PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 9.3 Rendering at 3000 fps!!



dranos
09-11-2007, 07:15 PM
Thats right folks, Lightwave is rendering at 3000 fps. I just completed a 9 sec sequence and rendered it only to find that after waiting over a hour for the render, I can't use it. When I open the file in Quicktime, the timeline shows 0 secs. When I hit play, it basically skips through about 3 frames randomly.

I decided to import the clip into After Effects where I noticed that it reads the footage as being 3000 fps. If I try to force it to conform to 29.97, then the rendered clip reduces to 0 sec. (Ironically, if I play it on the timeline in AE, it plays just right.)

I've checked my camera settings in Lightwave and also my render settings and everything seems fine.

I need to submit this clip in the morning. Can anyone help?!!

Thanks in advance.

jameswillmott
09-11-2007, 07:18 PM
Render to frames and compile them in AE?

dranos
09-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Render to frames and compile them in AE?

I'm not sure I understand.

jameswillmott
09-11-2007, 07:38 PM
You're rendering a QuickTime movie right?

Rather than doing that, use the Save RGB option and save individual frames as an image sequence to disk. Then use AE to make a movie from those individual frames and save it as a QuickTime from there.

dranos
09-11-2007, 07:51 PM
Ok I understand that. But whereas that may be quick fix, how do I solve the problem for the long run?

jameswillmott
09-11-2007, 08:10 PM
It could be a bug that can't be 'fixed' without an update to either LW or QT... can you post the content for us to have a look at? Even justthe scene file ( no objects ) would be enough.

dranos
09-11-2007, 09:54 PM
Ok, I was able to use AE and force the movie back to 29.97 fps but still cannot understand why Lightwave renders it that way in the first place. I tried rendering the scene 3 more times using slightly different settings & durations but kept getting the same results.

The problem does seem to be scene specific because I tried rendering another project and it worked fine.

I guess I may have to submit the scene file and have someone else test it.

toby
09-12-2007, 01:48 AM
That's reason 32 for rendering to frames and not to a video file!
Others;
Crashes and power outages usually leave you with a useless file, you have to start rendering all over again.
Frames are framerate independent.
You can check your frames as soon as the first one's rendered.
You can't output to floating point video.
Rendering to video is impossible on a farm.
If you get a bad frame, just re-render it, you don't have to hunt through a video file to find out which one it is and edit it back in.
Frames are automatically numbered for you.

I think there's more, I'd just have to look them up

Matt
09-12-2007, 03:13 AM
NEVER render direct to animation, it's just bad practise, doesn't help you much I know!

archijam
09-12-2007, 03:16 AM
More:

You can adjust the levels, contrast etc. losslessly in photoshop with actions.
You can easily remove the nth frame to change the speed etc.
You can create any video format from the stills instead of lossy cross-conversions...

j.

nigebabe
09-12-2007, 04:42 AM
Hi Dranos,

I had the same problem. On my work machine I have 9.2 and I regularly render out a quick low-res QT movie of a sequence and this has always worked perfectly. Last weekend, I updated my home Apple to run 9.3 under bootcamp and a 4 sec movie was played at such high speed as to be useless. I could scrub the timeline on the QT movie file in slow time but playing it in realtime was impossible.

Captain Obvious
09-12-2007, 05:10 AM
NEVER EVER render to animation files! ALWAYS render to image sequences.

safetyman
09-12-2007, 05:36 AM
I ran into this situation recently myself. The problem for me was, I didn't have AE or Premiere installed on the machine I was using. I thought about rendering to a video file, but it would have taken several hours. I was desperate, so I used Flash to compose the individual frames into a vid. I was also able to put sound in there, so Flash will work in a pinch FYI.

dranos
09-12-2007, 07:20 AM
Well on the one hand its good to know my situation is not unique but then on the other hand... the situation just sucks.

I've been working with lightwave for over 6 years now and have always rendered straight to animation. Yes I now have more gray hairs but I never thought that what I was doing was odd.

The points brought forward for rendering in frames make perfect sense.

Thanks guys.

I guess I'll never know what really went wrong.

dranos
09-12-2007, 07:35 AM
Since I'll now be using frames from now on, can some one help me with the settings. Since I never use them, I'm sort of lost.
I see "Save RGB" & "Save Alpha", do I enable both if I need the movie to have an alpha channel?

I also notice the pulldown menu with various image formats, which do I use for standard video. Normally I render as animation at 29.97fps, millions of colors + at high quality. How do I maintain these options using frames?

Thanks.

3DGFXStudios
09-12-2007, 08:13 AM
Since I'll now be using frames from now on, can some one help me with the settings. Since I never use them, I'm sort of lost.
I see "Save RGB" & "Save Alpha", do I enable both if I need the movie to have an alpha channel?

I also notice the pulldown menu with various image formats, which do I use for standard video. Normally I render as animation at 29.97fps, millions of colors + at high quality. How do I maintain these options using frames?

Thanks.

Just save as LW TGA32 if you want an alpha in the file. The other save alpha option is for saving an alpha separately.

fps doesn't have anything to with image sequences. once you make a movie of it you can set the frame rate. for example in AE

mrpapabeis
09-12-2007, 08:19 AM
You can save in any format that supports 32 bits. I.E. RBG 8 bits per channel = 24 bits. The xtra 8 bits are for the alpha channel. Total of 32. I save as .PSD files uncompressed. I do a bit of compositing after. Also there is that plugin (sorry cant remember name) that will allow you to save in PSD layers for ultimate control.

Oh and remember that you can use QT pro ($29.95) to compile your image sequence into a movie.


GP

dranos
09-12-2007, 08:59 AM
Thanks guys!

Captain Obvious
09-12-2007, 10:51 AM
The best format to output to is 24-bit PNG with a separate alpha. 32-bit PNGs have an alpha channel inside, but it's usually read as transparency instead.

dranos
09-12-2007, 10:59 AM
I already started the new render as LW TGA32 but I'll be sure to run a few tests.
Thanks

toby
09-13-2007, 01:25 AM
I used to use PNG, small, lossless compression, until the final, then I used TIF. Seems to get a much better alpha or premultiplication than png, fewer matte line issues when compositing.

But now we can all use OpenEXR, either with Lightwolf's plugin or now with 9.3, LW can output them. Stores floating point images (you change the exposure to your heart's content), supports extra buffers and very good lossless compression / small file sizes. Created by ILM, it's the industry standard.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2007, 05:05 AM
Does AfterEffects load layered OpenEXR files properly?

Phil
09-13-2007, 06:07 AM
Adobe's support for OpenEXR is, well, crap. fnordware.com will set you up with a Photoshop and AE plugin set, although it grates to pay for something that should have been in the package from the start. Especially given the prices that Adobe charges its non-US customers.

toby
09-14-2007, 01:49 AM
fnordware.com
DAMN that's cool!

More evidence that Adobe is dragging their greedy a$$e$ not providing floating point layers.

dranos
09-14-2007, 07:14 AM
I feel stupid for asking this, but what are floating point layers and when does this become handy?

Artistrendering
09-14-2007, 09:39 AM
Why do they even make it an option?
They still have plenty of more important bugs to fix.
I can't believe I still can't cut and paste properly.
That seems like (a no brainer) one to fix.

dsol
09-14-2007, 10:11 AM
Hmmm... all this hate for rendering to Quicktime (justified though it is) gave me a thought. Quicktime is just a wrapper format, and one of the formats it can wrap is, of course, IMAGE SEQUENCES :) It can embed the files in the QT file, or it can just create a reference the original image sequence.

So what's the upshot of this, you ask? Well, a nice feature to add to future versions of LW might be support for the generation of a referenced-content QT movie automatically connected to your rendered image sequence. This'd then be usuable in your video editing software as well as offering just the plain convenience of being able to view freshly-rendered content straight up in the QT player. Would save a bit of time :)

Chilton
09-14-2007, 10:14 AM
Hi,


Why do they even make it an option?
They still have plenty of more important bugs to fix.
I can't believe I still can't cut and paste properly.
That seems like (a no brainer) one to fix.

This is fixed, and the release that fixes it is waiting on a (rapidly decreasing) handful of other fixes.

-Chilton

toby
09-14-2007, 10:02 PM
I feel stupid for asking this, but what are floating point layers and when does this become handy?
Actually I crammed two terms together. Floating point images store more color data than 32bit images, you can store the intesity of the sun, even more if you want, in the image. That's what HDR's are.

When I said layers I was refering to the fact that Photoshop doesn't support layers in HDR's or EXR's, just like they did when 16 bit was first supported - no layers. Not to mention painting. This is technology that's been around for at least 7 YEARS, based on the fact that LW supported it just as much in 1999 as Adobe does now. LW still loads and saves them twice as fast too. They're trickling out the features at each paid upgrade because they don't have any serious competition. If they did that would be great - they'd have to develop at the same pace as everyone else for a change.

Netvudu
09-22-2007, 10:52 AM
Dranos, although youīre already on the good path, just wanted to clarify in case you didnīt got it already: rendering from your 3d app directly to a video file is useless, dangerous, slow (yes, it actually drags down your workflow) and nobody in the industry works this way.
Asking why this function doesnīt work better or has more options is similar to asking why Lwīs chroma options arenīt more powerful.Itīs simply not needed at all.

Why would anybody want to render to a format that a) is compressed (in most cases, unless you work with humongous video files) so you loose quality, and b) itīs a nightmare to fix and you canīt save render buffers to improve the results in postproduction software? Itīs nonsense.

Nobody hates the quikctime format, or at least no more than the .avi format.

BigHache
09-22-2007, 08:55 PM
Dranos, I haven't tested this in 9.2 or 9.3, but specifically for broadcast, rendering a QT in LW at 29.97 fps did NOT produce a 29.97 fps file. The resulting file was 30 fps. What you would end up with if you imported that QT file into Final Cut let's say, is the last frame of that movie would just be black.

I tried before rendering a QT for something quickly and ended up needing to render an image sequence and export from AE. Just another thought.

krasuld61
10-24-2007, 03:50 PM
Thats right folks, Lightwave is rendering at 3000 fps. I just completed a 9 sec sequence and rendered it only to find that after waiting over a hour for the render, I can't use it. When I open the file in Quicktime, the timeline shows 0 secs. When I hit play, it basically skips through about 3 frames randomly.

I decided to import the clip into After Effects where I noticed that it reads the footage as being 3000 fps. If I try to force it to conform to 29.97, then the rendered clip reduces to 0 sec. (Ironically, if I play it on the timeline in AE, it plays just right.)

I've checked my camera settings in Lightwave and also my render settings and everything seems fine.

I need to submit this clip in the morning. Can anyone help?!!

Thanks in advance.
I have the same problem since upgrading to LW9.3 on Mac. I have the same problem on both an Intel G5 and an old G5. LW is unable to compress the movie file properly.

I now save as RGB files (Pict) instead and get QuickTime Pro 7.2 (which may be part of the problem) to assemble the moviefile at whatever frame rate you wish.

Guess we wil have to wait for NewTek to make LW9.3 QuickTime compatible ...

Mr Maze
10-27-2007, 10:40 PM
Am I reading this right? Can QT even do 3000 fps?

BigHache: You have to set the LW prefs to the framerate you want. The default is 30. So if you don't change it, it doesn't matter what your QT output settings are, LW will still render to 30 fps. Been like that since 9 (I wouldn't know about any sooner, because I didn't start using it until 9 came out).

Why in the world would you want to render an animation at 3000 fps? Thats freaking 27000 frames for 9 seconds of video! Isn't there a cap on how many frames LW can render in one session?

meshpig
10-28-2007, 02:38 AM
Fill me in, I don't understand. 3000 fps doesn't mean mcuh as an image sequence either. What moves so quickly in a scene that needs that many frames?

ie. what would the incremental difference be between frame 2568 and 2569?
Whichever video output you choose, it's still going to run @ x fps.


Curious??

Cheers!

M

toby
10-28-2007, 11:14 AM
Guys - read the first post.

meshpig
10-28-2007, 11:52 PM
Guys - read the first post.

Dranos's? It still doesn't make any sense, though I don't doubt it's possible, 3mhz isn't going to phase the machine. But the eye can't register much beyond 60 cycles.

To play it though, %99.9 of the frames will be dropped anyway so why bother rendering them in the first place? Even if you can play all 3000 per second, you wouldn't see any real difference.

-QT can handle 60 fps, just export a typical DV clip to 60 fps/animation and you'll see the effect is more like antialiasing than an optical camera. It loses some of the need to round pixels off, so, at 60 fps it's much clearer but with exponentially bigger files.

M

toby
10-29-2007, 12:04 AM
He had no intention of rendering at 3000fps, that's what he wanted help with

meshpig
10-29-2007, 12:07 AM
Dranos's? It still doesn't make any sense, though I don't doubt it's possible, 3mhz isn't going to phase the machine. But the eye can't register much beyond 60 cycles.

To play it though, %99.9 of the frames will be dropped anyway so why bother rendering them in the first place? Even if you can play all 3000 per second, you wouldn't see any real difference.

-QT can handle 60 fps, just export a typical DV clip to 60 fps/animation and you'll see the effect is more like antialiasing than an optical camera. It loses some of the need to round pixels off, so, at 60 fps it's much clearer but with exponentially bigger files.

M


To add a little irony to the story... your 60 fps movie in this environment is still going to end up playng at 24/25 fps... or at max, 29.97/30.

An image sequence the same.

M

Dexter2999
10-29-2007, 12:14 AM
This may be stupid, but did you check your frame rate under your general options? I just happened to have a similar incident last week where for some unknown reason the project settings were set to 1200 fps.

Mr Maze
10-29-2007, 11:39 AM
Thanks Toby now I think I understand. This would make sense if the frame rate was messed up in the options panel.

meshpig
11-02-2007, 01:24 AM
He had no intention of rendering at 3000fps, that's what he wanted help with


Sorry, misread from the outset. Totally my mistake!!

M:)

MacDoggie
11-05-2007, 09:21 AM
NEVER EVER render to animation files! ALWAYS render to image sequences.

Nuff said!:thumbsup:

Cheers