One of the long awaited new features were the new portrait aspect ratios for rendering. Very much needed for ready-to-go social media uploads. I however wonder about the logic of LRT setting the resolution; e.g. 1080p in 9:16 should be 1080x1920 but LRT is setting the resolution to 606x1080. Maybe the long vs. short edge logic is somehow flawed, or am I missing something here?

For me 1080p has a height of 1080 pixels. If you play a portrait mode 1080p video back on a Full HD TV, it will have a pixel mapping of 1:1. The Tv is 1080 pixels high and the video also is. The width will then be lower because you will have black bars left and right. That's my understanding of portrait mode resolutions! Of course, your interpretation is also possible! :-)

This post was last modified: 2022-01-17, 04:55 by Unsub.

Thanks Guenter. No argument against your interpretation either. :-) Seems there's no standardized definition of portrait mode resolutions.

I would suggest considering the common use-case here, and maybe introduce a selection (short-edge / long-edge) when "odd" aspect ratios are chosen? Most, if not all, social media platforms (instragram, tiktok, linkedin, snapchat, etc.) seem to have 1080x1920 as their portrait resolution for 1080p, and this is what Adobe also has accross their various applications (Premiere Rush, CC Express, etc.).

This post was last modified: 2022-01-18, 20:22 by Gunther.

I'll think about it. It would be a quite major change which would involve a lot of thinking and testing that's why I'd postpone this to after the launch of 6.0.

Thanks. I do undersdant the difficulty with a switch or allowing custom resolutions. Maybe you can rather reconsider defaulting to the higher pixel counts for portrait aspect ratios, since their use case is obvious and well referred to all over online. On the other hand, I can't see any references anywhere online to the resolutions that LRT is currently defaulting to.

This is really not a priority..

I don't find it that easy and clear. For example what about 1:1. Would that then create 3840 x 3840 files in 4K UHD ? This would break any H.264 compatibility - 3:2 for example would be 3840x2560 if you preserved the width - this already mostly breaks mp4 compatibility. And it wouldn't be 2160p anymore (how 4K UHD is called - because of the height, not the width).

That's why 3:2 now also decreases the width instead of increasing the height and does generate 3240x2160 instead of 3840x2560. After all, 4K UHD is called 2160p - which is 2160 pixels high. The same goes for 1080p - that's 1080 pixels high.

Especially MP4 has been designed to acomodate landscape 16:9 files. Now if we do different aspect ratios we really need to think about what works and what doesn't.

You see, it's not that easy if you want to find a general solution that is logical and also works with other aspect ratios than 16:9.

Speaking as cinematographer/videographer - 9:16 is always 1080x1920 - this is standard. It's because phone screens usually are somewhere in the ballpark of 1920x1080 when horizontal, and when held vertically, full resolution is 1080x1920. 9:16 is not for displaying on a horizontal screen with massive black bars either side, it's for displaying on actual vertical screens, like phones, or displays in shops, airports, etc.

1:1 is a different story - no, it's not 1920x1920, or 3840 x 3840, because that would make an image bigger than the screen it's being displayed on. It's always whatever the vertical resolution is if the screen is horizontal, or the horizontal resolution if the screen is vertical. So 1920x1080 screen would have a 1:1 resolution of 1080x1080.

Please test LRTimelapse 6.4 beta 10 where I changed the vertical resolutions to be rotated standard resolutions. I've explained this in this post: https://forum.lrtimelapse.com/Thread-lrt...-4-beta-10
I'd appreciate your feedback!