Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Film resolutions (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=11651" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Film resolutions (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Film resolutions <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Schitzoboy
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Yes
Insane since: Feb 2001

posted posted 05-01-2002 07:52

Have you ever seen one of those making of shows about 3D movies? I think once I heard that a certain scene was rendered at like 9hrs a frame even on an enormous render farm. I thought that was kinda slow considering that scanline rendering was used instead of pure raytracing, but then I remebered I have absolutely no clue what resolution these images are? I would assume they're insanely high and in that case 9hrs wouldn't be bad at all.

So lets say I wanted to make a feature film for the big screen. What resolution woud I have to render to?

Skaarjj
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: :morF
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 08:55

1750...at least <----i don't actually nkow this...I felt like saying it, but it wouldn't be far off



Koan 63:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 09:06

I've wondered this myself. All I've found out is that a *DVD* has a resolution of about 720 by something.

Schitzoboy
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Yes
Insane since: Feb 2001

posted posted 05-01-2002 09:16

1750 by what?

maybe 1750 x 720? thats a wierd ratio though

[This message has been edited by Schitzoboy (edited 05-01-2002).]

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 09:49

Yes, that resolution would be ideal for movies about very very short fat people.

Schitzoboy
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Yes
Insane since: Feb 2001

posted posted 05-01-2002 10:25

I found this page: http://www.softimage.com/community/xsi/discuss/Archives/3d.archive.9805/msg01155.htm

which mentions the resolution 2048x1536, don't know if thats a standard or anything though

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 10:50

Probably not for movies. Movies don't typically have a 4:3 aspect ratio, they're usually longer than that.

Hmm, maybe that resolution you mentioned earlier actually *is* correct.

Schitzoboy
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Yes
Insane since: Feb 2001

posted posted 05-01-2002 10:58

isn't widescreen 2:1 or is it something like 1:Phi ? I think 4:3 is TV ratio. You'd think this tidbit of info would be easy to find.

[This message has been edited by Schitzoboy (edited 05-01-2002).]

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 13:21

There are at least a couple of different widescreen aspect ratios. I'm not sure what any of them are.

Skaarjj
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: :morF
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 15:55

4:3 is TV, wide-screen TV is 16:9, Projection Film is 18:9...I think. I'm sure about hte first two, but the last one is kinda half-remembered



Koan 63:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Das
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Houston(ish) Texas
Insane since: Jul 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 18:14

Digital special effects are normally rendered at '4K' film resolution, or 4096 x 3112 (the numbers can vary a bit with different equipment and different 'formats' - some films are more 'widescreen' than others).

Here's a chart I found: http://www.cinesite.com/CineonTech/resoultions/ResChart.html

Edit: note that 4096x3112 is about 16x the number of pixels as a 1024x768 image.





[This message has been edited by Das (edited 05-01-2002).]

Schitzoboy
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Yes
Insane since: Feb 2001

posted posted 05-01-2002 19:11

thanks DAS! Thats what I was looking for. I also found this when I was looking for raios:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

Slime
Lunatic (VI) Mad Scientist

From: Massachusetts, USA
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-01-2002 21:12

Hmm... POV-Ray could render a single frame of a really nice looking animation in about a month.

Das
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Houston(ish) Texas
Insane since: Jul 2000

posted posted 05-02-2002 20:34

Also keep in mind that resolution is only part of the picture, so to speak. Movie special effects also require much much higher texture resolution and polygon counts.

The model for Godzilla in the 1998 film by the same name used about a million polygons, and 380MB of texture maps (source). Rendering that would be difficult for most home PCs. You'd need at least a GB of RAM to render without disk thrash.

A good special effects house also customizes both the modeling package and the render package with a whole mess of in-house add-ins (shaders, muscle systems, etc.).

[This message has been edited by Das (edited 05-02-2002).]

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 05-03-2002 06:09

good point das. also keep in mind that rarely are things like film shots rendered in one past. there's different passes for the object, highlights, shadows, reflections, etc., then those are all comped together and tweaked in after effects or another compositor.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Das
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Houston(ish) Texas
Insane since: Jul 2000

posted posted 05-04-2002 04:55

Yep. That's kind of fun to play with, actually. Quite a while back I posted a rendering-in-passes experiment I did with some billiard-like balls in a room.

A nice benefit to doing that on hobby graphics is that you can radically change the 'rendering' in Photoshop, by changing the individual layers (one for shadow, one for color, one for reflection, etc.)

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu