G-Buffer Channels Squashed With Netrender & vray VFB

[olly]

Dear problem solvers,

We net-rendered a sequence last night, outputting Reflections and Alpha as G-Buffer layers. It was rendered to fields and sent saved as Jpegs. The main frames came back fine, but the G-Buffer frames are all squashed up into the top of the frame. Setup on all machines = Max 7.5 & vray 1.47.03.

This problem has appeared on the forum before, from a user called Palee, but nobody could help.

Any ideas?

Cheers,
Olly.

[panthon]

Have you checked if gbuffers are supported when rendering to fields? If not, u could always render without fields and interlace the footage in post...

[vlado]

This is fixed for the render elements in newer builds, but there is no way to correct this in 1.47.03; the V-Ray frame buffer in general does not support rendering to fields at present.

Best regards,
Vlado

[panthon]

This is fixed for the render elements in newer builds, but there is no way to correct this in 1.47.03; the V-Ray frame buffer in general does not support rendering to fields at present.

Best regards,
Vlado

Well that´s it. As i stated, try rendering without fields. Any reason why u should render fields anyway?

[olly]

Maybe we've missed something, but we render to fields to make animation playback smoother. Is there another method that you use?

[panthon]

Maybe we've missed something, but we render to fields to make animation playback smoother. Is there another method that you use?

there´s been a discussion about this topic several times before... I can´t reach a definitive answer to this...We render in frames (non interlaced) because fields are only useful if u plan to play on tv´s. It could look awful if u play it in a computer. You can always go from progressive to interlaced with no issues, but the opposite way is quite tricky (although there are pretty impressive algorithms which do that perfectly well, like the one bundled in magic bullet).

I have tested rendering the same animation both ways, progressive and interlaced, and i couldn´t see any important difference, meaning progressive is not worse when seen on a tv...and better when viewed on a computer screen...Using progressive, you can find movement jerkiness (similar to what u see on a cinema theatre with crane motions) when bright areas like walls cross the screen, but it happenned too with the interlaced footage.

When it comes to composition, progressive is far better than interlaced, no need to deal with fields which can bring weird issues with some filters... Fields only exist because of a limitation of ancient devices which weren´t able to play 25 progressive frames (in PAL).

BUT

Im willing to hear more opinions about that because im not 100% certain about the final look u get with both methods.

What about LCD Screens with progressive scan?