PDA

View Full Version : rendering NTSC



fabmedia
11-11-2003, 11:53 AM
I have a project coming up that I need to output to DVD for display on a TV. That's the easy part. My questions lies in rendering out the frames. If I was to composite my renders (which I will have to do) using a compositing package and then edit using a video editing package, do I need to render interleaved frames. I read somewhere that you don't need to render the interleaved frames because that will screw up the quality of the image.

Now another is whether compositing editing software will convert and export the images to interleaved frames.

And lastly, even or odd first, 60 fps, larger than standard NTSC?

Thanks,
Arlen

SamuraiSlayer
11-11-2003, 11:19 PM
if i were you, I would do NON-interlaced at 24 fps

SamuraiSlayer
11-11-2003, 11:19 PM
editing picture-by-picture is also extremely easier with non-interlaced

toby
11-12-2003, 02:57 AM
I listened to a long discussion about whether to use motion blur or interlacing for tv, it was clear that either one will do, the rest being up to personnal preference.

I put my demo reel on VHS with no interlacing and can't tell the difference. A good friend who works at Digital Domain and makes his own short films never interlaces his video.

Also, interlacing in LW will not only take longer to render but look awful if you ever show it on a computer.

And unless you want to do the 'pulldown' thing you'll need to render to 30fps.

fabmedia
11-12-2003, 09:42 AM
Sounds good to me. I won't interlace the frames. I'll let Combustion and Final Cut Pro do that work. At least I know I wont get to the final edit and find out that I had to render this stuff out with it.

Thank you!
Arlen

toby
11-12-2003, 10:44 AM
actually I think that you have to render to 60 fps if you want to interlace later -? there are video guys on the forum here but they're not talking :confused:

11-12-2003, 11:05 AM
If you've got to get started and don't have time to play, render preset NTSC frame size at the proper speed (30fps) not interlaced but with motion blur.
If you have any bits where something in the foreground is moving fast across the frame, might be worth doing a 2nd render with interlacing turned on.
Rendering at 60fps just in case would double your render times ! to very little benefit.

That said, if you were to do your rendering all interlaced, and all the compositing software etc can handle fielded video, and it was not going to be re-timed or pushed around the screen, and it's only going to be played on TV screens, it would probably look better in the end - that's why video is normally interlaced.

fabmedia
11-12-2003, 11:06 AM
Kind of off topic, but is there a way to ouput frames of multiple cameras in one QT movie or series of images? I have some 75 camera and I want to ouput a single image from each camera, but I don't want to hit F9 75 times.

Is there a way to do this? I couldn't find anything in the manual. LW 7.5

Arlen

Tom Wood
11-12-2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by toby
actually I think that you have to render to 60 fps if you want to interlace later -? there are video guys on the forum here but they're not talking :confused:

Heh, I hope you don't consider moi a 'video guy' because I'm still meandering through all this. :p

I'm rendering out individual TGA images that are then imported to Mirage and rendered out to RTV for use in VT3. I use 29.97 frames per second in all programs, mostly to keep it simple. Aura did weird things (to me) when loading images, so you need to do some tests to see how it handles them.

I'm now trying dithered blur, which you can't do with fields on in LW. But Mirage will do the interlacing for you, so it doesn't matter. I guess the issue is the production process - Can you interlace later?

I tried rendering at double the size of NTSC, and about half the anti-aliasing, hoping to save render time. No help, the image looked just as bad when reduced, and I could never get it use fewer than 2 segments, which increased render time.

TW