dvd questions

[Mylenium]

I've searched for it, cus I know someone has asked this already, but couldn't find it.

I need to make a animation in AE for a dvd, that will be broadcasted on a widescreen plasma television. Looped btw.

- What is the best resolution for me to use?
- To what do I have to render it to to make it a dvd?
- Any other things I should pay attention with, when making this animation?

t.i.a. :)

Assuming "widescreen" refers to 16:9, just use the proper preset in AE (720x576 pixels at 0.9 ratio for PAL) and export an MPEG-II file or whatever your DVD-Authoring program requires. There you need to set your project settings accordingly build your logic for an infinite looping and then create the actual DVD structure. That's different from program to program, so some more info would help to point you in the right direction (I only know and use Scenarist, though). For the rest just follow generic broadcast standards (color levels, audio peaks etc.)

Mylenium

[Papigiulio]

Hmmmz so i first need to export it to a mpeg 2 movie and then import it into a dvd authoring software ????

What do you need to know, so you can explain better? thnx for help btw :)

[Mylenium]

mehr, dasHmmmz so i first need to export it to a mpeg 2 movie and then import it into a dvd authoring software ????

What do you need to know, so you can explain better? thnx for help btw :)

That depends. If you use ReelDVD, Scenarist and a few other programs, you need a *.m2v but I know for a fact that Encore for instance can just import any video file or image sequence and will do the encoding itself when you tell it to create the DVD. It would be important to know, how your clip is going to be displayed - if it's going to be shown on a computer anyway, there would be some wisdom in not creating a physical DVD but directly play the files in full-screen mode from hard disc. Regarding the loop you need to be clear that there will always be a slight gap/ delay if you do it on the authoring level (jump from the end of the PGC to the start), so if you do not have fades on start and end it might be better to export a longer clip from AE - you will still have a jump after a few cycles, but the illusion inbetwen is maintained better.

Mylenium

[Papigiulio]

Hey sorry for the late reply.

This is what i understand till now. Create movie 720x576 pixels at 0.9 ratio for PAL ---> export it to a mpeg 2 movie ---> import with dvd encore ---> burn on a dvd rom.

It's not for a pc, its for a standalone dvd player connected to a widescreen plasma screen.

Do i got ir right so far? Another question tho, I have no mpeg 2 export options with after effects, these are the only options i got:

http://www.papigiulio.com/images/forum/codecs.jpg

[Papigiulio]

BTW whats the recommended framerate? 25 or 30?

[Mylenium]

MPEG-II is an extra export option on the render queue. It's not related to either VfW or Quicktime. Look again, it should be there in the other list where you can choose still images, MP3 etc. (if you're using AE 6.5, that is).

BTW whats the recommended framerate? 25 or 30?

A PAL compliant DVD must have 25 fps, upper field first, that's not a matter of taste but of the specification.

Mylenium

[Papigiulio]

Aargh I got 5.5.

Btw why add fields?? Isnt without fields just better image??

sry for all the questions btw :blush:

[tuomok]

Well...

Fields are used in TV systems (PAL, NTSC...) to make movements in video appear more smooth. TV image is interlaced by splitting an image horizontally to 1 pixel fields (upper and lower field). Human eye can not detect this interlacing, so it is used to "add" more information to the videofeed without the need to grow data bandwidth. So, it's basically faking the eye. See the attached gif.

Ever noticed a jumpy feel to an image in cinema during a camera pan. That's noninterlaced image in action my friend...

Properly playing video signal (i.e. consisting of fields) can only be viewed correctly on a TV monitor, not computer screen.

If your footage is not originally made (rendered / shot) using fields, you can not "inject" fields there afterwards, like in the post. In that case, just use frames in your settings.

If you are producing stuff to be viewed on TV, always use fields.

So that it wasn't quite that easy, you must know when to use upper fields first and when lower: rule of thumb: NTSC and DV are lower, otherwise it's upper.

[AAAron]

If you are producing stuff to be viewed on TV, always use fields.

I would not take that as an rule, it all depends on the look you want. I think fields gives a more computerized look. And strobing can be attacked using motion blur instead. Don´t think we ever used field rendering for anything I worked on. But sometimes it´s a good solution.

[AAAron]

Aargh I got 5.5.

Btw why add fields?? Isnt without fields just better image??

sry for all the questions btw :blush:

To have upperfields first in the encoding of the mpeg dosen´t mean that the sourcematerial have to be rendered with fields. It´s just a setting for how the dvd player uses the image.

[tuomok]

That is not entirely correct. At render time (or during video recording) fields are generated to contain different information than full frames. In field rendering, during each field "pass", moving objects are "recorded" in different position. Take a good look at my previously posted gif file, it should be quite self-explanatory.

And yes, I agree, fields are not automatically the correct way of rendering material. If a filmic look is desired, fields are very often skipped or removed at later stage.

[AAAron]

Oops was a bit unclear.
The above post was more to explain, that a upper field first setting in the mpeg2 encoding dosen´t mean that the source material have to be rendered in fields.

[Papigiulio]

Well...



If your footage is not originally made (rendered / shot) using fields, you can not "inject" fields there afterwards, like in the post. In that case, just use frames in your settings.



Ah so fields is basically a type of frameblending used only for broadcasting purposes right???


BTW I have no video, just the plain video im creating in after effects, so then I cant/dont need to add or put the fields settings on right??

[scrimski]

It doesn't matter how you create an animation( for the use of fields), it's important for the final product. If you are going to put it out on DVD, then I recommend you fields, the framerate depends on where you live and what framerates/TV-formats your DVD-player can handle.


Use of fields is very basic stuff in editing/animation for TV or DVD, so do yourself a favour and do some research about it. The AVID Editing Glossary (http://www.google.de/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.avid.com/freedv/avideditingglossary.pdf&e=9707) is a good start.
Although several parts are very AVID-specific, it handles most of the above mentioned basics.

[AAAron]

When you render the film you don´t need fields. But when you encode the film you rendered to mpeg2 format (the format that dvd use) you need to put the settings to upper field first.

[Mylenium]

When you render the film you don´t need fields. But when you encode the film you rendered to mpeg2 format (the format that dvd use) you need to put the settings to upper field first.

Ohmigosh, a lot of half truths and incorrect assumptions here (no insults intended, fellas:thumbsup:).

Fields are based on the underlying technology on how video was/ is recorded and transmitted on a strictly electrical level. Due to limitations in reaction times of CCDs and the actual data rate that could be transmitted, only half the image (=one field) consisting of either the odd or even lines was scanned/ transmitted and then the other lines were scanned/transmitted back in the old days. Due to the slowness of the hardware, the time delay introduced between fields shows differences in motion sampling. On the other end it was decoded just based on those principles and for similar reasons.

The days of slow hardware are long gone, but the paradigm remains even in HD - it elegantly minimizes certain bandwidth limits even in the digital world. So no, fields in many cases are not optional. It absolutely doesn't matter if you record motion via a camera or create it synthetically - on a device that expects fielded input non-fielded video will start to stutter with fast motions and the other way around fielded footage will look jaggy on progressive displays (as a computer is).

BTW, you are totally wrong, AAAron, in assuming that just turning on a stream switch or some kind of footage interpretation will solve anything. It's actually more like the other way around - the MPEG-II format basically doesn't care about fields, it's all up to you to maintain them throughout whatever you do and bring them to DVD. In MPEG-II fields are not encoded separately, only the image/ frame that contains both fields as interlaced lines is compressed. Anyway, even progressive footage is allowed on DVDs these days, so that's no longer an excuse to force people to use fields :). But lets not drift to much off topic and help Papagiulio.

As you might gather from all this techno-bable, fields are not blended, the really contain dicrete pixel info on differences in motion. In your case, here is what I would do:

a) Ask your client what abilities his hardware has - most plasma screens can handle progressive footage just fine, so you might skip that field problem for the time being. The same goes for the DVD-player. If they can't help you, try to find that info on the web (manual, manufacturers' pages).

b) Create your composition according to those specs and render it out as a movie clip in an uncompressed format (AVI, Quicktime).

c) Find yourself an MPEG-II encoder on the web. Due to licensing regulations, there are no free ones, but some manufacturers offer fully functional trial versions such as Mainconcept and Canopus (ProCoder).

d) Encode your clip with the highest possible quality. Normally some default encoding profiles are provided with the progs, so it should not be too difficult to figure that one out.

e) Import the resulting *.m2v file into your authoring program. Make sure the project settings match those of the footage. Simple drag and drop will take care of that in Encore, I think (I only know the demo from testing eons back since we use Scenarist). Set the playback to a loop by referencing the clip itself as the "next/ post" command (it's one of those clip dropdowns if my memory is correct).

f) Find the magic "Burn DVD" button and burn DVD.

Hope that makes sense nad doesn't start a war round here...

Mylenium

[roguenroll]

Encore, its better to go uncompressed and let Encore encode. That way you can get the best encoding, also you can tweak the settings.

Also use DVD-rws to test burn, then erase them. Saved me tons of disks

[Papigiulio]

Damn, you guys are great. Im just gonna try now and see where I end up, but i definately learned alot of shit with just a few questions :)

thnx again :)

[AAAron]

BTW, you are totally wrong, AAAron, in assuming that just turning on a stream switch or some kind of footage interpretation will solve anything.

My wrong your right. Not to welloriented in the mpeg world:)


Ask your client what abilities his hardware has - most plasma screens can handle progressive footage just fine

All regular tv´s out there handels progressive just fine too. Don´t think I ever seen anything from the two places I worked at rendered in fields (really graphical stuff). And I´ve seen the stuff broadcasted on regular tv´s several times. PAL btw. No strobing there. :)

The only time I can recal we tried to render somthing in fields was a dimond (rombe) shape in white against a red backgroud going from one side of the screen to the other. But in the end we altered the motion instead and rendered it in frames.

Why do I make a thing of this?

Because I think frames looks better;)

[Mylenium]

My wrong your right. Not to welloriented in the mpeg world:)

All regular tv´s out there handels progressive just fine too. Don´t think I ever seen anything from the two places I worked at rendered in fields (really graphical stuff). And I´ve seen the stuff broadcasted on regular tv´s several times. PAL btw. No strobing there. :)

The only time I can recal we tried to render somthing in fields was a dimond (rombe) shape in white against a red backgroud going from one side of the screen to the other. But in the end we altered the motion instead and rendered it in frames.

Why do I make a thing of this?

Because I think frames looks better;)

Well, on a strictly technical level you still introduced fields somewhere. It's just that both fields are identical. I would argue about always foregoing fields. Sure, with slow motions it's hardly worth the extra effort, but with fast motions it's almost essential - even the smartest motion blur routines cannot make a progressive footage look nearly as good on a TV as natively fielded footage. But let's not ponder on such issues. The point is: There's a theoretically infinite number of combinations and only after you've tried your workflow you can be sure.

Mylenium

[tuomok]

I guess the problem in understanding fields for most people doing 3D, is the fact that they do not usually have access to a proper editing suite where they can actually playback a videosignal on a TV screen. And a "SVHS/TV-out plug" at the end of your graphicsboard doesn't usually help, since they -I think- always output only frames... Sadly.

But!
There is a simple way of testing fields for your workflow: make a test render!
A simple workflow might be like this: 3D renders > Compositing > Edit. So what do yo do?

1) Make an animation in your 3d package of a white ball traveling from upper left corner to bottom right during one second time, likear keyframes. Add descriptive text to your scene, such as "3D Studio: upper fields" Then render it out using upper fields in Max.
Then change the text to "lower fields". Change render setting and render the clip. Then the last option if you want: "frames".

2) Import these three 3D rendered animations to your compositing package using correct settings for each of the files. Add some text in such as "AE render: upper". And what do you do: you render it out using upper fields of course. Then change text and settings to "lower" and finally "frames".

3) Import all three test animations to your editing suite using proper settings for the hardware and compare the result from a TV screen. You *will* have these versions there:

- a horrible clip where ball is strobing back and forth rapidly
- a clip where ball is traveling quite ok (frames-version)
- an easy-on-the-eyes clip where ball smooths from corner to corner. These are the proper settings for you workflow and configuration if high quality renders are required for TV/broadcast use.

But once again: the choice to use them is artistic.
Technically it doesn't matter, it will play anyway.

But it will look different. (At least during fast movements.)

It's not matter of opinion. It's a simple fact. :)

[AAAron]

double post

[AAAron]

but with fast motions it's almost essential

That´s simply not true. I worked at several commercials (fast motions) none field rendered, they look great.
Do you se flickering in the intros when you go to the movies?

It´s like you said in an earlier post fields are a part of the past. Even our new dv camera at work films in true 25p (no interpolation)

But if you guys like the look of fields, go a head. I just don´t se the point. :) Not going to argue this any more, guess it´s a matter of taste.

[tuomok]

In movies it is often noticeable that the image is not interlaced (for example wide pan shots), but that's something what will never be changed, and shoudn't be either. It is part of film media.

Professional animations for television (bumpers, program title sequences, graphical spots, channel idents, logos, etc) should in most cases be rendered with fields, because it will result in more smooth movements.

Same in the words of Jeremy Birn from 3drender.com (http://www.3drender.com/glossary/fields.htm):
"The advantage of splitting the frame into two fields is that moving subjects are effectively sampled at twice the framerate, for a smoother, more accurate reproduction of motion. Instead of having the shutter open only 25 or 30 times a second, it opens and captures a field 50 or 60 times a second. This means that any moving subjects are scanned twice as frequently. Also, television sets appear to flicker less because the beam passes through the full height of the screen twice as fast."

[AAAron]

Professional animations for television (bumpers, program title sequences, graphical spots, channel idents, logos, etc) should in most cases be rendered with fields, because it will result in more smooth movements.

Well what can I say none of the people I work with have rendered anything i fields, to quote one of them -since the mid 90's.

And they work with both bumpers and commercials for all the main tv channels in sweden. As well as musicvideos and commercials for international market. And I can assure you that it´s been an active decition to use frames instead of fields.

[Papigiulio]

That reminds me of a company a friend of mine worked for, they also rendered everything with fields. Not that i knew anything about it back then, so never asked what it was for.

Still have mixed feeling about it. Maybe i should just do it both, with and without fields, the movies will be small anyways, so no hassle!

[Papigiulio]

Assuming "widescreen" refers to 16:9, just use the proper preset in AE (720x576 pixels at 0.9 ratio for PAL)

Mylenium


Wots this pixelratio ?? and where can i enter that??? I only have DV/D1 PAL(1.07)

[AAAron]

We do not render anything in fields, only frames.

To render out both types and pick the look that you like, seems like a good idea.

Those are the standard pixel ratios according to afx.

NTSC D1 standard 0,9
720 x 486px

NTSC D1 wide 1,2
720 x 480px

PAL D1 standard 1,07
720x576px

PAL D1 wide 1,42
720x576px

[Papigiulio]

ive chosen PAL D1 standard (ratio 1,07) for dvd size

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.