Many thanks Matt, Motion blur it is then!!
I know nothing at all about Alpha Channel work so I'm missing out there I guess. The movie goes well with 9 minutes of finals. AVI at this stage. OpenEXR can happen if someone else wants to buy the thing and they can pay for that or unless I hear advice to the contrary, etc. Systems for drawing, etc., have now settled into something that seems quite efficient. The work flow with RS is just so easy, so fast and such fun. I think TV is the target but a demo-reel/trailer/pilot is the first step with it. I expect to post screen-grabs and short takes soon. YouTube, etc as well I expect. Neil Cooke ________________________________ From: Matthias Kappenberg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 6 January, 2010 10:53:29 AM Subject: Re: Movie - Panning across verticals. Hi Neil, me again :-) 720p means p for progressive frames -> full frames 720i means i for interlaced frames -> 2 half frames one with even lines and one with odd lines, then merged to one frame. TV for example uses interlaced frames where even and odd lines must be rendered. This can give much better results for panning cameras but if you need progressive frames the answer is the same as before: motion blur. And don't forget to set the Alpha Channel, if you need it, under the "Rendering Settings->Properties->Ray Tracing Tab +- Channels" for Anti Alias, too ;-) (Compare the results....) Matthias ----- Original Message ----- >From: Neil Cooke >To: UserList RealSoft >Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:53 > PM >Subject: Movie - Panning across > verticals. > > >Hi List, > > >When panning passed a set of vertical edges I get a shudder result in the > AVI - HDV, 720P. > > >I will try various ideas to solve it. I will try a higher AA setting, a > much slower pan rate and "scaling". And maybe "interlacing" or something but > I > dont know anything about that. > > >But maybe someone already has a better answer? > > >The AA and the "scaling" will damage render times I think. A slower pan > seems most promising to me. > > >Thanks > > >Neil Cooke
