View Full Version : poor video backdrop performance
neonghost 09-28-2005, 12:38 AM Hi guys,
I'd like to sync a piece of animation to live action plate, but I'm finding the scrubbing performance way too slow to be useable. I thought this was fair enough with the 100mb file I was using, but even when recompressed to under 20mb (for 30 seconds) the viewport struggles to update.
Any ideas to improve performance in this regard, or any other workarounds? I'm running 9.5 on a 2.8 dual xeon with a quadro fx 1000, by the way.
Cheers
|
|
Per-Anders
09-28-2005, 12:44 AM
i'm not sure if it will work with backdrops, but if possible use frame sequences anywhere in cinema that you want to use animation. this is because cinema opens a movie file, seeks the frame in question, then closes it for every single frame update! that is heavy going. with a frame sequence though it can open it up much much faster.
dann_stubbs
09-28-2005, 12:56 AM
Hi guys,
I'd like to sync a piece of animation to live action plate, but I'm finding the scrubbing performance way too slow to be useable. I thought this was fair enough with the 100mb file I was using, but even when recompressed to under 20mb (for 30 seconds) the viewport struggles to update.
Any ideas to improve performance in this regard, or any other workarounds? I'm running 9.5 on a 2.8 dual xeon with a quadro fx 1000, by the way.
Cheers
there is a ton of decoding and processing to play that file internally to c4d - image sequences are the fastest way to do this.
dann
neonghost
09-28-2005, 01:11 AM
I love the speed of this forum - thanks mdme_sadie & dann, a low res jpeg sequence updates in realtime. Thanks!
LucentDreams
09-28-2005, 03:41 AM
on the PC don't use quicktime, that was my recent discovery, quicktime is idiculous even when using an identical codec in AVI and quicktime (like intel indeo) I found in terms of an actual movie file cinepak codec AVI works reasonably well you need to find a codec that doens'st require a lot of CPU to decode, and isnt' too large in file size thats the key, things like divx, mp4 etc won't work well since they require so much for decoding. jpeg sequence was the fastest easiest I found too.
AdamT
09-28-2005, 04:52 AM
It should be faster still if you used uncompressed pics for the sequence, because Cinema doesn't have to decompress the files on the fly.
It should be faster still if you used uncompressed pics for the sequence, because Cinema doesn't have to decompress the files on the fly.
I wonder if that takes any longer than reading the larger amount of data from the drive that a tif would require.
CGTalk Moderation
09-28-2005, 03:01 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.