PDA

View Full Version : Rendering 60 FPS



boomforeal
07-17-2009, 07:17 AM
I'm currently working on a project and Ive been told that I need to render out at 60 FPS...Does this sound right? and who's using 60 FPS anyway in video?
Also does anyone know how 60FPS differs from say rendering at 30 FPS with field rendering switched on (i.e rendering lower and higher fields at 30 FPS thus giving you theoretically 60 FPS).


(p.s. And Yes I am aware that 60 FPS provides smoother animation then 24 FPS and 30 FPS blah blah blah blah...I'm just wondering how common it is becoming to do renders at 60 FPS, and who's done it and why?)

archijam
07-17-2009, 07:22 AM
Hmm ... slow motion comp? Got me.

Nangleator
07-17-2009, 07:33 AM
That's a good guess. Gives the editor more options.

ericsmith
07-17-2009, 09:20 AM
The most likely reason is that it will give them the flexibility add interlacing to the final edit.

eric

biliousfrog
07-17-2009, 09:48 AM
30fps is still 30fps whether it's interlaced or not, it wouldn't be 60fps because interlaced footage only shows half of two frames not two whole frames...technically it would be 60hfps (half-frames per second)

Just ask them why they need it at 60fps and explain that rendering costs will be double to cover the extra frames, I bet that they back down ;)

Liber777
07-17-2009, 09:51 AM
Is the project in HD? Perhaps they're working with footage from a camera shooting 60fps such as the JVC ProHD series.

CC Rider
07-17-2009, 02:10 PM
Most likely a project that will be using footage from a camera that records at 60FPS. Plenty of newer HD cameras offer that as one of the options...Many of Panasonics new line of P2 camera can record at 24P, 30P, 60P or 60i...if that's the case there won't be any "backing down"...

:)

ericsmith
07-17-2009, 07:14 PM
30fps is still 30fps whether it's interlaced or not, it wouldn't be 60fps because interlaced footage only shows half of two frames not two whole frames...technically it would be 60hfps (half-frames per second)

My point was that 60 fps progressive can be easily converted to 30 fps interlaced in AE or FCP or the likes, whereas 30 fps progressive can't be so easily converted.

If I ever needed interlaced video from a 3d render, I would rather do it that way then render interlaced directly from the 3d app, as there can be issues with AA and such when rendering directly to fields.

Eric

Martin Adams
07-21-2009, 10:26 AM
Maybe they want the output format at 30fps or 24fps, but they want you to optimise your scene it renders at 60fps so they get it really quickly :D

I suspect it's so they can easily add the interlacing during the edit process and choose between upper and lower fields depending on where they need to submit the footage to. I subtly recall this and have a feeling I was asked the same on a project a couple of years ago. But I certainly don't remember rendering out at 60fps, but I might have just rendered with interlacing in either upper or lower, which yes, is half frames.

digitalimagery
12-29-2012, 03:32 PM
I know this thread is ancient but having cut my teeth in video production pre-digital I can answer this for others who may be confused. Basically rendering at 60fps (let's use a logo animation) is done so the final edit can be output at 30fps interlaced. I can hear you saying "then just render in fields) that's all well and good if you know the logo isn't going to move vertically a single pixel of it isn't going to be scaled. Once you do either that throws off the fields. Rendering at 60 gives you the freedom to reposition and scale your animation and when the comp app (After Effects) wants to deliver fields on a flying logo, it has the number of frames to do a proper interlace.