1366 variety and simply didn't show full res 1080. that changed = about 5 years ago. Now I couldn't imagine doing 720 for deliverables. I = will on some occasions use 720 from old projects. Using PP's CUDA = scaling in RT its ok, although I probably notice the cameras are a bit = noisy compared to what we now have to shoot with, even = dslr's.

the reality is that youtube will take = 4K. 1080 is 1:1 pixels on most people's screens these days. iMac 27" ? = most consumer sets are a true 1920X1080 these days being fed from Roku, = ATV, computer or cable box. 

I really find = no really go reason to produce 720 content anymore, especially as we = look at 4K shooting & post to deliver 2K / 1080 for now, and 4K in = the near term future of say, 5 = years.

S

On Sep 18, = 2013, at 9:08 PM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:

david.baud@gmail.com> = wrote:

David Baud
K O = S M O S     P R O D U C T i O N = S
<= /span>
david@kosmos-productions.com<= /a>
www.kosmos-productions.com=
jpcurtis@me.com> = wrote:
If your client let you make the = choice between delivering your spots in 720 or 1080, and they were 30% = editing in Pr CC w/CUDA, and 70% moGFX and color-correcting and = finishing in Ae, which would you choose, and = why?



= --Apple-Mail=_536BF3B4-1A5B-429E-A083-5DBD0FB6D44E--