View Full Version : LW Connect and video fielding problem

12-17-2004, 02:37 PM

I have VT4 and Bob's LW Connect. I'm having an issue with the way LW is handling my DV files...maybe all files, but I use mainly DV. I know LW is rendering out fields because motion w/in the scene comes out fielded. The problem is in the video placed in the scene. The field order is correct for each source, but on output, the source video is de-fielded...essentially progressive. If I stop on any frame of the rendered clip in a VT timeline, I can see no flicker what so ever in any of the video that is not moving in the scene, but has much motion in the sorse clip. Any video that is moving surface has a flicker from it's overall motion, but the video within has no fielding. Does that make sense? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


12-17-2004, 03:30 PM
In the camera properties panel make sure you have field rendering turned on. Also turn on motion blur.


12-17-2004, 03:48 PM
Just to be clear: this is a LightWave issue.
And, perhaps, a codec soup issue.

LightWave doesn't know what to do with interlaced material. Or, at least it doesn't do it like WE need it done. It mushes the frames together, giving a progressive look. When you have no fielding order selected, one presumes that LightWave will match the interlacing to the frames, ImageA to the RenderedA and ImageB to the RenderedB, as relates to field ordering. But it doesn't; it just overlays A&B for an "almost there, {expletive expletive expletive}" moment.

Many have pointed at this as a long standing issue/problem with LightWave while others have contended, and rightly so, that there are 'other programs out there that will take care of it; then bring it back in'.

Interlace is something that is known about over in NewTekLand. Can we get a bit of proper interaction with video with this 8.2 update? :( :o

12-17-2004, 08:08 PM
Robert: So are you saying I'm simply out of luck? I have 7.5c.

The camera properties does say to use fielding. Would motion blur magically add fielding in the way I need it, or does that simply add blur?

12-18-2004, 05:00 AM
That would simply add blur.

I think the problem I saw in your imagery was fielding issues of another order. Yours seemed clearly confused, with lines A where lines B should be and vice versa.

Mike, does the weird fielding happen with ALL your material? That captured by you and not?
We've been talking about it but can't get a handle on it...

12-18-2004, 11:26 AM
No, it happens with the NewTek Content footage with VT as well. Remember I send you an example with a panda and make-up face girl.

Was your last post saying fielding is reversed? I've seen that before, but this is certainly fieldless and I believe the lines are in the right order as the progressive frames' moving subjects look rather clean when still.

Are there any .rtv content files I could look for and try...to make sure this is a DV issue?

12-31-2004, 06:10 AM
Seems a lack of institutional memory got us here, Mike. My apologies to you and those involved with LW that I may have disparaged by asserting what couldn't be done.

Just have to know how to use the switch. Hell, you have to know that there IS a switch.

Look for an update soon.

{Someone shoulda spanked me for my comments above. Or at least a tap on the shoulder as to how I coulda been wrong. Alas, we have learned.}