-
Interlaced rendering vs Progressive
Hi Guys,
for years I’ve been rendering out of AE via the interlaced settings (Lower Fields) because I work with interlaced footage mostly.
The problem I have is using a field actually increases the rendering time…
So the question I have, is it better to use the “Best Setting” aka progressive out of AE7 and then create an Interlaced file out of that? Or going to interlaced straight from the comp is better than progressive?
Replies highly appreciated,
Dave -
9 Replies
-
If you want it interlaced you need to render it interlaced as you have been doing. Even though SD video is an interlaced format, you do not need to render interlaced. We render almost everything progressive with motion blur… this produces more of a “film-like” feel to match film sources for spots. It’s really an aesthetic choice for TV… Corporate jobs usually play back from projectors or Plasma/LCD, so progressive is the only option. The only time we field render is if we something is not playing smoothly and field rendering is the only choice to fix the problem.
-
Yep I’ve been struggling with this issue now and then. Not so much from the aesthetic point but in an attempt to avoid field order problems as there have been a number of occasions when I have delivered a job ‘upper’ when they wanted ‘lower’ so I figured progressive would solve the dilemma. Matt … can you explain what you mean when you say ‘add motion blur’ …. is this in After Effects ? and therefore the blur is only affecting moving ‘graphic elements’ (ie not video footage) ? and if there is video footage and you are going to render OUT with no fields how do you ‘interpret’ said footage on import ? Best regards Roger
-
Hi roger,
Hi rendered UFF for ages (because using mainly PAL Digitbeta) until recently…I find it makes no difference to render progressive, even if it’s going over interlaced footage in the NLE. It actually helps if the editor wants to ‘freeze’ a part of your animation or a client wants to take a still, as you don’t have the horrible field banding problem. However if you are rendering animation from AE along WITH interlaced footage and rendering out both together you’ll need to either render the whole lot as UFF or LFF (interpret footage by right/control clicking footage in proj window and interpret – try uff/lff and porgressive and step through the footage frame by frame for each and see which one looks right. Any movement in the footage should continue in same direction. If it goes one way, then next frame goes other you’ve got it wrong.)
OR you can de-interlace the footage to make it progressive if you prefer. check Andrew Kramer or Aharon Rabinowitz tutorial on the COW.
Adding motion blur works for any animated movement made in AE – looks loads better than interlaced.
Have fun!
*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0 -
This has also been discussed a ton in the past, so do a search of the archives for a lot more inout on it, Me personally I think an interlaced render looks like old 80’s video switcher effects where the motion is too hyper real. The same how video motion looks compared to film motion.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
But my source footage (DV) is interlaced….Do I need to “make it” progressive everytime I bring in video footage into IE? I’m in the NTSC land so it’s lower.
-
I’m in NTSC land as well and struggle with this same problem. Any more advice on the matter would really help.
-
IMHO, the advice so far has been misguided. Especially if you are working with DV footage (standard 29.97 interlaced, as opposed to any 24p pulldown stuff) you need to export WITH fields, or the exported render will never match the motion characteristics of any other DV material that the render gets merged with.
If you want to export progressive, working 60fps comps, that way when you drop that material onto a 29.97 timeline, the NLE will have full frames to work from to create fields with. If you want a still, you’ll have a full frame as well.
To say that field rendering makes motion look “too smooth” is actually complimenting the way fields works! In some ways, 29.97 is actually 60fps. Yes, but not really you are saying? Well, on an interlaced display (CRT TV for example) a render with fields will look double the speed of a render without fields, even though they are both 29.97 lets say… Agree?
jpb
-
Hi Storm,
Couldn’t tell you. I’ve never used interlaced material. Either film that was shot and transferred 30fps (29.97) so every frame is true, or Shot 24fps and in the Avid (or you could use AE) the pull down is removed so it’s a 24fps file.
But when it’s graphics only (mostly what we use AE for), I always render progressive.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
Also, I believe Aaahron Rabinowitz (sp?!?) did a tutorial to more effectively make progressive footage in AE…search on his page.
*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up