 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focus com> a écrit dans le message de news:
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] isticorg> 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
Digest just gives the new subject line. Such as “Answer”.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> wrote in message
news:446968eb@news.povray.org...
> > 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?
:)
it's not that low :)
PAL-resolution (which is what we use here in Europe) is 720x567
(although the number of collumns isn't really defined, only the number
of lines)
NTSC, the American standard, has a lower resolution, but more fps (30
instead of 25, which is useless imho, since movies are shot at 24fps)
(both are interlaced, so you actually get 50 or 60 fps, which 'happens'
to be the same as the AC-frequency :))
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> "Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> wrote in message
news:446968eb@news.povray.org...
>>> 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?
>
> :)
> it's not that low :)
> PAL-resolution (which is what we use here in Europe) is 720x567 (although the number
of collumns isn't really defined, only the number of lines)
> NTSC, the American standard, has a lower resolution, but more fps (30 instead of 25,
which is useless imho, since movies are shot at 24fps)
>
A small typo here: PAL is 720x576. NTSC is 720x480 which translates
to the same pixel rate given the difference in fps. You should note
however that TV pixels are not square and that the screen aspect
ratio is 4/3 for both PAL and NTSC even though neither 720/576 nor
720/480 is 4/3. Moreover, digital MPEG2 broadcasting often uses
fewer than 720 pixels in width and lets the set top box do the scaling.
> (both are interlaced, so you actually get 50 or 60 fps, which 'happens' to be the
same as the AC-frequency :))
>
A note on frame rates:
- The film industry originally used 12 fps because at the time
cameras were operated by a man turning a handle and 12 turns per
second was an easy rate to maintain. When they moved to mechanical
cameras, they chose 24 fps since it would be easy to convert old
film for projection in "modern" theaters. Note however that this is
still too slow and that the eye will see the scene flicker in
certain circumstances;
- TV originally chose 50fps in Europe and 60fps in the US and Japan
because that was equal to the AC frequency. There was some
bleedthrough from the power supply to the TV signal in old receivers
that caused some parts of the screen to be darker than others. With
a frame rate equal to the AC frequency, those dark bands were
immobile which made them nearly invisible. However, if the frame
rate and the AC frequency were different, the dark bands would move
vertically and the movement would make them visible. Film frame rate
was ignored since the only way to broadcast a film on TV at the time
was to project it in a theater and film it with a TV camera and
broadcast immediately (there was no way to record TV signals in the
beginning).
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEaihEd0kWM4JG3k8RAsvzAJ0aIaZ4BvhmqkEFh0/EO1KFKCsYnQCfc8vC
l0fgB7jtKat83RN39rXJOVw=
=YmuR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All sizes as seen already inside my answer for this posting. Here again
(copied from my previous answer here):
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski spake:
> All sizes as seen already inside my answer for this posting. Here again
> (copied from my previous answer here):
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> usually, the traditional TV standards (NTSC, SECAM and PAL) feature low
> screen resolutions between 720H480V to 720H576V (horizontal/vertical)
Thanks guys!
I'm trying to angle in on getting them to mention PovRay somewhere in the
program. Unlikely, since it will be some form of historical documentary
about the library of Alexandria (of which I made a scene, which the post
was about.)
Maybe if I ask nicely they'll at least mention the Pov site url in the
credits. Anybody else know if Pov ever featured anywhere else on TV? In the
UK or elsewhere?
Regards,
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> A small typo here: PAL is 720x576. NTSC is 720x480 which translates
> to the same pixel rate given the difference in fps. You should note
> however that TV pixels are not square and that the screen aspect
> ratio is 4/3 for both PAL and NTSC even though neither 720/576 nor
> 720/480 is 4/3.
This is incorrect. Both for PAL as well as for NTSC the aspect ratio is 4:3!
The pixels are just, as you noted, not square. Thisis the
essentialdifference for digitalformats in use today.
For square pixels, you need an image that is 786x576 pixels (for PAL). This
is the correct resolution to render the image for POV-Ray in as long as the
TV station doesn't give the original poster any more precise instructions.
They will certainly be able to deal with that size.
If he would create an image 720x576,it would be really hard to get it to
look right as POV-Ray does not preview non-square pixels (computer screen
pixels are square these days). Nevertheless, after setting up the image with
768x576 (square) pixels, it would be rather trivial to get non-square
pixels: The final render should be made using the same 4:3 aspect ratio, but
rendering to 720x576 pixels. Of course, all this assumes the TV station
cannot handle 786x576 - it would be rather unusal if they can't.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>> A small typo here: PAL is 720x576. NTSC is 720x480 which translates
>> to the same pixel rate given the difference in fps. You should note
>> however that TV pixels are not square and that the screen aspect
>> ratio is 4/3 for both PAL and NTSC even though neither 720/576 nor
>> 720/480 is 4/3.
>
> This is incorrect.
Then I suggest you re-read what I said since you then proceeded to
say the same thing...
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEa1mTd0kWM4JG3k8RAoCVAJ0W2EUNzTW3dwTsnLCAE78DzLjKuQCeMm2s
FXG4tkWDNBGH1nIGbcIlgKg=
=acBC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Then I suggest you re-read what I said since you then proceeded to
> say the same thing...
Ups, indeed! I responded to the wrong post :-(
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Daniel Hulme" <pho### [at] isticorg> a écrit dans le message de 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.
My newsreader (OE6) reads well the structure of the threads.
But I (and I don't think I'm alone) make display only unread posts.
Having a hint of the original topic (even modified) is helpfull in this
case.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Stefan,
I am also involved in some ancient raytracings,. I am (actually: we - from
the Forum Navis Romana project - are) involved with the reconstruction and
rendering of ancient ships! Stefan, if you would like to link up with me/us,
please let me know.
I am going to e-mail you one of our illustrations of an ancient Roman
warship, if you like (contact me using my e-mail address).
Best greetings "amongst collegues",
Sven
"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:446ac252@news.povray.org...
> Unlikely, since it will be some form of historical documentary
> about the library of Alexandria (of which I made a scene, which the post
> was about.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
