Problem With V17a Render Lengths

[Tom]

Hello-

 

I just purchased a web licenses for V. 17.a.

 

I started a project and rendered a scene that was 130 frames long as an avi.

 

When I loaded the avi into After Effects to do some tweaking... the length of the avi turned out to be only 64 frames long (?)

 

I tried rendering a QuickTime movie but it also only rendered about half of what I had told the Render engine to do.

 

I am a long time user of AM but can't figure out if I'm missing something simple.

 

Any suggestions are welcome!

 

Thanks!

 

Tom

[Rodney]

At first guess I'd say it might be your FPS (Feet Per Second) setting?

Perhaps you have 'Stepped' turned on to something other than '1' in the Render Options?

If it was set to '2' that would produce half of the images (i.e. it would only render every other frame).

 

Note: I would always render out to a standard image file first rather than AVI or MOV but it's interesting to note that when rendering stepped frames .MOV and .AVI format become a more viable option because then we don't have to rename/renumber the resulting imagery. So that is one of the rare times where I do prefer to render to a movie format.

[John Bigboote]

Most of us... with any 3D software, will typically render to an image sequence and make a movie out of it later- in another app OR in A:M.

[robcat2075]

-possibly you have "step" set to something other than 1

 

-possibly you don't have the Range set to what you thought you did?

[robcat2075]

At first guess I'd say it might be your FPS (Feet Per Second) setting?

 

I'm sure Rodney meant "frames per second"

[Rodney]

I'm sure Rodney meant "frames per second"

 

Yes! Thanks for the catch.

I've been working in 'Feet Per Second' too much these days.

[Tom]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

 

Hmmmmm.... I rechecked everything and the step was set to "1" and the FPS was set to 30.

 

I rendered out individual frames with no problem so maybe that is the best approach...As long as it will work correctly with individual frames, I don't think I will sweat where the glitch was, whether my own human error or some weird software issue peculiar to my machine.

 

Thanks again!

 

Tom

[Rodney]

It should be noted that the main reason for rendering out to sequential images is to ensure that if something bad happens (like all the power runs out in the middle of a render) you don't lose everything. When rendering to single images you would just have to pick up where the rendering left off.

 

There is also the matter that rendering to a video file is going to require more memory because that video file has to be maintained in memory while the images are being added into it. With single images that memory... or at least a large portion of it, is freed up after each image is successfully rendered.