• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch A N T S : A Youtube Resolution Experiment

rayw

rayw

I'm monkeying around with my NLE saving settings for resolution specifically to look for any differences between 1024x576 and 400x225.

I've noticed it takes about ~24hours for the full quality of a youtube upload to kick in.
Maybe I'm just silly in the head, but the resolution on fresh uploads look like dooky and a day later they look "better".

Whatever.

So, that aside, I'm just tinkering with my toys learning the throughput choke points.

A N T S - (TV Wide 1024x576)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQKmghN2PXQ

A N T S - (Youtube Wide 400x225)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBNd1s2Ni4

Alright... Those look about the same to me. (I'm looking at these on a 5yo CRT monitor, nothing special).
Anyone else seeing any resolution difference?
 
Last edited:
For information's sake: I watched it on an LG 50" plasma with the resolution at 1024x768 and they looked similar to me.

Did you shoot this? Were you using a macro lens?
 
Okay, I bumped my resolution up to 1920x1080 and thats where I saw some difference. Mainly in the lettering. The second was more blocky. It was hard to tell on the rest because there was a lot of movement/out of focus areas. But the second did seem to be more pixalated(is that a word) in the out of focus areas.
 
Last edited:
Murdock said:
Did you shoot this? Were you using a macro lens?
Click to expand...
Yes, and No. Just the camera's OEM lens: Video: f = 49.7 to 497 mm (35 mm equiv.)

Murdock said:
It was hard to tell on the rest because there was a lot of movement/out of focus areas. But the second did seem to be more pixalated(is that a word) in the out of focus areas.
Click to expand...
Yeah... sorry about that.
It was just as much an experiment on that part as well. Lighting wasn't helping me much, either.

I'm hoping to get to know my equipment (in all my spare time) well enough to eyeball the situation to determine settings more than depending upon the sh!tty little 2.7" display.

What things look like on the LED display in the sunlight or in the dark and on your whoppin' 50" plasma @ 1920x1080 are two entirely different planets.

I want to be able to go "When I see THIS, I need to do THAT".

Thank you for your effort and reporting your observations.

And YES! Pixelated is a legit word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pixelated


Nate North said:
I can see a clear difference. look at the brightness over the rail, and the shadows of the bumps.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir.

Is that on a semi-normal computer monitor, super duper hi-res monitor, or something like Murdock's 50" mini-jumbotron?

If I'm doing this for Joe Blow to watch on yoobtube is there a material difference between the 28KB YouTube Wide and the 84KB TV Wide file that I upload? Or frankly, they both look pretty much the same with no big whoopeedoo difference?


Nate North said:
Most can't tell the difference between something filmed with one lens or another, but when you add 20 of these imperceptible 1% improvements on top of one another, you're suddenly looking at the difference between amateur hour and Philip Bloom.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
And thank you.
 
Last edited:
It's a good monitor, but just 24 inch. I didn't full-screen. Took me a second to spot the difference, average viewer probably wouldn't see any difference.

The thing about film quality is that you win ground an inch at the time. Just because someone doesn't consciously notice these small differences doesn't mean they don't add up.

Lenses are a great example. Most can't tell the difference between something filmed with one lens or another, but when you add 20 of these imperceptible 1% improvements on top of one another, you're suddenly looking at the difference between amateur hour and Philip Bloom.
 
rayw said:
I'm monkeying around with my NLE saving settings for resolution specifically to look for any differences between 1024x576 and 400x225.

I've noticed it takes about ~24hours for the full quality of a youtube upload to kick in.
Maybe I'm just silly in the head, but the resolution on fresh uploads look like dooky and a day later they look "better".

Whatever.

So, that aside, I'm just tinkering with my toys learning the throughput choke points.

A N T S - (TV Wide 1024x576)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQKmghN2PXQ

A N T S - (Youtube Wide 400x225)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBNd1s2Ni4

Alright... Those look about the same to me. (I'm looking at these on a 5yo CRT monitor, nothing special).
Anyone else seeing any resolution difference?
Click to expand...

WOW!
Fcuk resolution difference, man... It's great!
The best ants' choreography I've ever seen :D
Well done!
 
Definitely a noticeable difference. Difficult to see a difference, because of so much blur (and motion). But in the few places in which something is actually in focus, yeah, big difference (watched on 25" 1080p HD monitor).
 
Kinglis -
Thank you for your clarification.

I prefer animals to people.
People scare me.
Animals I can predict. People? Pfft! Good luck!


Michael & CF -
Thank you, as well.
Apologies for the gross absence of focus.
It's a pukey little 2.7 LED monitor in the shadows of the parking garage. I couldn't hardly see sh!t.

Agreed. Not the best possible test of resolution.
I'll try some flowers and bees next time, but i think I understand that it's largely my POS standard monitor at home that's keeping me from noticing any difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top