-
OK, once and for all – field rendering and RAM previews?…
…Is there a way? (without the Nucleo software – I can’t afford a quad G5 just yet!)
I’ve been reading allsorts in the archives about field rendering in AFX, most of it from a couple of years ago, so here it is – Have Adobe fixed AE 7.0 so it can RAM preview with fields yet? If not then why not!?!
As a broadcast designer, my clients want to see my work *exactly* as it will look as we go – hence the RAM previews. Deadlines are usually very tight and so often it’s essential to know how it’s going to look as you go, as there is no time to keep rendering out tests to check for field issues.
If I’m running a DeckLink card (or similar) to a Broadcast monitor for preview purposes (as most b/cast designers would yeah?) then you’d expect to be able to see field details, as well as true colours, aspect ratio, etc. Surely that’s why you’d use a TV monitor?
Thoughts?
-
6 Replies
-
So you’re seeing it fine thru your decklink, but instead of a progressive render, you want the motion rendered in fields using the RAM preview? Out of curiosity, why field rendering? We talked about this a while back and most ppl concluded it’s not asthetically pleasing. It’s “Hypercrisp” like old video switchers. Is there a technical reason you want it rendered in fields?
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
Hi Chris,
Haven’t got the Decklink yet – it’s in the post. I’m just basing this on using AFX 5.5 with our VT[3] I/O card as a monitor out. I wondered if in AE7 they’d sorted out fields..
I render upper field first mainly because we usually deal with interlaced digibeta footage for TVCs and I’m pretty sure that if I send progressive frames to our old Editbox (our main NLE at the mo) it goes bonkers! I often work with other peoples’ 3D work that gets sent from all over the shop aswell and that’s usually all done UFF.
Do I not need to use fields in this instance are you saying?
I just find it bewildering that a pro app like AFX doesn’t have this option. I mean I know it’s not a flame or inferno (dreams..) but it’s used pretty widely for alot of high-end work. I guess film work (and now 720/1080p HD work) is not that relevant as far as fields go, but with SD broadcast in the UK at least I thought fielded footage was the norm? Am I in a bubble?!?
-
I use AE 7 with a Decklink. The standard way is to go to your video prefs and set the output to Decklink using the “Blackmagic RGB” codec. Then you will see your work exactly like it is on your comp monitor.
As far as rendering fields, it really is an artistic preference (that many don’t care for). If you’re sending video to something, it still is technically giving it fields, it’s just happens to be the exact same image on every pair of fields. Rendering fields in AE basically samples the positions of objects every 60th of a second (base 30fps) instead of every 30th. But just like the look of interlaced video which is 60 new images a second, people find it offputting and prefer progressive video or rolling film at 30 fps and under for a more artistic feel of motion.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
I will do some tests and mix media a bit and see what happens. Thanks for the info Chris.
-
When I first started playing with 3D renders in 1993 everyone made such a big deal about rendering in fields – how much smoother and more fluid the motion was. It seemed that rendering progressive was considered amateur back then.
Now – I do a lot of VFX work and compositing and motion graphics – all of it would be a nightmare if I had to deal with fields – I do everything progressive. The only time fields come into play is when I work with 24p footage and need to do 3:2 pulldown at the very end of the project to get it to NTSC.
That all said – it seems the industry has flipped on whether true interlaced footage (and or CG rendered elements) look better as progressive then fields?
I totally don’t disagree with anything posted here – Its more of an observation and wondered what other people thought of it?
-
I’ll go so far as say that I hate the look of rendering fields. I think interlacing alltogether needs to die out. It’s an old requirement for old technology and needs to just go away. If I ran the world, the broadcast standard would be 24p. Mostly to save film costs. I shoot 30fps now to match video frame per frame without needing a pulldown. But it costs a bit more. I personally don’t see a difference in 30p to 24p, but there is a hell of a diff between 30p and regular interlaced video. But because it would be cheaper and the same standard as motion pictures, 24p is my vote. Rendering in fields means you will see 60 changes per second and I think it looks way too hyper real. I love that kind of framerate for video games but not entertainment.
My opinion of course 🙂
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up