do you guys use render to fields?
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
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).
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
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 :lol: LOng life to digital cinematography! :lol:
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
In practice it’s noticeably more fluid; twice as fluid in fact. Fields run at 60 fields/sec.
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.
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?
isnt it possible to split to field as a post proces
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.
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…