AMV Size

[Kai Stromler]

O EM GEE!!!

So many sizes to choose from...well here's a related question...

If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well? Cuz I really need it so WMM can stop freezing on me.

There is a balance between screensize, filesize, and quality. Basically, you get two of three.

If you want a large screensize and good quality, the file is going to be frickin hyuuge.
If you want a large screensize but a small filesize, the video is going to look like crap.
If you want good quality in a small filesize, the screensize is going to be smaller.

Of course, with a smaller screensize than the source materials is going to be losing picture information, but there is this thing human brains do called closure that makes compression codecs work, and the same principle applies to downsized screens.

hth,

--K

[Keeper of Hellfire]

..., and 848 by 480 for 16:9.

That's something I never would do - enlarge the vid (even if a DVD player exactly does this). So for 16:9 I would end up around 720x400.

[Ileia]

O EM GEE!!!

So many sizes to choose from...well here's a related question...

If the size of your amv is smaller...will the file be smaller as well? Cuz I really need it so WMM can stop freezing on me.

There is a balance between screensize, filesize, and quality. Basically, you get two of three.

If you want a large screensize and good quality, the file is going to be frickin hyuuge.
If you want a large screensize but a small filesize, the video is going to look like crap.
If you want good quality in a small filesize, the screensize is going to be smaller.

Of course, with a smaller screensize than the source materials is going to be losing picture information, but there is this thing human brains do called closure that makes compression codecs work, and the same principle applies to downsized screens.

hth,

--K

I think it's possible to have all three of those comfortably, though that's pretty friggin' difficult and most of us aren't NEARLY there yet.

[Otohiko]

I wouldn't say 66mb is small for a 3:52 AMV...

Actually, I could pimp my better-known 7.5 minute video that looks good at 720x360, while being only 70mb in size, but I won't. Plus it's actually fairly explainable due to the semi-static nature of many of its' sections

[Ileia]

I wouldn't say 66mb is small for a 3:52 AMV...

I'd say it's a happy medium for the quality and size of the video.

[Otohiko]

Oh, I'm not arguing. It's certainly more than a fair deal for the crisp visuals of that little vid

[Arigatomina]

As a dial-up user, I naturally prefer videos that are reasonably compressed. This means the smallest resolution possible without having pixellation problems, usually 480x352.

When I download a high quality 98mb 640x480 video, I run it through VirtualDub with a light filter (just in case), resize to 480x352, and get an xvid 1st pass encode at 60mbs or less and little noticeable change in visual quality (to my admittedly un-professional eyes). That's the only way I'd keep these vids. I don't buy enough cdrs to store 100mbs per 3 minute amv (7 'perfect' vids per cdr) when I could have 17 'great' vids instead.

It seems to be a 'local' issue. People upload the highest quality version under the 100mb cap, for the sake of storage and posterity. Whether or not today's 'casual' viewers can download that huge video, or watch the insanely high bitrate without the computer crapping itself, is a moot point.

[[Mike of the Desert]]

I generally prefer to have a vertical resolution of greater than 400.

x2

[Beowulf]

Who could possibly give a shit about how good your compression is. Once you reach a critical threshold (that 90% of the videos nowadays reach) the difference is negligable to both the eye and to the server.

Wank.
Wank.
Wank.

[Scintilla]

Who could possibly give a shit about how good your compression is. Once you reach a critical threshold (that 90% of the videos nowadays reach) the difference is negligable to both the eye and to the server.

That depends on whose eye you're talking about.

Personally, my eye for video quality has improved a lot in the two years I've been making AMVs.
Whenever I go to Cyanna's house and see cartoons playing on the big-screen HDTV in her basement, the first thing I notice is always the mosquito noise around all the edges.
It can be the same way with videos. I find blocks and artifacts distracting (not to mention ugly after a certain point), and I'm sure other people do too, and so I'd prefer to minimize distractions in my own videos.

Plus, if I have to pay for my own bandwidth, you'd better believe I'm going to try to squeeze every last bit of quality out of every [insert unit of data here].

Plus, I've come to enjoy the postprocessing process: it's nice to see the videos look better (and cut down the filesize), and it's fun to experiment with new filters and functions.
Especially when you have a video that just will not compress nicely, like I had earlier this month; it becomes a challenge of sorts.


And I highly doubt that 90% of the videos nowadays reach that threshold you're thinking of.
There are still a lot of people here who do not read the how-to guides, you know. Many of those people upload crappy-looking WMV files (or crappy-looking AVIs, or whatever) because they don't know better. I've seen plenty even in the past year.