Re: Field rendering

[kim(at)aldis.org.uk]

I'm still not sure about rendering double the number of frames, mostly 
because I don't think the argument that it does anything at all for the 
aliasing problem really stands up. Of course, the anti-aliasing is correct 
for the full frame you render but when you combine the fields you're 
stacking scan lines against scanlines from an image that bears no relation 
to them. 

I always used to render half height and never had complaints but the thing 
you do have to watch is hold frames. Make sure you always render a couple or 
three frames else you end up with a fielded frame on your hold. 

Of course, whichever way you look at it the aliasing problems make it worth 
avoiding like the plague. 


adrian writes: 

> 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 


---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi