render to field

[gilicom]

do you guys use render to fields?

[mike.edel]

unless you plan to specifically render for video, its pretty obsolete
(dvd players can do their own interlacing - therefore dvds are usually progressive scan)

to sum it up: depends on your target audience/medium (it always does, at one point or the other

cu mike

[Austin]

We're rendering to fields on our current project and personally I hate it. Although it looks really smooth on a tv, the renders take around 30% longer (10-15% if you use saved irr maps).

[gilicom]

dvd players can do their own interlacing - therefore dvds are usually progressive scan

i think that dvd still require fields if the gonna be seen on tv?
anything that will be broadcast on tv should be renderd with fields?
Gili

[panthon]

You can render in progressive mode, composite in progressive mode and only use interlaced for broadcast. I haven´t tested any progressive LCD screens but it should be pretty nifty All progressive! Yey!

By the way, 35 mm is dead LOng life to digital cinematography!

[mike.edel]

i think that dvd still require fields if the gonna be seen on tv?
anything that will be broadcast on tv should be renderd with fields?
Gili

as far as i know - no
they interlace the progressive material themselves
just ckecked that with one of my dvds - the mpeg2 is progressive and displays fine on tv
btw: this is obvious for dvd conversions of movies - how can you end up with fields if you scan a movie frame by frame (excluding the use of ntsc video conversions as source material - that should be forbidden anyway

theoretically motions (especially vertical ones) are more fluid when using fields - but you pay the price for that by having much more problems in post and by enhancing flickering in small details (<1px) - and as mentioned with longer rendertimes

cu mike

[Austin]

theoretically motions (especially vertical ones) are more fluid when using fields

In practice it's noticeably more fluid; twice as fluid in fact. Fields run at 60 fields/sec.

how can you end up with fields if you scan a movie frame by frame (excluding the use of ntsc video conversions as source material - that should be forbidden anyway

I've noticed editors (or their supporting hardware, not sure which) forcing interlacing onto video that wasn't interlaced originally. My only guess is that it slices a frame into fields, keeps the A fields and then interpolates the B fields by mixing them with the next frame.

[glyph]

on the subject of dvds how does it work for a mac and pc with different gamma settings?
or do mac people just adjust their brightness?

maybe perception just compensates - I don't see websites that are too bright or too dark - but put two images with different gamma next to each other and you can see the difference easily

I'm also curious cause I had a client view some test frames on a mac and complain they were too dark (theoretically they should have been too light with mac gamma I think) - luckily they had a pc which showed them fine.

and of course reading the whole linear workflow stuff..

rhetorical q: what does the public use as a standard tv monitor anyway, these days?

[dennis]

isnt it possible to split to field as a post proces

[dlparisi]

You could extract each field as a post process, but it wouldn't be the same as actually rendering it. You'd be missing the 1/60th second (NTSC) shift in any animated elements.

[mike.edel]

on the subject of dvds how does it work for a mac and pc with different gamma settings?
or do mac people just adjust their brightness?

maybe perception just compensates - I don't see websites that are too bright or too dark - but put two images with different gamma next to each other and you can see the difference easily

I'm also curious cause I had a client view some test frames on a mac and complain they were too dark (theoretically they should have been too light with mac gamma I think) - luckily they had a pc which showed them fine.

and of course reading the whole linear workflow stuff..

rhetorical q: what does the public use as a standard tv monitor anyway, these days?

that's why you usually use video monitors for preview throughout production
concerning mac/pc: on the mac systems ive done video on (mainly avid media composer machines) we did all color-critical work on video monitors, on the mac monitor the display was all wrong (gamma 1.8 instead of the pc-typical 2.2 and the "common" tv gamma of ???)

btw: i think re-timer (realviz.com) has a mode to interpolate missing fields - that might be a possibility to get them in post
other than that its really impossible to generate fields from progressive material (unless the progressive part was recorded at double fps)

cu mike

ps: in some cases i'd rather live with "jerkier" motion than with flickering details...