As I started my new project I was wondering if you guys actually use our projects in Full HD? yes I know it’s always better to make in full HD because you can always downsize, but bigger rez makes bigger comps and make all the render process incredible slow. Even if you add the HD and SD render comps they’re still resized full HD comps and it takes almost forever to render them. Especially in complicated projects. So is it worth to wait extra time to be able to use this in Full HD or maybe not?
I can’t stand 1920×1080. HD broadcast quality is all 720p/1080i. With a 50” LCD , most people from 10 feet away can’t really even see much difference. If I had a choice, I’d take everything in 1280×720.
I’ve never done anything in HD in my life and won’t for quite a few years…. in fact I’ve never done a single HD render, ever… when I click “Make Movie” I down res it to “Half” setting (920×540 or whatever)... as long as it’s 920? wide or so that’s fine as far as I need, since my stuff is for either standard-res 720×480 ntsc dvds, or internet/web video, which I won’t make wider than 920 pixels or so..
I think unfortunately we’re just going to have to get used to it. I was working at a design studio the last year and almost every single thing we did had to be 1920×1080. Even if it didn’t immediately have to be full HD, a lot of clients would want it that way just in case. If you start in SD, and do end up needing it HD, you pretty much have to redo the whole project. In fact a few jobs were redoing a project in HD because the last studio did it in SD.
It seems like maybe here, it wouldn’t be quite as big an issue, but it seems better to future-proof files, because once everything is HD, all SD files will be completely useless.
I’ve never done anything in HD in my life and won’t for quite a few years…. in fact I’ve never done a single HD render, ever… when I click “Make Movie” I down res it to “Half” setting (920×540 or whatever)... as long as it’s 920? wide or so that’s fine as far as I need, since my stuff is for either standard-res 720×480 ntsc dvds, or internet/web video, which I won’t make wider than 920 pixels or so.. -k
Same here Ken, but HD whenever a client ask for it
Seems like a lot of the most popular files are 1920×1080. So there appears to be a decent market for it. I’m sure a lot of downsampling happens, but the full-res seems to be selling fairly well really.
I guess most stuff on here isn’t used at full HD, but it’s better to have too much than too little.
Recently, much of the post work I do has gone over to being HD. Even if it’s not required, clients are keeping one eye on the future. Anyway, a decent hardware set-up can handle it these days pretty much without blinking.
I also think we’ll be seeing standard definition stuff around for many years to come. There’s tons of TV in standard definition that’s going to be aired for decades to come. It won’t become obsolete. Maybe more of a cool retro look.
The only real problem is the slowness of AE. I just rendered a 1920×1080p project that lasted only one minute but took 4 hours to render (6 lights in use, etc). I’m currently on an i7 @ 3.8Ghz with 12GB of 1600Mhz DDR -3. You can’t really do much better than that without jumping up to an expensive work station. The difference between 720p and 1080p can often mean hours of render time. But, the real problem is how much a complicated project slows down your edit time. 12GB does help a lot even though AE CS4 is only a 32 bit application. Each core render thread of AE can use 2GB of RAM , and 12GB will peak at max usage within seconds of starting a render.
No way around it though – 1920×1080p. Here’s hoping CS5 has a nice speed boost.
right, agree re unfortunately it’s likely best to continue providing aeps in HD to “future-proof” the designs (great phrase there you used, sc, agree)...