PDA

View Full Version : VT Lightwave 7.5c



youngjgy
04-01-2004, 10:02 PM
Hi, I'm new and I was just wondering if there are any limititaions with Lightwave 7.5c with VT. I was trying to render a scene with grass moving(using displacement maps), and I set the scene for 450 frames. When I render out the scene it all seems to work fine. I've watched the render all the way to 450 frames, but when I open the animation up it is only 1 second and a few frames. I 've done this several times with pretty much the same results. Does it have anything to do with the dispalcement maps? I don't know what to do

Qexit
04-02-2004, 03:17 PM
The only limitation in the VT3 copy of LW7.5c is that it is not compatible with any third party plugins that need to be licensed to a dongle. This includes all of the Worley Labs products (Polk, Taft, Sasquatch, FPrime, G2), Dynamic Realities (Napalm, etc.), and Shekinah Studios (Vertibevel). Otherwise, it is identical to the standalone version.

Are you rendering out individual frames, i.e. and image sequence, or direct to an anim file of some kind ? If the latter, then I recommend you switch to rendering image sequences first off.

When you say you set the scene for 450 frames, exactly where did you set it ? As long as have the timeline across the bottom of the main Layout window running from 0 to 450 (the default is 0 to 60) and then set the range in the Render Panel from 1- 450 you should get the required sequence of 450 frames.

Not sure what else to suggest without a little more info.

robewil
04-02-2004, 03:23 PM
This may seem obvious but check your Render Options panel and make sure the begin and end frames are 1 and 450 respectively. Setting the number of frames in the layout will not automatically change the render options.

jamesl
04-03-2004, 12:26 AM
If you're rendering to .rtv, don't. In fact, it's a good idea to not render to any of the animation formats, since the chances of a bad frame are high. If you render frames as .tga or .tiff, you can easily bring them into TEd, and if there is a bad frame, you only need to re-render that one frame or retouch it by hand in Aura. I've had problems rendering to .rtv (usually it saves about half of the animation, even tough it rendered everything). This is a known bug.

j

youngjgy
04-08-2004, 09:25 PM
Thanks for all your replies. I did change the last frame in the render options but I was rendering it as an animation (.rtv). Jamesl so sould I always render as an image sequence? Is there a case where I should render to animation?
Thanks

jamesl
04-09-2004, 01:00 AM
nope.

j

mgrusin
04-09-2004, 12:28 PM
I have the same problem (see this thread (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20561)).

The bottom line is that the RTV saver doesn't always work correctly. It would be very nice if it did, it would save us a lot of trouble. Saving individual frames is great from an absolute safety standpoint (if it's too expensive to render everything again), but for noncritical stuff I'd much prefer to render directly into a video clip.

-MG.

Qexit
04-09-2004, 12:51 PM
Saving individual frames is great from an absolute safety standpoint (if it's too expensive to render everything again), but for noncritical stuff I'd much prefer to render directly into a video clip.

Rendering to image sequences also allows you a lot more flexibility with your output. With a set of full res images, you can easily convert them through LW into any video format. Loading them as a background image sequence and rendering that out to a video clip is always going to be a better option. Rendering out the images through LW will only take a few seconds or a couple of minutes at most which is no big deal compared with wasting a couple of hour of rendering time. Also, how do you handle alphas when you go straight to video ?

Another point is that if you have access to more than one PC, then you would want to use network rendering which cannot go direct to a video clip anyway.

I do very occasionally render direct to video, but only if it's going to take less than 15 minutes for the whole thing.

bradl
04-10-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Qexit
Rendering to image sequences also allows you a lot more flexibility with your output. With a set of full res images, you can easily convert them through LW into any video format. Loading them as a background image sequence and rendering that out to a video clip is always going to be a better option. Rendering out the images through LW will only take a few seconds or a couple of minutes at most which is no big deal compared with wasting a couple of hour of rendering time. Also, how do you handle alphas when you go straight to video ? I have to disagree with almost all of that. For those of us who use VT3 for our main finishing/compositing, we don't want or need flexiblity. We need RTV's. The entire VT Suite of programs are completely and irreversibly designed around RTV's. In fact, VT3 does not handle image sequences well at all. The best thing to do is to load Aura to compile them to RTV. Now you have Gigs of hard drive holding your images and Gigs of hard drive holding your RTV, you have a program you don't need open and a mess to clean up. Solution... LW renders an RTV... ahhhhhh... so nice... so efficient... so ready to go...

Maybe only those of us who do this everyday can appreciate the power of this workflow. Yea the other way works but for 90% of the animations we do it is a cumbersome workaround at best.

BTW, RTV's fully support Alpha, and they are 'full res' as well.
Another point is that if you have access to more than one PC, then you would want to use network rendering which cannot go direct to a video clip anyway.Good point, but the software engineers tackled this years ago with an RTV render version specially designed for ScreamerNet renders. If only it worked right!
I do very occasionally render direct to video, but only if it's going to take less than 15 minutes for the whole thing. With fast computers and simple things like flying text and logos, sometimes 15 minute renderings are exactly what we are doing and wishing it was ready to go when it was done. Lastly, RTV is not really 'video' in any more of a sense than TGA's are 'video'. It is just a format that holds all the frames in one file.

Bottom-line, RTV renders in LW are broken and they need to be fixed, instead of telling us we really shouldn't be doing it that way...

Sorry for ranting a bit, but it is frustrating knowing it should work and it doesn't.

jamesl
04-11-2004, 01:19 AM
Brad... I'm a bit confused. You're agreeing that rendering to .rtv doesn't work, but you're saying that we should do it anyway? Yes, I agree, if it worked, we should do it. But it doesn't, so we don't. Same thing with Screamernet... they 'tackled it', fumbled, and the other team picked up the ball and ran for the end zone. Seems like you're defending an ideal, and not the reality.

j

Qexit
04-11-2004, 02:27 AM
Good point, but the software engineers tackled this years ago with an RTV render version specially designed for ScreamerNet renders. If only it worked right!

Well, not quite. An attempt was made to produce a ScreamerNet compatible way of rendering direct to an RTV.....and quite simply they never succeeded. ScreamerNet just isn't capable of doing that and is one of the features of LW that really, really needs revamping.


I have to disagree with almost all of that. For those of us who use VT3 for our main finishing/compositing, we don't want or need flexiblity. We need RTV's.

I have a VT3...and I still render everything to image sequences first. Years of using LW has taught me that this is the best way to do it....period ! It is safe, reliable and flexible. I know the VT3 is bad at handling image sequences natively, which is something Newtek should address as it is something of failing in this otherwise excellent software suite. Every other compositing/editing package can do so, so why does VTEdit still struggle.


Bottom-line, RTV renders in LW are broken and they need to be fixed, instead of telling us we really shouldn't be doing it that way...

As you say, they are broken. So using the direct to RTV route from LW is currently pointless. So you use the best alternative...which means rendering to image sequences. Even if it worked, I would still advise people to go through two stages. Image sequences then to your anim file of choice, be it RTV, Quicktime or DivX.


BTW, RTV's fully support Alpha, and they are 'full res' as well.

But does the RTV saver give you the option to include Alpha info direct from LW ? It's so long since I used it, I honestly cannot remember for sure. My recollection was that it didn't hence my question about how you deal with alphas in the first place.


Solution... LW renders an RTV... ahhhhhh... so nice... so efficient... so ready to go...

...so asking for something to go wrong :D