-
Font Troubles
I have a QT movie that I’ve imported into a comp. It contains some text titles.
When I view the QT on its own the text appears smooth.
But, when I add it to the timeline and view it in the Comp Window or render it out with ‘None’ compression it’s jaggy. This is the case whether I’m looking at a still frame or a moving sequence. I have not scaled the clip at all.
Not sure how to fix it. I can live with the jaggies in the comp window but not in the final render.
Help. 🙁
-
9 Replies
-
Are you rendering with fields? You’ll see a comb-like effect in areas of motion if you render with fields. However, on a TV (not a computer) it will look fine if you’ve rendered with the proper field order.
Or … did you render with Best Settings?
Steve
-
Hi Steve,
I rendered with Best Settings, Res Full and Field Rendering Off.BTW, when I create text directly in AE using the same font and font size, it looks fine.
-
After messing with it for awhile I selected ‘Interpret Footage’ under ‘File’ and found that it was separating fields for that imported clip. When I selected None the text cleared up. Funny in that I thought the choice given when you render would override that. I suppose though that my thinking is a bit backwards.
So, what’s better, leaving it that way (lower field) and ignoring the jaggy text on the monitor knowing that through the NTSC DVD/TV it will be OK?
I’ll probably be outputting this to both the web and a DVD.
If I selected none instead, would it still be smooth through a TV?
-
You should always separate fields if you expect to scale or distort a clip in any way. If however, you expect to leave the clip alone in a same-sized comp, then you should not separate fields on import or interpretation. Ignore the combing — it will look fine on TV.
You should separate fields for rendering to web, though, otherwise you’ll get combing. Try importing the clip twice into different folders in the project window, with different interpretations: fields on, or off.
If you render a “left alone” static clip as “fields off” that has not had fields separated (it looks comb-like), AE just reproduces each comb-like frame. It does the same thing when you render fields. Field rendering (or not) is only relevant for motion created within AE.
You don’t have to render fields, but if you do, the field order (lower first for DV) should be correct for your output hardware. I rarely render fields. Personal preference.
You should figure out a way to do a number of tests of field interpretation and rendering to gain a better understanding of fields.
Hope that helps — I’m rather tired. You should get the Meyers’ Creating Motion Graphics Books for more info.
Steve
-
I ran into that the other day with a file I’d been working on with a Canopus machine. Its AVI files are interlaced but the animation I’d made was rendered without fields. It looked chunky in AE until I re-interpreted the footage. AE interpreted it properly, since the codec is interlaced. But since this is going to CD-ROM and I didn’t want it to be interlaced I had to override that.
Cf
-
Thanks again Steve.
I have the first Meyers book (3rd edition), as well as the Visual Quick Pro (or is it VQ Start?) one. LOTS to sort through and it’s hard to know where to begin. I’m more of a ‘look at that effect, now let’s dissect it and figure out how to recreate it’ kind of learner. Of couse I miss stuff that way 🙂I’m learning this at night on my own at the same time I’m trying to put a proposal together with what I’m learning so I’m not always sure what applies to each situaton. The proposal is unrelated to motion graphics, otherwise I’d go to school or take Pixel Corps classes.
The text animation was done in Motion (could have used AE I guess). Once I imported it into AE I figured out how to create a ‘cube’ rotation with a null.
It seems to me that both the ‘interpret fields’ and what I do when rendering should match up (IE- be the same)?
Anyway, I’m sure I’ll be posting more questions on the boards. Thank you so much for your help and explanations. Even though I’m not looking for a motion graphics career (yet?) I am intensely interested in learning this stuff and in the ‘whys’ of how it works.
-
Too bad everything couldn’t have been standardized from the beginning :), like PAR between TV and computers.
-
[Dario] “It seems to me that both the ‘interpret fields’ and what I do when rendering should match up (IE- be the same)? “
Not necessarily. AE gives you the choice to interpret and render differently. There are times when you want to:
-interpret field sep off and render with fields: when the interlaced clip just sits there in a same-sized comp, but you’ve animated other stuff flying around.
– interpret field sep off, render no fields: when the interlaced clip just sits there in a same-sized comp, and you didn’t create any animated motion. Maybe for colour-correction. The clip is just reproduced as it is: a series of combed frames that other apps can interpret as fields.
– interpret field sep on, render no fields: when you want to move/distort an interlaced clip, but don’t like the look of interlacing for your render.
– interpret field sep on, render fields: as above, but you like the look of fields.Remember: an interlaced clip is a series of comb-like frames. It’s up to the application to decide how to use that information: to split the clip (separate fields on) or just leave it as is (sep off).
Hope that helps. Consider the Meyers’ Videosyncrasies tape .. if they still offer it.
Steve
-
Wow, a ‘font’ of information. 🙂
Thanks again and I’ll look for their tape.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up