(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA198680394; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 07:46:35 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@webcom.com>
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA198620391; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 07:46:31 -0700
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA02181 for <lightwave@webcom.com>; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 07:49:42 -0700
From: Jeric@cup.portal.com
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id HAA13955 for lightwave@webcom.com; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 07:49:42 -0700
To: lightwave@webcom.com
Subject: Re: Kim Thomas (rendering backwards)
Lines: 31
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 95 07:49:41 PDT
Message-Id: <9506170749.2.13940@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave@webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Robert Cohen writes:
>If you are laying the PC frames directly to the PAR, things should work
>out fine. The only thing to watch for is... when you flip frames which
>have been field rendered, they don't work out due to the fact that the
>fields are suggesting "forward" motion. Now since I have NOT rendered
>anything backwards to date, I can't say if rendering the scene backwards
>in field mode will offer you any similar probelems (as the scene is not
>being flipped, just the rendering order), but my "guess" would be NO.
This is correct. You can RENDER in any order you want and the
field dominance will be correct.
Now, if you are feeling clever and think you are going to save
some render time on a simple oscillating or pulsating effect by
rendering one half to the PAR, duplcating the frames backwards,
and gluing the two pieces together, you will be sad to know this
does not work.
I tried it with some glowing arrows, no movement at all, and there