General Category > General Anim8or Forum

render resolution question

<< < (5/7) > >>

cooldude234:

--- Quote from: slex on July 31, 2016, 10:59:34 pm --- but I guess the difference should be only visible on printers and ultra HD monitors.
72ppi is the optimal value which works great for pixel density of average computer monitors. I don't have ultra HD monitor so can't tell the difference, but if someone does I'd like to hear that, just render some image in 4K resolution with anti anti-aliasing and save them in BMP and PNG format for comparison.

--- End quote ---

Well once again the DPI of an image doesn't matter when your viewing those images on a computer (because you can scale them up or down in real-time). You could set the dpi on the image to be 23408329084 if you wanted to and it would look the same on your computer as long as the output resolution is the same.
Also DPI was term coined for printing, and PPI was a term coined for computer monitors. Both values work pretty much the same but they both refer to something slightly different.

As for the codec I was using. I used Nvidia's hardware encoder/decoder with their hvenc codec through the terrible mp4 container format at 4k 60fps with the quality ratio set to a 100.
Doing the math

3810x2160 at 8 bits per channel at 3 colour channels (which is 24 bits for all channels)
24 x 3810 x 2160 = 197510400 bits per image
197510400  / 8 (convert to bytes)
24688800 / 1000 (convert to kilobytes)
24688.8 / 1000 (convert to mega bytes)
= 24.6888 mega bytes

Now we have 60 of these for each second and we have 60 seconds in a minute so...
60 * 60 = 3600
Multiply how many frames we have by how much each frame is...
24.6888 * 3600 = 88879.68 megabytes
88879.68 / 1024 (converting to gigabytes)
= 86.7965625 Gigabytes

Now of course that would be purely lossless and the Nvenc codec was using a variable bit rate with pbuffers and more so if nothing changed in the image in any part it wouldn't have the need to update it so it wouldn't store data for it. On top of that it still was slightly compressing it as a whole. So a 10 gig file over a 86 gig one is still pretty good.
The only codec I've seen come close to quality and space was with the xvid codec where with the same settings I could make that a 2 gig file (but its really process intensive where as Nvenc isn't nearly as intensive).

Trust me, when you are dealing with high quality video expect to deal with the file size that comes with it. I mean if you think about it most bluray movies are about 40 gigs in size and that's at only 1080 at 30 frames a second.

Alpha2:
I wrestled with a lot of codecs early on trying to get one that wouldn't glitch out or get massacred in the Youtube compression. The Xvid Codec has been pretty good to me for at least 720p at 24 or 30 frames (720pHD profile, single pass) the clarity has always been pretty good for a fair size and reasonable rendering time, But then again I don't use many lights and have never rendered at 60 frames per second in .95, now I kinda want to give it a shot and see if it holds up.

cooldude234:

--- Quote from: Alpha2 on August 02, 2016, 03:12:11 am ---I wrestled with a lot of codecs early on trying to get one that wouldn't glitch out or get massacred in the Youtube compression.
--- End quote ---

As someone who deals with codecs on almost a daily basis, I can tell you they're a pain in the rear and extremely difficult to get working correctly in the way you want; even for an advanced user. So don't feel bad if you are having troubles with them :P

Also Xvid codec works extremely well at higher resolutions (4k and beyond), but it just gets way to taxing on CPU resources to decode all that wonderfully compressed data in real-time. IE quality vs size is superb but performance is meh.
So I really like it as an archival compression method.

daniel99:
I had to make some prints for a company few years back, and I've noticed there's amazing quality even with  150dpi for huge banners and prints. Always check antialiased when rendering, though.
I also had no problem rendering videos at 4K resolution with anim8or.
Unfortunately, it seems the max resolution for textures is same as the max resolution for renders 4096x4096.
Sometimes I create my textures as 8192x8192, and I have to size it down to 50% to be able to load it in anim8or.

Overall, anim8or proved to be the perfect choice in every situation for me :)

Steve:
Anim8or limits the render size to 4X by 4K. I'll look into increasing this, hopefully without hitting any kind of other limits.

Anim8or limits texture sizes to the OpenGL max for the graphics card, which is a minimum of 4K by 4K. To see what the limits of your card are, run Anim8or form a command line with the parameter -traceinit and look for the line with GL_MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE. On my computer it's 16384.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page