#Render Frames vs Fields
13 messages in this thread
Hi Alan, Thanks for commenting. I guess I had a fundamental misunderstanding
about field rendering. I was under the impression that rendering to fields
simply split the image info from a frame into odd and even fields. I had no
idea that it also interpolates the motion. This indeed would make a huge
difference. Does the PAR handle field playback?
thanks again,
Tyler
You're welcome, Tyler.
The very first time someone mentioned fields to me, I had the exact same
feeling. 60 actual fields of movement per second is actually quite a bit of
motion data, especially when you consider that feature movies are only 24 fps.
Of course, movies has the natural blurring and beauty of film (and an internal
shutter to actually flash the 24 frames 48 times per second in the projector to
mostly eliminate flicker).
Yup, the PAR handles fields beautifully. It is one of the features that makes
it such a nice little machine for the money.
I hope you are pleased with your animations after you see them with field
playback!
-Alan
Tyler,
PMJI, but I thought I'd comment on this. I've found much to my surprise that
MetroLight Studios (the SGI side) where I work, doesn't tend to use field
rendering as a matter of course for video work. They seem to prefer to use
motion blur when a job calls for it, but that job would have to be bid
specifically to include motion blur since it is so expensive (in render time).
I'm not sure how to feel about this since it goes against the grain of what
I've been doing for years – I always used field rendering automatically before.
It might behove one to look at a scene and decide if it is really necessary
before going ahead. One reason for avoiding frames is they are easy to retouch
and view as stills.
'Course the ultimate quality would be field rendering, object motion blur AND
camera motion blur, but be sure to have some good reading material handy when
trying this on an average scene.
Martin
Martin:
>> They seem to prefer to use motion blur [rather than field rendering] when
>> a job calls for it…
Sounds like they are too used to film as opposed to video! Although the other
possibility is that they are always ready to do a tape-to-film transfer, which
will look better with blur than fields.
Greg Pyros
We've found that most of our clients who are going to do anything to the shots
before they air them, want everything rendered to frames not fields. After
spending years rendering to fields, over the last year we've become more and
more accustomed to utilizing nice motion and camera blurs instead.
.02
Paul,
>> clients who are going to do anything to the shots before they air them,
want everything rendered to frames not fields <<
quite right. Although, video paint boxes are quite comfortable with fields,
aren't they (Harry etc)?
>> After spending years rendering to fields, over the last year we've become
more and more accustomed to utilizing nice motion and camera blurs instead. <<
that's exactly the situation I'm facing, and now I have the Challenger XL to
render on, I think I can handle it rendering-wise.
It's kindof amusing how I've been "educated" in this respect over the past
couple of months. My confusion resulted in a funny incident. When we did the
Herbie Hancock video (which people will see at Siggraph) all the 3d Studio
shots were rendered in fields, and all the SGI work was rendered in frames. I
wonder if people will be able to tell them apart <g>.
Martin
Paintboxes work fine with fields. I was taught many years ago to always use
fields, it'll make things look smoother. But over the past year, I've just been
amazed by the levels of shops that don't use fields. Of course my first
response was GREAT! I'll save a boatload of time, then the realization of
rendering great blurs came along. Same time frame, different end product.
I'm always learning ……. it's what makes this job so much fun.
Paul
Paul,
>> But over the past year, I've just been amazed by the levels of shops that
don't use fields. <<
I was talking to one of the old-timers and living legends at Siggraph, Jerry
Weil. He's been around since in high-end CGI since the mid 80's and he said
something that I had started to feel: that field rendering sometimes looks too
smoooth and hence has too much of a CGI feel compared to film.
It's certainly food for thought.
Martin
>It's certainly food for thought.
It's difficult for me to eat and think at the same time. 🙂
No, actually you may be onto a very good point. Isn't it funny how we're all
striving to get rid of the CG look. Kinda ironic…. wouldn't you say?
See you in a week!
Paul
Paul,
>> Isn't it funny how we're all striving to get rid of the CG look. Kinda
ironic…. wouldn't you say? <<
too true! Once we have perfection we want to dirty it up a bit with reality
<g>.
Martin,
PMJI, but reminds me of what went on in the MIDI arena a few years back. When I
put that studio together working from front to back I had to laugh out loud
when I stood back and looked at the big picture. I started with all the synths
and sequencers and composition programs to time everything out and make it
perfect. Then at the tail end there's a box to mess everything up again to give
it the "human" touch. How's that for a loop?
Terry
Terry,
>> Then at the tail end there's a box to mess everything up again to give it
the "human" touch. <<
very true. It's like adding film grain and film characteristics to video work.
Video just doesn't have the rich look we love so much in film. It's just so
clean and sharp somehow.
Martin
Greg,
>> Sounds like they are too used to film as opposed to video! <<
partly true, but I think video is probably as big a component with MetroLight
as film. I think it's mainly for ease of manipulation.
>> Although the other possibility is that they are always ready to do a
tape-to-film transfer, which will look better with blur than fields. <<
possibly. I'm not too sure on that.
Martin