Field rendering ??

[Frieder]

Hi there,
i have noticed that there are different between field and frame renderings.
The two pictures (zoom) shows what I mean. Ihave rendered both pictures with the same saved Irradiance map an AA = fixed 3. The camera is not moving.
The result is in field rendering very poor edges and on the wall you can see clearly the field stripes. Theoretical it has to be exact the same picture.
Do you have any suggestions to get clear "field" results?

[Frieder]

it´s me again
how can I insert the pictures ??

[Da_elf]

[Da_elf]

you needed to take the space out after the jpg

[nagboy]

Cheers,

Its not a bug in VRAY or anything, try the same thing in scanline and it will be the same, the limitation is in how max applies the AA filter (Area, Catmull rom etc.) The only way to get 100% perfect fields is to render 2 x framerate and interpolate down to 1 x framerate in post (with every second line from every second frame). This is needless to say very cumbersome and time consuming so its really not an option. I suggest dropping fields altogether and just render all animation with motion blur with values of 1 frame duration or higher, the animation is just as smooth and the perceptive quality is better plus that you can actually do lots of post work on the frames without worrying about destroying the fields.

[egz]

1 frame durations and higher will look unnatural though, kind of streaky, smudged or whatever, especially with high values. For a look closer to film you should use durations of around 0.5 which equals a shutter angle of 180 in a film camera (1/50th of a second exposure per frame at 25fps). A real film camera can never do a full frame duration of film exposure, just because of how it is constructed.

Of course, this applies to regular motion, for stills or for effect, do whatever suits you

[Frieder]

Hi,

@nagboy

no, this is not the same like in the scanlinerenderer-
the edges are in scanline more blurry - that´s right, but if you render a flat wall you can see with vray two different field picture - the second renderpass is more darker then the first one. You can see the the "fieldstripes". With the scanliner this effect is not occur.

[egz]

the second renderpass is more darker then the first one. You can see the the "fieldstripes". With the scanliner this effect is not occur.

This probably means that your VRay copy is not authorized properly.

[ljaffe]

Cheers,

The only way to get 100% perfect fields is to render 2 x framerate and interpolate down to 1 x framerate in post (with every second line from every second frame). This is needless to say very cumbersome and time consuming so its really not an option. I suggest dropping fields altogether and just render all animation with motion blur with values of 1 frame duration or higher, the animation is just as smooth and the perceptive quality is better plus that you can actually do lots of post work on the frames without worrying about destroying the fields.

1. Once I had this problem: I couldn't make XDof Rendering Effect work properly with fields (unlike max`s dof effect) so i rendered entire animation twice slower in 768x288; image aspect: 1.333; pixel aspect 0.5 <- this is important because you don't render the lines you are going to drop later. That gave perfect results. And with no extra time penalty.
Later, I combined combined the frames and got exactly what i wanted.

2. In my situation motion blur was not the solution. Animation still looked too jerky. So, it's NOT the same if you use motion blur instead of fields. Ideally you should use both.

Best Regards,
LJ

[nagboy]

Cheers,

I agree: Ideally you use both fields and MB, but fields has got an impact on rendering speed and MB is just so sweet that if i had to choose i would choose MB (espesially if you have to do a lot of post processing) but if its enough motion from frame to frame you have to use both.