CompuServe Thread

Autodesk Multimedia Forum · Autodesk 3D Studio

#animation quality

11 messages in this thread

#137993From: John R. DuchekNov 26, 1994 3:59 PM

How come animation quality is of a lower quality than a still picture rendering? What options can I change to raise the quality to the level of a still picture? I'm rendering in 640x480x1.00(aspect ratio of 1) Thanks for any help.. john

#138016From: david W. mennenohNov 26, 1994 7:18 PM

John, When you render to .FLI or .FLC they are both 8 bit formats. AKA 256 color. THat's why they're lower in quality than stills. If you;ve got 3ds set up properly you're most likely rendering stills to 24 bit or 16.7 million colors. First thing to do is make sure you render animations using the medium or custom palette setting. Low will give bad results and high isn't any better than medium. Really, though, the only way to get animations as good as stills is to render them to actual video tape – frame by frame.

#138020From: EDWARD HARVEYNov 26, 1994 8:01 PM

Well, one thing is that video resolution ( if by quality you mean resolution ) at 750+- by 480 is so much lower than film resolution which is generally lower than still print resolution. If by quality you mean detail, lighting, etc. the still is (hopefully) studied for awhile while the animated image flys by. Ive found that in order to create a still print from an animation I need to add radiosity effects and sometimes use higher res maps as well as more complex models. If you are going to video. then res higher than 756×486 ( vista board ) or 752×480 (PAR) is useless. 640 is cutting it thin though.

#138048From: John R. DuchekNov 27, 1994 12:23 AM

Thanks for your help, guys… John

#138085From: M. G. BATCHELORNov 27, 1994 12:48 PM

John, << If you are going to video. then res higher than 756×486 ( vista board ) or 752×480 (PAR) is useless. >> Actually this statement is not *_quite_* true. If your ATVista card supports 1008×486 NTSC res., frequently you will achieve a higher-quality image than at 756×486. BILL

#138060From: Ted BoardmanNov 27, 1994 7:17 AM

Edward << (PAR) is useless.>> How can you justify a comment like that? You, personally, may not find the PAR fits your needs, but it's not very helpful to say that it's useless. TedB !^NavFont01F0007MGHHG96973B

#138088From: Paul LempkeNov 27, 1994 12:50 PM

<< << (PAR) is useless.>> How can you justify a comment like that?>> Ted- PMJI, but you might re-read the message. This was not an attack on the PAR. He was just discussing the futility of improving renderings for VIDEO ( eg. PAR 752×480 ) resolution animations by increasing the resolutions of texture maps etc. beyond that same resolution. For most cases I suspect that is true. Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics

#138126From: EDWARD HARVEYNov 27, 1994 7:58 PM

Yes, Thanks.

#138125From: EDWARD HARVEYNov 27, 1994 7:57 PM

Hey! I own and use a PAR all the time. I was saying, not very clearly apparently, that more resolution than can be handled by a Targa , Vista, or PAR is useless for video output. The PAR has enabled me to be much freer creatively, since its so easy to go to tape. Ill try to be more understandable in the future.

#138197From: Ted BoardmanNov 28, 1994 5:02 AM

Hey Edward, sorry about the misunderstanding. CIS reformatted your message into several short sentences and "(Par) is useless" is starts a new line. I read a period in a the end of the previous line, my mistake. Again, sorry!

#138377From: EDWARD HARVEYNov 28, 1994 5:28 PM

No problem.