I'm going 1920x1200, but...
Monday, May 7, 2007 by TheMasterBaron | Discussion: Animated Wallpapers
Well I got my new 24" monitor that does 1920x1200 so I'm going to start doing my dreams in that resolution. I realize that my current 1600x1200 dreams already tax lots of machines, so I'm thinking about pulling double duty by posting both a hi-res and low-res versions of my dreams.
I'm thinking about doing a 1920x1200@30fps in WMV format and a 1152x720@24fps using MPEG2. The low-res MPEG2 version would only be availiable in my gallery as I don't want to fill up the public dream list with duplicate looking dreams.
What is the maximum .dream files size I can upload? All of my MPEG2 attemps has resulted in very large dream sizes, but if the upload file size limit is large enough, I thought I would upload low-res MPEG2 versions for people who have slower PCs and smaller displays.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Master Baron
I'm thinking about doing a 1920x1200@30fps in WMV format and a 1152x720@24fps using MPEG2. The low-res MPEG2 version would only be availiable in my gallery as I don't want to fill up the public dream list with duplicate looking dreams.
What is the maximum .dream files size I can upload? All of my MPEG2 attemps has resulted in very large dream sizes, but if the upload file size limit is large enough, I thought I would upload low-res MPEG2 versions for people who have slower PCs and smaller displays.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Master Baron
NGTV
Reply #2 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:19 AM
Reply #2 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:19 AM
I'm offering hi-res links seperately on a high-speed mirror database.
So far I've managed to avoid the agony that is 1080 in 16:9, but I don't know how long I'll be able to last.
BTW, WMV on a resolution that high is suicide. Better use MPEG2, as you're already going big, you might as well get even bigger.
As for lower rezzes, you might as well use WMV since it saves more space.
So far I've managed to avoid the agony that is 1080 in 16:9, but I don't know how long I'll be able to last.
BTW, WMV on a resolution that high is suicide. Better use MPEG2, as you're already going big, you might as well get even bigger.
As for lower rezzes, you might as well use WMV since it saves more space.
TheMasterBaron
Reply #3 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Reply #3 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Thanks NGTV,
Perhaps the way to go is to post low-res versions, and providing the hi-res versions in my gallery.
What MPEG encoder are you using? My MPEG2 encoder will not let me encode above 1080, so I'm stuck using WMV for now.
The reason I was going to use MPEG2 for the low-res versions was to boost performance even more and still have smaller video sizes.
Perhaps the way to go is to post low-res versions, and providing the hi-res versions in my gallery.
What MPEG encoder are you using? My MPEG2 encoder will not let me encode above 1080, so I'm stuck using WMV for now.
The reason I was going to use MPEG2 for the low-res versions was to boost performance even more and still have smaller video sizes.
NGTV
Reply #4 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:38 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:38 PM
MPEG2 expands video sizes a LOT.
I'm using TMPEGEnc as it's the only one that can be customized to have different resolutions.
As for WMV, set the quality settings to VBR constrained, then CPU load will fall too.
I'm using TMPEGEnc as it's the only one that can be customized to have different resolutions.
As for WMV, set the quality settings to VBR constrained, then CPU load will fall too.
00NukE
Reply #5 Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:40 PM
Reply #5 Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:40 PM
hey why not stick to default hd resolutions smaller sizes less cpu use and 1280x720 or 1920x1080 both scale well and look good at 1920x1200 and above.
I have found from past experience the render time and file size that ie. 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 will not really give you any better results.
I love the work you have been posting you should try as an experiment at the res MS and Stardock recommend 1280x720 I would be interested to see the size cpu use and quality.
I have in the past re encoded some of your work for my own machine and can get file size small cpu low and quality good considering I have to decode and then re encode.
Thanx for all your cool dreams I do like
keep it up gets better everytime.
00NukE
I have found from past experience the render time and file size that ie. 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 will not really give you any better results.
I love the work you have been posting you should try as an experiment at the res MS and Stardock recommend 1280x720 I would be interested to see the size cpu use and quality.
I have in the past re encoded some of your work for my own machine and can get file size small cpu low and quality good considering I have to decode and then re encode.
Thanx for all your cool dreams I do like
keep it up gets better everytime.00NukE
TheMasterBaron
Reply #6 Wednesday, May 9, 2007 2:54 PM
Reply #6 Wednesday, May 9, 2007 2:54 PM
00Nuke,
Thanks for your feedback.
What I dislike about standard HD resolutions (16:9) is they don't match computer LCD resolutions (8:5). a 1920x1080 needs to be stretched taller to 1920x1200 or scaled bigger to 2134x1200. Same with 1280x720, it doesn't scale evenly into 1440x900 LCD monitors. While some of my dreams are abstract and can be stretched to fill the screen, some others aren't meant to be stretched.
My recent MPEG2 creations seem to be giving people issues, so maybe I'll make them standard resolutions with the hope of not crashing dreamscene with them.
Thanks for your feedback.
What I dislike about standard HD resolutions (16:9) is they don't match computer LCD resolutions (8:5). a 1920x1080 needs to be stretched taller to 1920x1200 or scaled bigger to 2134x1200. Same with 1280x720, it doesn't scale evenly into 1440x900 LCD monitors. While some of my dreams are abstract and can be stretched to fill the screen, some others aren't meant to be stretched.
My recent MPEG2 creations seem to be giving people issues, so maybe I'll make them standard resolutions with the hope of not crashing dreamscene with them.
00NukE
Reply #7 Friday, May 11, 2007 7:22 AM
Reply #7 Friday, May 11, 2007 7:22 AM
Hi Baron
yeah point taken on the stretched aspect and 16.9 16.10 aspects it is difficult,was just a thought as some peoples machines as you mentioned do seem to have probs but it is early days still and we are still in preview
Thanx for reply, good work still at any resolution in my book.
Just noticed you have some more dreams posted been a little busy lately but hope to get and download they look good
Thanx for reply speak soon
00NukE
yeah point taken on the stretched aspect and 16.9 16.10 aspects it is difficult,was just a thought as some peoples machines as you mentioned do seem to have probs but it is early days still and we are still in preview
Thanx for reply, good work still at any resolution in my book.
Just noticed you have some more dreams posted been a little busy lately but hope to get and download they look good
Thanx for reply speak soon
00NukE
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Monday, May 7, 2007 10:37 PM