Resolume Forum

I´ve been thru this a couple of times. This example is from a very basic and simple mapping situation, but the mapping concept could be applied to many different mapping projects, so I would like to hear your thoughts to have the better realtion between comp. size and output size.

Let´s say I am mapping 3 cubes. The cubes are placed like a collumn, one above another, and they are all rotated about 45 degrees, so each cube will have two mapping sides/faces.
So, there are 6 different square videos, looping simultaneously, with no mixing, no effects, and each video on its respective playing layer, routed to the respective slice. Forget the cubes for a while. What if I got just one square to map...
If I use a standdard comp. format like 1024x768, there´s still some loss of pixels, since the videos would have 768x768 square pixel format. Isn´t it right?

Back to the cubes, it is obviously a vertical layout situation and I wish to maximize the resolution of each cube mapping side/face. If I keep the same output format to 1024x768, the proportion between pixel used for mapping x pixel unused (lost) would be like this: This will end up with poor image quality.
Of course I can increase pixel resolution but I can´t forget I will be playing 6 videos simultaneously.
I can also rotate the projector on 90 degrees, changing the output proportion to this: So, how do you usually deal with situations like this? I feel like I am missing something very basic and that could deeply change the way I do my mappings.
Oh.. yeah. It is a single projector!!!

Thanks for your thoughts,

Paulo

Putting the projector on its side is a no brainer.

Content size depends on how big the image will appear in the output. In the Output Transformation tab, you can see the pixel width and height of your slice, even if it's warped. Content for that slice wouldn't need to be bigger than that (with a little safety margin).

Judging by your pic, I would say that 400x400 for the slices and comp is a pretty safe bet.

But, if I setup my composition to 400x400, I still see an issue.
After mapping my slices I would be using 800 pixels wide by 1200 pixels in height, according to the total amount of slices/cubes´ mapping faces described above. So, If I use a 1024x768 projector, I´ll have not enough pixels in height. Not even using a full HD 1920x1080 projector. Isn´t it right?
Sorry if I sound stupid. I´d really like to learn this at once. What am I missing?

For the record, if you're putting the projector on its side, 800x1200 would fit in 1920x1080 (because putting it on its side makes it 1080x1920).

But it will work with a 1024x768 projector as well. Try approaching it from the other end:

You need to fit three cubes in 1024 pixels. 1024/3 = 341 plus change. Taking into account a safety margin of about 60 pixels, you get 400 pixels.

I thought you told me not to put the projector to its side, initially.
Well, thanks for your help.

Ah. Nobrainer means that something is a good idea, and it's not worth thinking about second guessing it. Sorry if that got lost in translation.

Btw, you end up with less than 1200x800 anyway. Because of the way the faces are angled, some of the images will end up at half their original width.

Now stop thinking and just go map some cubes already

the comp size in resolume does not really matter. You could use a 16,000x16,000 comp if you wanted to as the output slices determine what the projector sees as far as it's input

basically you're cutting your comp into six pieces, then reassembling them via the advanced output section, how big the comp in resolume is does not matter because the slices you make in the advanced output section will determine what portion of your comp actually gets sent to the projector. you don't need to output the whole comp

for example to put each surface (6 surfaces stacked side by side) at a 400x400 pixel 'screen', you need an overall projection capable of at least 1200x800 pixels, mind you, this number does not include the spaces between surfaces or account for the top piece. it also doesn't account for the rotation of the side pieces, which actually makes your overall image size SMALLER due to the width of the image decreasing

this is difficult to explain via a web forum, and can't *really* post an example at the moment

basically you'll need to get out a tape measure and do some measurements (length x width of the entire mapping surface) and do some math to determine how many pixels per surface you can use with your projector.

One of these days I might actually come up with a projection mapping tutorial using resolume, but I hardly have the time....and don't actually own projectors haha

The comp size or at least the source content size does matter, insofar that you'll want to get it roughly in the same ballpark as what it will be projected as.

Fine line work in an HD image will disappear or fall apart when scaled down to something 100 pixels wide.

basically you'll need to get out a tape measure

Yup. Let's get physical!

Tks guys.
A practical tutorial would be great indeed.
I can´t really affford going to Netherlands to participate of a Workshop. ; )

goto10 wrote:The comp size or at least the source content size does matter, insofar that you'll want to get it roughly in the same ballpark as what it will be projected as.

Fine line work in an HD image will disappear or fall apart when scaled down to something 100 pixels wide.

source size matters, resolume comp size does not. Obviously scaling content effects what it looks like...scaling down is a LOT easier than scaling up though!

the comp is basically just your work space for content when using resolume's advanced output mapping. As soon as you add a slice the comp size becomes irrelevant. Personally I prefer to use a much larger comp so I can move content around inside the frame, and/or move it through my output slices. Depends on what you're going for.