Mon, Feb 10, 4:41 PM CST

Renderosity Forums / Animation



Welcome to the Animation Forum

Forum Moderators: Wolfenshire Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon

Animation F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Feb 09 6:34 am)

In here we will dicuss everything that moves.

Characters, motion graphics, props, particles... everything that moves!
Enjoy , create and share :)
Remember to check the FAQ for useful information and resources.

Animation learning and resources:

 

[Animations]

 



Checkout the Renderosity MarketPlace - Your source for digital art content!



Subject: Compression Help (Please)!


Terry Mitchell ( ) posted Tue, 22 February 2000 at 9:24 AM · edited Mon, 10 February 2025 at 4:31 PM

I see in other forums here that people have been busy doing animation, yet this forum stays so quiet. Consequently, I'm not certain if I will get more help with posting the following questions here or elsewhere, but here goes: I composited in Premiere a 2 minute 58 second animation comprised of uncompressed .tif, .tga, .fli/flc, and .avi file segments at 640X480 res. at 30 fps. I output it from Premiere in .mov format using the Sorensen codec set at 75% at 320X240 res. at 24 fps. The file came out to be over 11 megs! Worse, scenes that contained lots of composited elements (layers), such as several Poser characters, detailed Bryce background, etc., came out with ragged edges to things that moved (fairy wings, bodies, etc., all of which were animated with slow, not fast movement) as if in need of serous antialiasing. Also there were fluttery edges in places like where the characters feet met the Bryce background. However, scenes in which there were fewer elements composited (i.e., close ups with only one character's face and a Gaussian-blurred Bryce background) came out as smooth looking as the original uncompressed version. My first question is; why did the compressed file came out as described above, and is there anything I can do about it (i.e., use another of Premiere's codecs, etc.)? My second question is; does anyone know if it is possible to render an uncompressed final out of Premiere. (If so, I could then compress the file using Bink to make it smaller. If not, I am concerned that using Bink on an already compressed file will make matters worse.)

Intel Core I7 3090K 4.5 GhZ (overclocked) 12-meg cache CPU, 32 Gig DDR3 memory, GeoForce GTX680 2gig 256 Bit PCI Express 3.0 graphic card, 3 Western Difgital 7200 rpm 1 Tb SATA Hard Drives


foss0136 ( ) posted Thu, 24 February 2000 at 12:31 PM

Compression is a hard thing to master, and I've been learing a lot lately. Here's my scoop. I use Adobe Premier for putting all my videos and animations together, and to add sound, titles, ect. However, I never use any of the compression settings (i.e. Sorense Codec etc.) for my final output. What I do when I have the scene finished is output the video with No Compression (when choosing which compression, it is the last one on the list). This, of course, makes extremely large files, and at 640x480, you can expect to get these files upwards 100Mb+. But then you have your final, uncompressed copy ready (and it doesn't take long to save either because it isn't compressing it at all), and it is in full detail. Now is when you plan on compression, which depends on what you want to use the video for. For most of what I do, I do the above, then load this file back into Premier and output it again at 320x240 (no compression again if I want to make an MPEG using avi2mpg1 freeware program or to make it Real Media) or with one of the Codecs. Compressing the uncompressed version, without all the layers and stuff, should help with the strangeness you get on your compressions. You can also try adjusting the Keyframes (like at every edit) but this makes the file larger. If you plan on putting it on the web, I'd try a 320x240 or smaller res, 15fps, compressed AVI or MOV. Remember your audience, some people may not beable, or want to, use certain codecs. If you plan on cutting it to video, keep the 640x480, 30fps (29.97 even) and use your video card compressor. Hope I helped. f055


Terry Mitchell ( ) posted Fri, 25 February 2000 at 9:53 AM

Thanks for the advice. Ill try this. Should I expect any difference in file size or quality if I output it as a QT (.mov) or an MS Video (.avi) file?

Intel Core I7 3090K 4.5 GhZ (overclocked) 12-meg cache CPU, 32 Gig DDR3 memory, GeoForce GTX680 2gig 256 Bit PCI Express 3.0 graphic card, 3 Western Difgital 7200 rpm 1 Tb SATA Hard Drives


foss0136 ( ) posted Fri, 25 February 2000 at 12:34 PM

I don't know much about QT format. I have seen a lot of mov's that look really crisp and arn't too big in size. I tend to work mainly with .avi since I want to compress them with mpeg or Real Player. From what I understand, .mov and .avi are very similar in size and quality. I plan on trying some Quicktime compressions and comparing them to the mpeg's I've made. For the web stuff i'm doing, I want the best look with the smallest file size, and unfortuneately, compression doesn't work to well with animations.


phillycheese81 ( ) posted Sun, 05 March 2000 at 4:03 PM

sometimes you shouldnt use that codex for compresion i have found...others will either give a higher or lower compresion but better quality. plus u might want to lower the frame rate. depending on what u are using it for...say the internet you should try from 5 to 12 frames per sec. u might know these things but if not change that and u will save loads of space and make a smaller file. internet = 5-12 fps computer = 12-31 fps tv/movie/other = 32+ fps gl -phillycheese81


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.