Rendering an Animation Double Size

[Infrared digital]

I am rendering an animation double size to see how it works logistically and visually but have a couple of questions;

1. The Irrad and LC maps have been precalced but the render nodes have an unexpected error at the end of rendering some frames. There are 3 multimattes, one Z depth and the RGB all saving as tifs. Would it be better to use Dynamic Memory in the System rollout - if so, what would I set it to ? Rendered frame size is 2048 x 1154.

2. When the frames have been rendered at double size, what is the best way to use these frames ? Do I composite and edit at the double size then export at the normal size or can I export from AE at the normal size ?



thanks

N

[zoranm]

N,

As far as I know there is no need to render double size. Increasing your AA and IM setting, you are, in effect, supersampling (increasing size of rendered image). For example: rendering and image 500x500px at AA=2,3 will give the same quality as rendering 1000x1000px at AA=1,3.

I don't know why you have that error mesage.

You use Dynamic memory in case you're running out of memory, otherwise use static (dynamic is somewhat slower). I have 8gb on my system. When I need to use Dynamic , I reserve 2 for OS and I set up dynamic to 6Gb and it seams that it works so far(no crashes)
regards

Zoran

[Infrared digital]

Thanks Zoran.

Actually, I tried it double size but then realised that it wouldn't render in time so I have changed it to render 1 1/2 size. The reason I am doing this is to experiment a bit to see if I can get a better result.

Thanks for the ram advise.

I clicked on the link to your website and it took me to an index page, not sure if this is intentional ?

[Infrared digital]

Ok, I have completed a test and the results are much better and sharper.

I have used higher settings to get rid of noise in trees which has worked but also, I have also rendered at 1536x866 and composited at that size then scaled those down to 1024x576 in Premiere and outputted using h.264 mov. Problem is that the time to do anything has gone up dramatically so, I am going to try the process at 720p and see how that goes.

[Neilg]

If you're getting much better results when rendering bigger then your settings werent high enough when rendering smaller.

You'll be able to get the same quality slightly quicker if you play with the settings a bit.

[zoranm]

I clicked on the link to your website and it took me to an index page, not sure if this is intentional ?

Yeah, I'm actually just in the process of re-designing and updating my web-site.

I remember couple of years ago there was a big discussion somewhere about the same topic: is it better or not to render at double resolution and general consensus from most of the industry heavyweights was "No". Interestingly enough the problem wasn't the time needed to render or comp but inability to see during the production what the final result will look like. For example: you render everything at double size and all looks good and dandy and when you reduce it down, suddenly you lost all those fine details on which you based you whole editing and compositing. So they all suggested to keep the size constant all the time, thus having more control.

Hope this helps.
It would be nice if you can post some uncompressed frames for comparison

regards and good luck
Zoran