Render question : Double NTSC?
11/08/2009 17:35Hi there,
I was wondering what was the difference between rendering in NTSC (29,97fps) and rendering in Double NTSC (60,00fps)?
Is it smoother or anything?
It only change the fps thingy, of course 60 fps is smoother, but the smootherness is better to adjust by recording with more fps INGAME.
for example i usually use 200 fps in game and 45 fps vegas :]. You'll use your whole life to render in Double NTSC imo
11/08/2009 17:44(edited 11/08/2009 17:45)I don't care because I'm using my brother's computer to render (Quad core, 4Gb RAM, Vista 64bits) :D
And I usually start to render just before I go to work at early morning, so like this when I come back, "yeepee!", it's done :D
I'm gonna try to record with 300 or 400fps in-game and render with Double NTSC next time, I wanna see pure smoothness ^^
i got a clip recorded under 400 fps and 40 fps under vegas if u want :).
EDIT :
Here it is http://www.sendspace.com/file/jy3b19
Settings given by 8ball1, thx to him <3
Don't care about the jump :D
if i record with 300 fps ingame and 60 on vegas the movie is in slowmotion :S how do i make with normal velocity?
I suppose you render the bmps in virtual dub, nope ? You have to set the same fps ingame and in VD.
60 fps and 300 fps don't fit too, so try to use 300 fps and 35.. You know the vegas fps aren't as important as the fps ingame. That's what 8ball1 explained me :)
try 1000fps
and 100fps in vegas, its Fking OWNAGE, trust me
lol 1000 fps is fucking useless. In fact the human eye doesn't see more than 100 fps .. But see the difference between 100 and 1000.. but not between 300_400 and 1000.. :\
You just spend your life rendering someshits for nothing.
Originally posted by mxml.lol 1000 fps is fucking useless. In fact the human eye doesn't see more than 100 fps ..
first of all, the human eye doesnt see any pictures. its not camera taking one picture and then the other. maybe some of you had biology in school and learned hot the eye works. it only can recognize changes between colour and brightness. so comparing an eye with a number of fps doesnt really work. you only can say that an eye can notice 60 changes every second. its like the updaterate :P but still this doesnt has to say its the best for a smooth video. for example ntsc (29.970) is used almost every tv program. cinema movies have even less fps, mostly 25 and the new blu-ray movies have only 23-24 fps (maybe you've read 24p on any blu-ray disc).
secondly, counter strike is a game. so capturing is a bit different like a normal camera clip from a situation in real-life. if you notice, you get a lot smoother video with 100 fps capturing, than with 40 fps capturing. but actually the final movie is (for example) rendered on 30 fps so it should be enough, shouldnt it? thats caused to the "frame blur" how some people call it. if you got 90 fps and render it to 30 fps, vegas can take 3 pictures and create on of them. on 30 fps vegas only takes one picture for one picture. so the output is more detailed and better matched for the whole movement in the movie. the more fps you got, the more detailled and smoother your clip gets. I prefer 300 fps, some moviemakers think more, some less. its a matter of taste but after 500 fps you cant really notice any differences (on 100% velocity, so we come to my next point).
thirdly, you have to think about the edition in vegas (or whatever) before capturing. because if you use 100 fps capturing and want to slow down a part of it, lets say on 25%, you have only [100] 25 fps. thats definately way to less and the movie gets lagging. so for uberslomo parts it can happen, that you have to use 500 fps or more!
Originally posted by mxml.It only change the fps thingy, of course 60 fps is smoother, but the smootherness is better to adjust by recording with more fps INGAME.
for example i usually use 200 fps in game and 45 fps vegas :]. You'll use your whole life to render in Double NTSC imo
The following statement doesnt go out to you personally mxml. because there are a lot of people which "are" like you. (even some established moviemakers)
Im always shocked about how stupid some moviemakers are and Im defineately sad that this rumor about "high fps rendering = smoothness" is still alive.
First of all, low fps cause laggy movies, high fps give the video smoothness, but dont use the numbers of fps from counter strike or think the higher the fps the better the smoothness.
Like I said before, every movie in cinemas has got 25 fps. the newest original blu-ray movies got 23-24 fps and I think everyone who has seen an original movie on blu-ray will agree that these movies got best smoothness in movies ever! For me it looks even like a computer animation and not like a normal camera recorded clip.
As you can see, everything above 30 fps doesnt really help you smoothness. These moviemakers got 10 times more knowhow about compression and quality like me and you, and you can see for oneself by watching these movies that they know how to make a movie "smooth".
But why are blu-ray movies so smooth, if their fps are so low? the key is called bitrate. blu-ray disc has around 25 gb or even 50 gb, so a movie with 15 gb is no problem. but we are making movies for download and they shouldnt be bigger than 500 mb. well, the bitrate is around 36–54 Mbit/â s. On a counter strike movie we mostly use 3-6 Mbit/s. The higher the bitrate, the bigger the filesize!
So one last point, which is pretty logical for me and the MAIN reason why high fps (30+) rendering is bullshit:
You got 25 pictures a second, and a bitrate of 5mbit a second. so 1 picture gets [5] 0,2 mbit.
Now we got 50 pictures a second, and the same bitrate. so 1 picture gets [5] 0,1 mbit.
Got it? So the same pictures get less bitrate, and low bitrate cause bad quality as we all know.
KKthxbai, sry for the long post but these things I had to say now
Hmm, i've never pretended that I was a good and etablished movie maker, since i'm not really one.
Everything you said was true, but well, i admit it, I suck at explaining this cain of thing D: even if I couldn't explain it right. But well, take the answer from rK, mine was sucky :\
Thanks for the knowledge lesson rK :D
I suggest you don't use either of these settings ndR. NTSC is the USA TV standard and PAL the European one. The NTSC presets come with interlacing settings, which is something that you don't want on your vids since they're gonna be played on a "desktop" (a premiere name for it pc). rK's got a point here and there. Smoothness doesn't come from higher bitrate, but real-life camera motion blur. Not to mention that in CG post most studios double or triple their render times just to add proper motion blur. The bitrate handles the image quality (filesize/frame). You fake the motion blur by rendering with high fps and taking advantage of the frame blending in your compositing program. Personally, I stick with the 30fps, because it's a bit easier to convert and export from various programs, although the human eye can only see 24fps and the film standard is 23,976.
My Vegas/Premiere settings
@rK: Ever thought about quality encoding instead of bitrate? I doubt you're encoding your movies with the purpose of burning them on a CD afterwards.
hm.. not on a cd. but I dont want to have to big files and I got a rough idea of the final video file size.
for example... when I was doing "aynit" I tryed to not go above 200 mb because this is a point where people say "I dont want to dl that".
and I hit 199 mb, which is actually pretty uber because its even rendered 1 pass!
What if your movie's got both really dark and over-bright parts. If you add as much bitrate as it's needed to handle the over-bright parts, it would be an overkilling for the darker, because they require much less in order to look with the same quality. If you lower it, you'll loose quality in the over-bright parts and of course lower the filesize. Bottom line is, you should always keep it balanced or you'll output a huge file. I'm not okay with such compromises.
talk about my fail with "KZ Moments"... the filesize was huge... and i rendered the movie 3 freakin times, each about 10 hours+ ...
my problem was caused by the high bitrate... i think i used smth like 6000 or 6500 ... it was a saved preset and i forgot about it... shame on me i guess :D
Please log in to post replies.