#Render Frames vs Fields
6 messages in this thread
I was talking with a video expert this morning who told me that rendering to
fields as opposed to frames makes a very noticeable difference in quality
(mainly smoothness of motion) when putting animations on video tape. I haven't
ever seen this mentioned in this forum. Can anyone vouch for this? Should I
go back and re-render my animations for my demo reel?
>> I was talking with a video expert this morning who told me that rendering to
>> fields as opposed to frames makes a very noticeable difference in quality
Tyler,
All animations rendered to video tape SHOULD be rendered to fields. Why
don't you re-render one of your animations to fields and compare… you'll
never again render video to frames 🙂
Think about it, your animations will be twice as smooth when comparing 60
distinct _stills_ as opposed to 30 in that second of time.
Ralph
Tyler, rendering to fields mkes a HUGE difference in object motion smoothness
for video! When rendering to fields, the renderer takes advantage of NTSC's 60
field/30 frame per second frame rate and actually calculates TWICE the motion
data than when rendering to frames. Twice the motion data means animation that
is twice as smooth – especially noticeable when your animation has lots of
motion.
Go for fields and have a blast,
-Alan
>> re-render my animations…
In addition to the other comments you've received, be certain to render fields
from the -keyframer scene- and not just video post your existing frames with
fields on. What field rendering does is interpolate positions between frames
to produce 60 separate fields per second. Frame rendering does 30.
– Dave
David,
Is it possible to mess up the fields by rendering an animation in segments that
are later combined before going out to tape? (Anyone else can also comment on
this.)
Mark
If you are "combining" on a field-sensitive piece of equipment, and everything
is rendered correctly, you have an excellent chance of having no problems,
Mark. I imagine there are some problems that could be present, but I'd have to
see the piece…
-Alan