PDA

View Full Version : multitheading/plugins/field rendering



osiris
09-19-2003, 11:04 PM
three questions. Rendering very simple scene consisting of coins spinning and falling.

Multitheading gives best results on 1 but i'm running a dual 1.2 system (10.2.6) and LW 7.5. Other people are able to multithread @ 2 or 4. What gives.

When I load a saved scene, I have to reload my plugins from the plugin directory. LW doesn't remember them.

I don't see a difference in quality when I field render for ntsc output. I'm saving as QT movie in Animation codec and then importing into FCP and viewing on a production monitor. Do I need to output as an image sequence rather than a movie?? If so, why??

Thanks for any help you may have

Beamtracer
09-19-2003, 11:54 PM
Multithreading: I think a setting of 1 is actually no multithreading. Usually multithreading makes things faster, depending on what scene it is.

Plug-ins: Don't know why LW doesn't remember your plug-ins. Possibly for some reason it's not remembering your preferences. Try launching the Disk Utility and running "Repair Permissions". Test it and see if it works. You should run this repair function after every install of new software.

Fields: It doesn't matter whether you use an image sequence or a Quicktime movie... you can save an interlaced (field rendered) movie to either. However, what compression you use does matter. I suggest using either uncompressed, or use a lossless file format (like QT Animation, or TIFF, at their highest setting).

By the way, fields won't increase your quality. I never render out of Lightwave with interlaced frames.

osiris
09-20-2003, 12:00 AM
thanks for the response.

I know mutitheading set to 1 is none. My point is that when I set it to a higher number, my renders take Longer, not shorter. What gives?

I repair fix privs and rotate/cron script etc at least once a week.

There should be a diff in quality with field rendering because that's supposed to be the output format for ntsc, ie interlaced video. When I compair clips back to back I see no difference on a production monitor. Just wondering what the point is. And as I said, i'm exporting in Animation at best, which should be lossless .

Beamtracer
09-20-2003, 12:16 AM
If you're watching your interlaced video on a computer monitor you won't see any advantage, in fact it'll look worse (jagged edges).

Only a video monitor can display fields.




Originally posted by osiris
There should be a diff in quality with field rendering because that's supposed to be the output format for ntsc The image resolution of interlaced video is no better. Interlacing will give smoother motion though, when displayed on a video monitor.

Feature films are all progressive (no fields) but look good on a TV screen.

I don't recommend rendering interlaced frames out of Lightwave. If you must have interlacing, render at double the frame rate (progressive) and then use a compositing app to do your interlacing.

Lightwave can screw up interlaced frames because the image filters are all progressive.

osiris
09-20-2003, 08:51 AM
"I'm saving as QT movie in Animation codec and then importing into FCP and viewing on a production monitor."


This is like a 14" TV that costs $600 bucks. I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to video and video production, I'm just new to 3-d.

drclare
09-20-2003, 03:03 PM
But beam is right, fields doesn't increase image quality on a video monitor, it just creates smoother motion. I don't use it either, progressive looks just as good in most cases, and FCP will convert it to interlaced anyway, if you're editing in DV format.

Beamtracer
09-20-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by osiris
I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to video and video production Great, then you won't need my advice then.

osiris
09-20-2003, 09:02 PM
didn't mean to offend, but I said I know what I'm talkin about in regards to video production but I also said that I'm new to 3-d.

By quality, I meant any visible improvement to the footage as compaired to that which was rendered without fields regardless of what the improvement was.
I actually expect degredation of the image because Animation as an uncompressed codec is significantly better than anything DV can do.

What I intended to say is that I didn't see a diff btwn footage w/ fields and without when compaired back to back on a production monitor and since i'm new to Lightwave, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something in regards to exporting, but it sounds like it is unnecessary to field render.