Speaking of resolution, what about fps?

Just let it all out, buddy. You're among friends here.
Post Reply
User avatar
DrMazoola
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 19:18
Location: SF

Speaking of resolution, what about fps?

Post by DrMazoola »

The last show I got lazy -- no, wait: I was under deadline pressure; that sounds better ;) -- and I tried to get away without converting a number of clips to MJPEG/400x300. In brief, that tore 2.1 a new one; I finally had to uninstall 2.1 and install 2.0 in the middle of the show...

...and at the moment I'm busy converting clips.

In the past, I've converted to MJPEG/400x300/30fps, but I was wondering if I really need to standardize frame rates. I understand that 400x300 allows 800x600 output to be scaled in hardware very efficiently, but I don't see how any similar gain would be achieved by changing framerate. In fact, when working with a source clip of < 30fps, it would seem to me to have the opposite effect by increasing the size of the video file unnecessarily. In any case, I find I often play back clips at a higher or lower speed than they were recorded.

Bart? Edwin?

User avatar
bart
Team Resolume
Posts: 2239
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:01
Location: Resolume HQ

Post by bart »

files rendered at 30 fps are a little bit slower then 25 fps because they require more data from the disk but if your computer can handle it go for it. the xtra 5 frames per second can give it a bit smoother look.

Post Reply