Question on 320x240 rendering

Jeff Waters wrote on 2/13/2006, 4:48 AM

Hi All,

My captured video comes in at 720x480. If I want to render to the web at smaller dimensions, 360x240 would seem logical.

The wmv 512 template, however, is set for 320x240. I've noticed that same thing in some other applications, too.

Is there some special reason for using a different multiple on the 1st dimension for web delivery?

Thanks!
Jeff

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 2/13/2006, 8:21 AM

You could use 360x240 if you set the PAR to 0.9091. This would more closely resemble the source than 320x240 will. However, i wouldn't trust most media players to apply the PAR correctly so you'd probably end up with short & fat people.

When starting with DV source i often render to 328x240 PAR 1.0 as this very closely matches the original source. 327 would be better, but most formats require the sizes to be multiples of 8.

johnmeyer wrote on 2/13/2006, 11:32 AM

And just to be totally clear, Jeff, if perhaps you didn't know, or haven't figured it out:

PAR = Pixel Aspect Ratio

Pixels can be square or rectangular. When you change from showing video using rectangular pixels to showing it on a device that displays square pixels, you need to adjust things or circles will look like ellipses and people will suddenly gain or lose a lot of weight or height.