one minute equals 46.1 mb????

[dailan1]

i just did a short animation that I need to send to a publisher so i can get a job....

 

the file is only a minute long and consists of one character and a table. the sound file didn't seem to render with the file. the size of the file is 46.1 mb

 

Is that normal or did i do something wrong? and if it is normal, how am i going to e-mail it when noone will let me send a file that large?

[Caroline]

That does sound rather large. You probably didn't use any compression.

 

What format did you render in? What is the resolution of the movie?

 

You could try changing the render .mov Format > Save Options to Sorenson Video 3, medium quality. That usually renders to a reasonable size.

[robcat2075]

This is a big topic.

 

A lot has to do with the codec you chose (or left on by default). You can choose a codec and settings while you are doing your other save settings. Generally you have to experiment with settings to find the right compromise between quality and size.

 

"Animation" is largely uncompressed and will make large files. "Sorenson 3" will make smaller files. There are other choices.

 

how am i going to e-mail it when noone will let me send a file that large?

 

If you have a website you could put it on that and send them a link.

[dailan1]

Yes! You are correct.. there was no compression (default), however Sorenson 3 is not one of my compression options What else would you recommend? And i used the VGA format with Mircosoft avi.

[Caroline]

I don't know anything about avi - is it necessary to use that format? .movs are very easy to work with, and you can use the arrow keys to go through one frame at a time, which you can't with avi. Also, with QT Pro, it is very easy to trim and loop.

 

Do you have mpeg-4? On my short test I cut down from 288k (Animation) to 30k (mpeg-4)

[Fuchur]

I don't know anything about avi - is it necessary to use that format? .movs are very easy to work with, and you can use the arrow keys to go through one frame at a time, which you can't with avi. Also, with QT Pro, it is very easy to trim and loop.

 

Do you have mpeg-4? On my short test I cut down from 288k (Animation) to 30k (mpeg-4)

 

Yes, mp4-files are very reasonable in size and have a better quality than sorenson3 at the same bitrate.

The only drawback is, that they are not very fast to decode/encode. But if you got a more or less new (so lets say something as fast as an 2400+ or 2000+ Athlon XP or 2.4Ghz P4) PC you shouldnt run into problems.

 

*Fuchur*

[largento]

Not sure if this is the same on Windows, but open up the Quicktime Player, go to Quicktime Preferences, click on the Advanced tab and check the box next to "Show legacy encoders."

 

Sorenson 3 will then return as an option in A:M.

[flashawd]

There is a website that allows you to send files at no charge for up to 100mb - you upload it to their site and the site automatically sends your contact an email with a link to download it - it stays up their for 7 days. It's a great service.

 

http://www.yousendit.com/

 

- E

[flashawd]

Wow did actually contribute something to the forum instead of everyone helping me.

[dailan1]

okay I'll try all that stuff. Thank you for all of your help gentlemen

[TRN]

Actually, is anyone willing to make a complete list or a little list of what the results will be in diffrent renderings and compressions?

 

Like for example (not to scale):

A 320x240 video, .mov, compression, of 30%, file at 20MB,blurry video.

A 320x240 video, .avi, compression of 30%, file at 10mb, clear video.

 

Is anyone up for the task to tell all of us the results?

I'm sure the most viewing size is 320x240 I believe.

[jzawacki]

Remember, whatever codec you choose, it needs to be one popular enough that the receiver will already have it. Going Xvid or mp4 might not be a good idea just because they might need to install the codec for it. It's hard to know if they will be able to just install the codec, or e-mail you back saying the file doesn't work.

 

If you are certain they already have quicktime, I'd suggest you use a .mov. If not, I would suggest mpeg 1 or 2. Might not be the quality/size you would like, but they will see what you have to offer..

 

As for comparing outputs, it really is a personal thing to do. What one might consider acceptable, another may not. If someone does go through the work, the best way to communicate it would be with a screen shot of each video posted with the settings, in the order they feel best to worst, with maybe a link to the actual video file. Oh, and don't forget to include render time. codec quality comparison

[Fuchur]

MP4 is included in newer quicktime-versions and the VLC-Player. Both freely available on the internet.

I anyway recommend the VLC-Player. It can play a really wide range of formats, is light-weighted (concerning systemresources) and it is free.

You can play flash-files, movs, avis, mpegs, mp4s, mp3s, and quite everything else imaginable. I am not totally sure but I think it can even play rm files (RealPlayer).

 

The Codec-List:

The Problem with such a list is the following:

A codec will work quite well on one resource and very bad on another.

So it is not too easy to say which one is the best for your source. In the following there are some basic rules and statements which doesnt claim to be totally true...

 

But here is a small list:

MOVs:

1.) Animation Codec = Very old... so the quality will highly suffer on smaller bitrates / quality-settings. The compression isnt very good neighter. It can be used as an animated texture in A:M and doesnt need fast computers.

2.) Sorenson 3 = Quite old, but still a nice codec which will generate more or less nice images at a moderate filesize. But it is getting old and there are other Codecs out there which are better suited for small filesizes. It works great for homogenous surfaces. Not so good for real videos.

3.) Indigo, Cinepak = Both very old and will just make crappy results. These codecs where developed at a time when windows 95 was available and they are just no longer of any use, if you ask me.

4.) H261 = Quite old. Was developed for video-conferences, etc. I wouldnt recommend to use it for Animation. It will create more or less big filesizes.

5.) H264 = Quite new. It can create very sharp and very nice looking movies at a more or less small filesize. I would highly recommend this codec. A drawback is, that it needs are newer computer to play smoothly. This is a nice alrounder-codec which can handle high resolutions for screencaptures as well as Animations. I am not aware how it will react to fast movements, but I think it is okay for that too.

There is not "one H26x-codec so... different manufacture did develope different codecs which will create slightly different results. Apple wrote one, MainConcept has one too and so on.

6.) On2VP3 is the codecs used by flash for their flv-files. It is a nice codec too, which can create sharp images at a moderate to small filesize. It is compareable to H264 (maybe it is based on it). I would recommend it for small videos. I think for bigger resolutions H264 can create better results.

7.) TechSmithCodec = Is a production-codec which isnt at all systems (you have to manually install it). It is developed by the camtasia-guys and it is lossless. So it can be edited without any problems.

 

AVIs:

Some of the codecs are available for AVI-containers too. So I will just talk about divx.

1.) Divx 3.xx = Moderate old. It was a very nice codec with very nice results, small filesizes and a very nice image-quality. It was the best one available for a long time. BUt it has to be installed manually on the PC. For a longh time there was no mac-version. Dont know if that is still the case.

2.) Divx 5-6 = Are okay, but are not that far ahead like the 3.xx was at its time. They might be one of the best choices on the AVI-container.

3.) DV-codecs = Are production-codecs which can be eddited without a lose in quality. So for such things and for compatibility-tasks, this codec is nice. It is not meant for distribution so.

 

WMVs:

1.) The WM9 and 10-codecs are not as well as some other H264-based codecs, but they produce anyway nice results and they are installed on every PC with XP or Vista (in general). I dont think they are supported by Macs, but I dont know.

-> Biggest drawbacK: AM cant render to them directly. YOu need something like Sorenson Squeeze or a Editing-programm (for example Vegas, Premiere (or After Effects)) etc.

 

I am quite sure that not everything is true what is written above. And some of the comments are just "feelings". So other people will tell you other stuff.

If something is just wrong, please tell me so we all can learn something

 

*Fuchur*

[TRN]

This is what i exactly expedcted form someone.

The "Feelings" or opinions of the renderings.

Thank you for this because now i can do some tests with some of the this i never used or her of.

Im sure other people are asking for the same thing.