Personally, I'm not against field rendering staying in Blender. If it's used, of course it should not be removed.
I do understand what fields are used for, and what problems fields originally were meant to tackle. My point here is that in my case, I always render things in parts, move things around and scale my rendered output during the compositing phase. So it's then better to use progressive renders, as moving or scaling interlaced footage is impossible (without removing fields, which throws away half of the image resolution). Cheers, -mats On 9.7.2010, at 18.42, Roger Wickes wrote: > Fields provides motion blur and much smoother video than progressive at the > same > frame rate. 30i is effectively shown at 60hz, and the result is much smoother > motion than 30p, without Blender calculating a specific MBlur or vector > blurl; > turn on fields and it does an automatic "tween frame". > > > On the INPUT side, working with interlaced input in the comp, you have to > de-interlace to do any meaningful mask work etc. You work with 60hz squashed > but > hard-edged images. You can pre-process interlaced into fielded image sequence > for work in the comp, but that is an extra step. If you bring it in directly, > I > dont think the comp supports inter-frame work, so working with fielded > interlaced video is not directly supported (but we have a workflow that can > deal > with it). So if you do that, then you need some way to interlace the output > from > that 60hz sequence. > > Keep in mind that many consumer camcorders record interlaced. A large portion > of > our user base is in that range, and want to comp in their spaceship on top of > their back yard plate. I think Blender needs to support input interlaced > video > for the next five years at least, either via a manual pre-process step or ... > a > fully implemented feature set. > > > I think the question is whether Blender needs to be able to GENERATE > interlaced > video. Not using fields on output gives everything a very crisp but jumpy > feel > to it, and so probably actually works well for high-energy TV commercials. I > think it the answer depends on how long the broadcast standard is going to > remain in place. Technically, it was invented before CG and motion > blur/vector > blur, so it may be eclipsed as a blurring technology. As an artist, if I was > doing like a cartoon, I need blur. The question is whether fields would give > a > better result that motion and/or vector blur. I guess it should be put to the > test. Better is a function of visual appeal and render times. > > --Roger > > > Check out my website at www.rogerwickes.com for a good deal on my book and > training course, as well as information about my latest activities. Use coupon > Papasmurf for $15 off! > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mats Holmberg <mats.holmb...@2me.fi> > To: bf-blender developers <bf-committers@blender.org> > Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 11:10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal to Remove Features > > I guess the problem with fields nowadays is that they aren't really needed. I > use Blender for creating TV-commercials, all in standard resolution PAL > format, > but have never used fields for anything. The biggest reason for this is that > fields are quite useless when compositing, and compositing is involved in my > every single project. The end result is always interlaced, but that doesn't > mean > field rendering has to be used. Progressive source material works better just > about always in my experience. > > -mats > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
