View Full Version : Rendering at twice the size, but what about motion blur?

01-18-2007, 06:25 PM
Has anyone done the rendering trick where you render your animation frames twice the size with no antialiasing, then scale down in post? This seems like a good way to go but how does an animation turn out when no extra passes are rendered for motion blur?

01-18-2007, 11:33 PM
The only way that would work is if you used 'vector blur', which only blurs in a straight line. Airplane propellors look ridiculous, for example, with vector blur. Or post-process blurs, but the one I've seen - for After Effects - wasn't very accurate.

Are you sure this is worthwhile? I'd bet that if it was the slightest bit better or faster than using AA, studios would still do it, and I don't think that any of them do. I've never tested it out though - now I'm curious

01-19-2007, 02:27 AM
Fascinating - rendering at 400% resolution looks to be on par with Enhanced High aa, but not really suited to animations. Faster (47 sec compared to 1min.), but also a bit sharper, which can cause flickering - not to mention the lack of motion blur. It also took 33% more memory to render. I think it's good for stills, but not really for for print - rendering 400% bigger than something that needs to be 4000 pixels finished doesn't seem feasible.

Where this could really come in handy is stills with radiosity. You could solve aa and noise problems at the same time. And if the speed is similar to my test, render in 4.7 hours instead of 6.