View Full Version : First models and renders looking strange

07-28-2009, 10:03 PM
Here I am attaching some photos of one of my renders and I wanted to know why it look the way it does (kinda blurry/low res) even though I am rendering at 800x600 with 5-pass AA. when I render a single frame it looks fine but once I render as a video I get these artifacts

Also if this is in the wrong area please move it

07-28-2009, 11:43 PM
Never seen anything like that, it looks a bit like interlacing but that shouldn't change between F9 and F10. It doesn't look like video compression either, but what codec are you using? It is better to output an image sequence instead, try that.

07-29-2009, 12:24 AM
I think you're right Toby...

My guess ahines777 would be that you've enabled multi-line rendering for interlaced formats. So you're rendering in "fields" and when it moves the interlacing become apparent, but when it's static it's not happening/as apparent. To me your two examples look like they're at different points on your timeline. You've probably scrubbed to a static part, hit F9, but when you render with F10 it's starting on a frame with movement (or the other way around).

It will also slow down your renders...

Can I get an NTSC, PAL, or Secam witness? Maybe I'm just getting old?

On a side note your specular might be a bit high and your bump map is at quite a high frequency unless you're doing some higher resolution renders. You might want to tame that frequency and bump amount a bit, or drive the bump so that it only get's picked up at a certain angle either to the camera or key light IMHO via the rendertree... Also a light underneath the ball for bounce light would help and it never hurts to add a slight rim effect and see how it looks even if it's not "real". But I'm sure these are just test setup renders and I'm jumping the gun and sounding like a jerk! Sorry if so!

07-29-2009, 02:05 AM
You've probably scrubbed to a static part, hit F9, but when you render with F10 it's starting on a frame with movement (or the other way around).
I didn't catch that :) but wouldn't you see both fields?
Wait, it's weirder than that - the lines are only in the black, no, scratch that, but they are more than 1 pixel... :?

07-29-2009, 01:37 PM
Yeah, looks like interlacing to me too. :)

07-29-2009, 03:36 PM
It's possible that all frames look fine with F9 if Lightwave is not rendering interlaced but, when saving to a video file with F10, the codec has interlacing on in its settings and is encoding it that way.

07-29-2009, 07:35 PM
Consensus seems to be interlacing. How it got that way...we'll just have to see if they inform us!

Can anyone think of anything else it could be? ahines777 it's time for your second post on the NT forums.

07-30-2009, 02:47 PM
wow thanks for all the responses and info :)

I am pretty sure it was the codec that was causing me problems as I have changed it and I am getting much better ( but not perfect ) results

Also the still of the F10 was taken in vlc

07-30-2009, 04:52 PM
There's a codec that adds interlacing?? Cwazy....
Make sure you use a lossless compession btw -

Mr Rid
07-30-2009, 06:58 PM
What file format are you saving as? What settings are you using?

07-31-2009, 12:44 AM
JCG you were on the money!

Learn something everyday- codec causing such said madness...interesting...

07-31-2009, 10:05 AM
Well I cant tell you exactly what my settings were as Im rendering and I have about 15 hours left.
But what I do know is that it was Showtime (.avi) I dont know the exact codec. Now I am using .mov and so far no problems

07-31-2009, 10:20 AM
try increasing ur AA and use adaptive sampling. also sometimes its easier to render as a TGA sequence and edit it in aftereffects.

07-31-2009, 10:31 AM
I second what ooblevision said about rendering it out as an rgb sequence. This is better choice for two reasons, the first is that it gives for a lot more control in post, especially if you use multi-pass rendering but thats a different story. The second reason is if you have a crash halfway through a render you still get all the frames that rendered up to that point instead of an incomplete video file. However if your just doing a quick animation test it's not a huge deal what method you use.

07-31-2009, 11:08 AM
Can I ask what sampling filter you're using? Some of the "better" ones require higher sampling to get smooth.

Yes! Agree, always use sequences if and when you can. Do they use up more HD? Well yes they can, but you should be working un-compressed anyway. HDs are cheap- and if you're doing this for a living then it makes a lot of sense to just use sequences.

In addition, after using a renderfarm, I discovered the joys of 7zip. Yeah, you're probably thinking wow, uh I already have win zip etc. what's the big deal? Well 7zip is free, open source, and I've found that it squeezes down tiff sequences up to twice as much as regular zips. Tiffs normally zip well anyway, but this makes porting out large sequences in HD to clients and getting them off a farm less time consuming AND it saves HD space to boot! It's always nice to hand off a non compressed sequence of tiffs that uncompressed would be 1GB, but compressed are more like 200MB.


Make sure to check out the "dictionary" and "word" size features as they can have a huge effect on how compressed a file can be (and how long it takes to compress/decompress them.

Mr Rid
07-31-2009, 02:23 PM
Should definitely be saving out an image sequence (LW_TGA24 are fine) instead of a media clip so it may be interrupted without losing everything, or to render a frame per proc available. Then, if you dont have a post app like After Effects, you can just load the completed sequence into the background of a new LW scene, to then save out any type of media clip in a matter of seconds, and may try saving with different settings and codecs to suit. You may even apply some post processing in LW's Image Editor and thru various Image Filter thingys, or by playing with layering the sequence as a texture on a card- add glow, diffusion, blur, desat, etc.