1920x1080 interlaced sounds like a massive waste of time to me. You'll
pretty much have to render every frame twice (once for each field) and
respectable 1080 TVs etc are 1080p. Interlacing was only ever
introduced because technology couldn't handle progressive scan.
A little history here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlacing
The short of it is most people who are watching 1080i footage are
probably having it deinterlaced by their tv set which means they're
not watching 1920x1080 but 1920x540 with an interpolated second field.
So you're only giving people with 1080p TVs a worse looking picture by
interlacing (assuming they're channel is broadcast in 1080p).
Cheers,
Alan.
On 8/23/06, Eric Lampi <ericlampi(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm working on some 1920x1080 HD motion graphics and
they want to do it as field renders. I am not sure if
it's such a great idea, but I can't quite recall the
pros/cons of field rendering. The motion looks
smooth, but as I recall, it's not great for things
with detail? Not having had to do that for quite a
few years, I am not sure if it's such a great idea.
Opinions?
Thanks,
E
Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
