welcome to my world of pain!
all this comes down to stoopid broadcasters trying to 'future proof' their
productions
NO HD tv can show interlaced signal, they ALL convert to frames to show the
image, so why people like dicovery and nat geo insist on doing stuff
interlaced is beyond me.... besides, it looks rubbish, like bad news footage
and i thought, even in the states, the broadcasters were only sending stuff
out at 720, not 1080....
not to mention only about 3 sets support resolutions upto 1080....
rendering interlaced does pose problems with mothion blur...... (and maybe
with moiring)
we ended up rendering twice as many frames, then field striping and
remerging them as interlaced in shake
headache i know, but the easiest way to 'fire and forget'
a
Adrian Wyer
Fluid Pictures
33 Glasshouse Street
London
W1B 5DG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Lampi" <ericlampi(at)yahoo.com>
To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:58 PM
Subject: Field rendering
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
