Lowest Acceptable Resolution

Hi,

I was wondering what is the lowest resolution I should have for an image to be good enough on a 50" TV screen? I would like it to be a decent quality (DVD?) and not pixilated. It will never be printed.

Thank you.

Matching the native resolution of your TV screen will be optimum (I think I'm correct in stating that).

It won't be a big resolution.

I'm not certain... but isn't what you see with the resolution on your computer screen pretty much what you get on the television, too?

480x640 is usually the standard 4:3.
Anything 720x Anything (say using Premiere or FCPro) should be more than enough.
The real trick is on the Aspect Size, and the Compression.

Best of luck.

I agree with Pete....

It will depend on the TV itself and the format (PAL/SECAM/NTSC).

For example, see http://www.unbeatable.​co.uk …-Television/28079339.ht​ml

Ah, using TV as monitor. (For a moment I thought you were talking about video publishing) sorry about that.

My Philips came with a resolution limit (beyond that the manual says it will scale), can't remember now, but they all have something that as mentioned above is not very high. I bought an HP with the entire HD deal and a VCard that would allow me to work without a monitor (PC one), but then I just didn't see myself working off of a TV.

Might be worth trying, at least once, just for kicks. (through DVI connection)

Hi,
Sorry about the confusion... I am not talking about using TV as a monitor but instead of adding images into a video. So, If I take webcam resolution VGA (640x480), wouldn't it be bad looking on some of the latest HD TVs? I think resolution on 1080P tv is 1920x1080.

Thanks.

Baadil wrote in post #6158853
Hi,
Sorry about the confusion... I am not talking about using TV as a monitor but instead of adding images into a video. So, If I take webcam resolution VGA (640x480), wouldn't it be bad looking on some of the latest HD TVs? I think resolution on 1080P tv is 1920x1080.

Thanks.

Then I guess I understood the first time around, he he.

In my case, my HD shows good image. Things I notice:

- Aspect Ratio: 4:3 vs 16:9. Widescreen is king if you can get it, fills more of the screen and most HD TVs will expand the image to adapt it.

- Image Resolution: anything 720x and up is good enough for TV quality in the HD TV (not sure for HD quality on HD, but sounds pretty tough, such as 1080).

- Image Compression: I think here is where the trick lays in the most. Divx puts 120 mins in less than a gig of space. However, HD Movies were not possible until the Blueray (and HDDVD) granted 25-50Gb storing space. So the trick is compression. Use as little as you can. Even if you have to burn to a DL DVD, it might be worth it.

Something to do is capture a 60 sec from your DV camera or some good quality video.

Then create the same clip, but with different settings and compression. (emphasis on the latter). Then you can go with the divx clip, the DVD clip, the NO COMP clip, etc. Then you just burn them on a DVD, and play them from the menu.

If you cannot test, once more. Anything 480 or 720 is good resolution, and however little compression you can afford. (The bigger the file, the more information per frame, hence -in theory- the more quality on the TV).

Cheers,

Thank you PJ. I guess I will try different things to see how they look...

I most likely will not try 4:3 ratios as most TVs are now wide screen. It does not make sence to go with older ratio now.

Now, here is why I am asking all this information. I want to capture an event using time time-lapse images and then make a small video from the images. Event will probably last whole day (including setup). I am thinking taking one image a second (or 5 seconds). I wasn't sure if I should leave my DSLR taking images at low resolution or just setup a webcam and take images.

It is most likely useless to take images in RAW or higher resolution if I am not going to use them that way.

Also, could someone, please recommend a good software for creating time laps video?

Thank you.