| ||||||||||
| On 09/10/2013, at 8:31 AM, scott.aelist <scott.aelist@gmail.com> wrote: > A client is asking me to deliver a video for video wall made up of 8 HD panels oriented vertically. [][][][][][][][] > They don't seem to know much about delivery specs, but they think they want a 8640x1920. Is this common? I want to send them a test file but I can't even get h264 to do that resolution (i believe it maxes out at 4096?). 8640x1920 would be your composition and working size. As you've mentioned, many video codecs don't go over 4K, and so you're best off to render and work with image sequences. If render times and disk space are tight, you'll probably find that you can work at 75% of that and scale up the end result without any visible artefacts. You'll need to know the playback device and the delivery specs. I don't know of anything that will play back a single 8640x1920 file. They will have to be using something like Watchout, which means you're splitting up your "master" comp back into smaller individual files for it to play back in sync, or some other competing system. If it were 10 years ago you'd be splitting it back into 8 individual 1080x1920 files, but these days computers and drives are faster, and the signal can be split between multiple monitors more easily, so if they have a beefy new system you may only have to split it in half (4320x1920) and give them 2 files- but even that will be problematic as it's still over 4K. Funnily enough Watchout has been optimised for Quicktime animation codec, so it plays back huge uncompressed files better than much smaller compressed ones. If you render a "master" as an image sequence, you can continue working until they tell you exactly how they want the final delivery - just allow a day to split it up, compress it if necessary, and deliver the result. -Chris |
