Video + Audio

[ArgleBargle]

I've had A:M in my hands for over a year now ever since our Man with the money met (I think) Martin Hash at a trade show and came back with the software and told me to check it out. I regret that I've failed to take advantage of this forum the way I should... ditto with contributions. I'm trying to make up for lost time.

 

Anyway, to the point: when I started out rendering, I went directly to AVI/MOV files. I've since realized that's wrong. I'll skip the long stories about how I learned them, but here are things I've learned:

• Products like Sorensen Squeeze (or Divx products) do a heckuva better job as a post-process product than any part of a direct render output. I wish otherwise, but it makes sense to me.
  
• Rendering directly to avi files uncompressed is highly prone to failure (mostly by the power company, not A:M)
  
• The "right" way to do things is to render to Targa images. 8000 RLE Targas take up less disk space than the equivalent uncompressed AVI.
  
• A:M does have bugs when producing videos over 2G in size. Any attempt to render an AVI that size produces a corrupt video. I'd report that as a bug, but I'm learning that's really a mis-use of the product. Stick with a targa sequence. (As a computer programmer, I kinda know why, but that's moot, too.)
  
• Many people seem to dislike dope sheets for mouth control. I'm not sure this is good.
  
• I think dope sheets have a bad rap due to A:M's implementation. I think some some minor interface changes would help this.
  
• After considering the videos I've been creating vs the videos I've seen on the Hash website, the amount of dialog in my videos gets a 10 rating while 95% of the rest get a 1. The music videos (e.g. Alien Song) get a 2-3 rating. Doesn't anyone own a mic?
  

Bottom line questions:

• Those of you doing character voices, where do you add audio and how do you re-sync if you don't synchronize in A:M?
  
• Would anyone besides me find a "render to audio only" option handy in A:M?
  
• I find dropping sound effects into the chor very handy and workable despite having to render to Targa. What does everyone else do?
  

Finally, I don't think you can use A:M for serious purposes without some program like After Effects. If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me. I'm open for clues and methods.

[robcat2075]

[*]Products like Sorensen Squeeze (or Divx products) do a heckuva better job as a post-process product than any part of a direct render output. I wish otherwise, but it makes sense to me.

The compression in A:M is the compression provided by Standard Quicktime or standard MS codecs. What ever their strengths or weaknesses are.

 

[*]Many people seem to dislike dope sheets for mouth control.

calling up preset mouthshapes for lipsynch has pretty much fallen out of favor for fine animation.

 

[*] Doesn't anyone own a mic?

Good voice work is hard to do.

Finally, I don't think you can use A:M for serious purposes without some program like After Effects. If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me. I'm open for clues and methods.

AE is an ENOURMOUSLY powerful compositing program. It's the 600 pound gorilla of 2D motion graphics. A:M is intended as a 3D modeling and rendering program, and that it does VERY well. If you need more than 3D modeling and rendering then yes, you need some that does those other things. I can't imagine any 3D app onthe market being used as, say, a final audio mixer.

 

We could just as well say you can't use AE for serious 3D modeling and rendering without some other app.

 

But you knew that already, right?

[Slipin Lizard]

It would be good to see some of your work since as its hard to compare what you can't see. I agree the audio tends to be crux on a lot of projects. People can find audio fx and music, but a solid narrative track requires talent, good equipment, and a quiet place to record it. People may not have access to these resources, but your point is valid. Usually in animation the voice talent is recorded first, and the animation set to it and not visa versa.

 

As for AE, I use and love After Effects as well. But it really comes down to what you are trying to accomplish. Some projects may allow a user to stay within in the realm of one application, while others are better served by utilizing other programs that may be able to do a certain task more easily, or just simply add an element not possible with other software. A lot of comes down to what you're familar with, and how efficient you need to be. A couple of examples I've noticed recently is first, creating 3D text with AM. While AM has a Font Wizard, there are certain fonts that have issues, and will not be created smoothly. You can work with it, and eventually sort out any issues, but there is also a program out there called "Cool 3D" which, while being totally simplistic and almost cheezy, actually creates nice 3D text with no issues at all, and has much better options for beveling than AM's Font Wizard.

 

Another is Carrara 5, which if you need to quickly create a landscape, is just unreal. I've rendered out some terrains from Carrara and they look fantasic, and its pretty much instant.

 

Now, if I delved more into AM I could probably come up with similar results, but sometimes a different program is just more efficient at one particular task.

 

It's my understanding that AM was designed as a character animation program, and I think it does this very well. It offers a lot of easy to features for a very competitive price. For some, the one program is enough. In the end, its really not about which program is better, but just getting you're ideas out there... so lets see them!