 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi guys
I got an enquiry today from a UK TV production house that want to use one of
my images in a TV program.
Yay! But how should I render the image to make it suitable for broadcast?
Anybody else had to do this before (I assume yes) - what size / aspect
ratios / camera angles do you suggest to eventually get the best result
when it is broadcast and displayed on a TV screen?
Any pointers as regards copyrights, royalties, etc. etc.?
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Stefan,
usually, the traditional TV standards (NTSC, SECAM and PAL) feature low
screen resolutions between 720H480V to 720H576V (horizontal/vertical)
pixels. That means, your pictures don't need to be much bigger, unless they
want to have a full-detailed camera move above it. If it is a plain display
of your image, these screen resolutions should be okay.
But in any case, I suggest that you start a brief communication with them,
as well. Whatever rules do exist in theory, the praxis of life can look
quite different.
Here are some useful links:
http://www.mtxindia.com/An1.htm
http://kropla.com/tv.htm
http://www.digitalfernsehen.de/specials/df_12735.html (don't care for the
language, just take the numbers of pixels, very easy)
Greetings,
Sven
"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4468b146@news.povray.org...
> Hi guys
>
> I got an enquiry today from a UK TV production house that want to use one
> of
> my images in a TV program.
>
> Yay! But how should I render the image to make it suitable for broadcast?
> Anybody else had to do this before (I assume yes) - what size / aspect
> ratios / camera angles do you suggest to eventually get the best result
> when it is broadcast and displayed on a TV screen?
>
> Any pointers as regards copyrights, royalties, etc. etc.?
> --
> Stefan Viljoen
> Software Support Technician / Programmer
> Polar Design Solutions
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4468c57a$1@news.povray.org...
Please
Can't you just make a reply to a post so that your post cant be attached to
the post it refers to?
It would be obvious it is an answer.
"Answer" as topic could refer to any original post in a NG.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Please
> Can't you just make a reply to a post so that your post cant be
> attached to the post it refers to?
> It would be obvious it is an answer.
> "Answer" as topic could refer to any original post in a NG.
The References header serves well enough to identify the original post
that Sven's post is a reply to. If your newsreader does not show that
Sven's post is in reply to Stefan's, then I suggest you try a different
newsreader.
--
Paraphernalia/Never hides your broken bones,/ And I don't know why you'd
want to try:/ It's plain to see you're on your own. -- Paul Simon
http://surreal.istic.org/ They knew about the decepticons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Daniel Hulme" <pho### [at] istic org> wrote in message
news:200### [at] mekanorimonisticorg...
> > Please
> > Can't you just make a reply to a post so that your post cant be
> > attached to the post it refers to?
> > It would be obvious it is an answer.
> > "Answer" as topic could refer to any original post in a NG.
> The References header serves well enough to identify the original post
> that Sven's post is a reply to. If your newsreader does not show that
> Sven's post is in reply to Stefan's, then I suggest you try a
different
> newsreader.
actually, I agree with M_a_r_c on this one
I really appreciate Sven's enthousiasm when trying to help other people,
but changing the subject-line makes it, imho, a bit confusing :-/
cu!
--
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x) // ZK http://www.povplace.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 15/05/2006 14:48:
> Hi guys
>
> I got an enquiry today from a UK TV production house that want to use one of
> my images in a TV program.
>
> Yay! But how should I render the image to make it suitable for broadcast?
> Anybody else had to do this before (I assume yes) - what size / aspect
> ratios / camera angles do you suggest to eventually get the best result
> when it is broadcast and displayed on a TV screen?
>
> Any pointers as regards copyrights, royalties, etc. etc.?
Personaly, I would go for a resolution around 3 to 5 times the TV resolution's. This
will enable the
producter to zoom in on some details if wanted. The effective screen aspect ratio is
4:3, even it
the displayed pixels are not square, and your image's pixels probably don't need to
match the
camera' ones.
Ask the productor how your images will be used: directly? printed and shown with a
camera? What
dimentions are the best? TV stations have some prety cool image manipulation softwares
and
hardwares. Those can do all sort if format convertions and manipulations.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain spake:
> Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 15/05/2006 14:48:
>> Hi guys
>>
>> I got an enquiry today from a UK TV production house that want to use one
>> of my images in a TV program.
>>
>> Yay! But how should I render the image to make it suitable for broadcast?
>> Anybody else had to do this before (I assume yes) - what size / aspect
>> ratios / camera angles do you suggest to eventually get the best result
>> when it is broadcast and displayed on a TV screen?
>>
>> Any pointers as regards copyrights, royalties, etc. etc.?
> Personaly, I would go for a resolution around 3 to 5 times the TV
> resolution's.
Which, for an ordinary non-HD set is what? 460x200? I know it is very low,
compared to PC monitors, but how low?
> This will enable the producter to zoom in on some details if
> wanted. The effective screen aspect ratio is 4:3, even it the displayed
> pixels are not square, and your image's pixels probably don't need to
> match the camera' ones. Ask the productor how your images will be used:
> directly? printed and shown with a camera?
As far as I can determine it will be displayed "1:1" full-screen, only for a
few seconds.
> What dimentions are the best?
> TV stations have some prety cool image manipulation softwares and
> hardwares. Those can do all sort if format convertions and manipulations.
I'm currently thinking of supplying a 2600x1800 image that I've rendered,
this is much larger than anything they could possibly want, and they can
reduce and play with it as needed. Unless they ask for something else.
Thanks for the advice, anyway!
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ wrote:
> Yay! But how should I render the image to make it suitable for broadcast?
> Anybody else had to do this before (I assume yes) - what size / aspect
> ratios / camera angles do you suggest to eventually get the best result
> when it is broadcast and displayed on a TV screen?
The easiest size that you can create and that they can deal with will be
765*576 pixels. Set the aspect ratio to 4:3 as usual. Make sure you use
reasonable anti-aliasing. If it is just a still picture, their video editors
will do the rest.
If you are to supply an animation, or content for HD-TV or widescreen,
things are different of course. In that case you should ask them firstwhat
they prefer to dealwith, and if anything is unclear as far as configuring
POV-Ray is concerned, ask here again with exactly what they specified.
Thorsten, POV-Team
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm,
honestly, I don't knew that there are newsreaders out there which lack the
proper understanding of given structures.
I personally appreciate individual headlines as those give a first glimpse
of an idea, what about the content of that posting is going to be. I found
the boring and non-indicating repeating of the first headline as not very
helpful. However, as I recognize that there are some weak or incomplete
programs out there which cause frustration for some users, I am - of
course - keeping from now the given headlines. Promise.
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> Hmm,
>
> honestly, I don't knew that there are newsreaders out there which lack the
> proper understanding of given structures.
>
> I personally appreciate individual headlines as those give a first glimpse
> of an idea, what about the content of that posting is going to be. I found
> the boring and non-indicating repeating of the first headline as not very
> helpful. However, as I recognize that there are some weak or incomplete
> programs out there which cause frustration for some users, I am - of
> course - keeping from now the given headlines. Promise.
>
> Sven
Sven,
It is not just newsreaders. If you have to use the web view the Message
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
