720x486

[J. Baker]

Ok, I need to render an animation to 720x486. But do I render at 640x480, then resize in a video editor to 720x486? Or do I render at 640x486 then resize in a video editor to 720x486? Thanks

[guns1inger]

Why 486 ?
Is this 720 x 486 with a 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio ?
Does your software do non-square pixels if necessary ?

To do the least amount of damage possible, you should be aiming at outputting to the resolution you require in the first instance, not outputting something else, then resizing and encoding again.

[J. Baker]

No, the software only does square pixels. I need 720x486 because this is what the broadcast company is asking for.

[aedipuss]

what's the format they want it delivered in? codec/bitrate/audio specs?

[J. Baker]

Audio wasn't really said but the video is, quicktime uncompressed at 720x486.

[deadrats]

Ok, I need to render an animation to 720x486. But do I render at 640x480, then resize in a video editor to 720x486? Or do I render at 640x486 then resize in a video editor to 720x486? Thanks

why not just render it in 720x486 to begin with?

[J. Baker]

Because it only renders square pixels.

[guns1inger]

What is the software ?

[J. Baker]

Anime Studio Pro 6

[jagabo]

For 4:3 DAR Render at 720x540 then downsize to 720x486.

[Cornucopia]

For 4:3 DAR Render at 720x540 then downsize to 720x486.

That would be a MAJORLY BAD idea if this is supposed to be interlaced. (It's probably OK if it's progressive)

I suggest:

1. If you can get your software to do it: 640x486 and then horizontal stretch to 720x486.
2. It not: 640x480, horizontal stretch to 720x480, then pad with black 2 pixel lines on top and 4 pixel lines on bottom to get 720x486.

(If you really wanted to be exacting/anal about Aspect Ratio, you would horiz stretch to 704 and pad 8pixels on each side)

Scott

[Alex_ander]

For better understanding where those 486 come from.
In analog NTSC video signal an interlaced frame has 485 active image lines (in odd+even fields). Digitizing by ITU's standards makes a 4:3 image sampled so, that 711 horizontal pixels of 720 correspond to active line length and together with those 485 (rounded to 486) would correspond to 4:3 AR. But actually only 480 of 486 (by the standard) are stored in digital form (the rest pixels are cropped off and lost). So the 4:3 AR is represented in digital form as 704x480 (the visible 711x480 part of just captured video is no more 4:3) inside 720x480 stored samples.
If that company demands 720x486, then they probably have some advanced equipment capable of using (in final analog form) the usually lost part of digital image (lines up to 485). Some improvement if aimed at displays without overscan. Then they probably expect an image without (at least) horizontal borders. Keeping within ITU (by sample frequency), that would mean something like stretching the original 4:3 video to 712 x 486 with vertical (4+4) borders complementing to 720x486. So if the original video is progressive, then such resizing will be safe. If interlaced and any problems with IVTC, resize it just horizontally to 704x480 and add borders 8+8 left/right and 2+4 up/down.

[jagabo]

For 4:3 DAR Render at 720x540 then downsize to 720x486.

That would be a MAJORLY BAD idea if this is supposed to be interlaced. (It's probably OK if it's progressive)

To get interlaced video render progressive at 720x540 at double the frame rate. Then pull fields out of the frames and weave them together. In AviSynth:

BilinearResize(720,486)
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4,0,3)
Weave()

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, that (what jagabo just wrote) would be a good alternative, too.

Scott

[jagabo]

Generally, downsizing from 720x540 will get you better results than upsizing from 640x486. But there are some exceptions.

[J. Baker]

Cool, thanks for the suggestions.