1440 vs. 1920: Some quick questions.

Eric Boellner

Eric Boellner

Well-known member
Okay, first of all, hello guys! I'm new here as you can see by the next-to-nonexistent post count. I hate making my entrance on a forum by asking questions, but it feels presumptuous to make said entrance by giving answers.

Either way, now that we've kissed, let's f..k.

I spent about an hour and a half to two hours reading through a large number of topics and posts, and even used the quite helpful search engine on the site (as per the suggestion in the guidelines). I found the below-linked topic, but it was kind of parallel to my question, rather than the same.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?85271-Upressing-1440-to-1920&highlight=1440

Anyway, I'm wondering several things:

- I believe 1440x1080 resolution causes (or has or whatever) the pixels to be square, whereas 1920x1080 are round. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Is there a noticeable difference between the two? That is, if I upload a video to YouTube with 1080p HD as an available playing selection, will it look any different if the resolution is 1440x1080 vs. 1920x1080?

What about if I project it on a theater screen? I'm assuming there is probably a huge difference and I just don't see it.

- In Vegas Platinum 9, the .wmv file output only renders up to 1440, not full 1920 HD. This is the main reason I ask, because the only way I've been able to get full 1920 is to use something like .mov or .avi, and regardless of the compression settings I toy with, the files always come out huge (I think the biggest was 7gb for 1min of full HD video... it won't even play seamlessly on my computer).

I tried to find any kind of compression setting or output file-type that would give me full 1920x1080p HD files but without making them impossibly large, but nothing seems to work.

So yeah, if anyone has an idea of how to render small, full-HD (1920x1080p) files from Sony Vegas Platinum 9, that would be great. And aside from that, if anyone knows what kind of a difference 1440x1080 would make from 1920x1080, that would also be very helpful and much appreciated!

Thanks!
Michael

Looking forward to chilling here!
 
welcome!


what camera are you using?

also, just to clarify, 1440 pixels are rectangular, 1920 pixels are square.

i also use Platinum 9 and i render 1920x1080 all the time, so i'm curious as to why you can't do it in less than 7GB. once we find out what camera/footage you are using, we can better assist.

cheers
 
Thanks, Chris. I'm using the Rebel T2i, currently.

Chris Light said:
...also, just to clarify, 1440 pixels are rectangular, 1920 pixels are square.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, maybe that was what I heard. Haha, thanks.

Yes, I'm not sure why my file sizes are so large. What file output and compression settings do you use for yours?
 
i usually render .wmv on "Bit Rate VBR Peak" setting, and i set the bitrate at 10Mbs minimum, 15Mbs Max....i usually end up with about a 150MB file for a 2 minute video at 1920x1080. 75-100MB per minute is what i aim for. Harddrive space isn't a big deal in my case, i'll just buy more drives!
 
Michael Traven said:
Thanks, Chris. I'm using the Rebel T2i, currently.



Ah, yes, maybe that was what I heard. Haha, thanks.

Yes, I'm not sure why my file sizes are so large. What file output and compression settings do you use for yours?
Click to expand...

What editor are you using? I typically render to HQ DIVX or XVID for upload (about 50MB / minute 720p) Comes out very clean.

Also, 1080i (1440x1080) is an interlaced format, where it shows double the half frames, meaning 1080 60i is 1440x1080 pixels at 60 half frame samples per second = 30 full frames a second. 1080i is rectangular and stretched to a full 1920x1080 or resolved down to 720p on certain televisions.

1080p is a full 1920x1080 and resolves 24 or 30 full progressive frames per second (progressive meaning full pictures, not half).

Most Final Cut Pro users render to Quicktime for similar results.
 
Oh snap! As usually happens, this turned out to be a n00b mistake. I was confused, because I couldn't find "Bit Rate VBR Peak" in the drop down compression settings, which is what I thought you were talking about. It turns out there's a little "Custom" button to control the render settings with, that I had apparently missed for the past 7 or 8 months of using SVP9.

Hahaha, thanks so much, man! I just rendered a 30-second clip and it came out at 37.2mb. I can't tell you how awesome that is after months of confusion and getting lost in Sony's help files. <grin>
 
Didn't bother to look that you posted this in the Vegas forum... Glad I use Vegas! Glad you found something that worked. You don't have to necessarily render at 100% either, you can try pushing the quality down to 90% and you shouldn't really see too much of a difference except for file size.
 
Okay, sweet. This may be a stupid question, but where would I tinker with the quality, per se? Would I just drop the avg and peak bit rates down a bit, or is it something totally different?
 
Michael Traven said:
Okay, sweet. This may be a stupid question, but where would I tinker with the quality, per se? Would I just drop the avg and peak bit rates down a bit, or is it something totally different?
Click to expand...

Every seting is different depending on which codec you are outputting to. Just mess with it, render, and compare. Depending on what your final intentions are for delivery, it really all depends.
 
Cool beans. Yeah, I'll probably toy with some customizations of .mov and .avi as well and see what works best. Thanks for the advice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top