saving an animation ( file is way to big)

[scrimski]

Try Sorensen3, H264 or mpeg4 compression for quicktime. Don't know any good compression for avis since I barely use them.

[omar C]

Try Sorensen3, H264 or mpeg4 compression for quicktime. Don't know any good compression for avis since I barely use them.

hit Scrimsky

thnx for the reply...so since this is the first time i use after effects on a project do i just select one of those compressions in after effects before saving ...

[hospadam]

Hey,

I don't mean to be blunt, but there are a ton of resources on this site for compression. I just searched for compression, and here's what I came up with...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=10&t=488579&highlight=compression
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=10&t=489853&highlight=compression
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=10&t=488252&highlight=compression
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=10&t=482149&highlight=compression

If you read through those threads (they're all short), you'll understand what compression is, why you need it, and how to do it in AE.

Then, come back and ask your question again :) I'll be happy to answer a more specefic question. Good luck.

[suztv]

To save your file in quicktime - choose quicktime movie as the out put and then select whatever compression settings that suit you best. H264 is the best compression setting and you should see a dramatic difference in file size. If you need more instruction on how to set up your files for output - read the manual, use an online tutorial or get one of many After Effects books out there. There are stickys at the top of this forum so start there and if that doesn't work try a google search.

XVID is an excellent AVI compressor and if you are just trying to output the file for others to view - this is a great way to do it. Caveat on this is that when you need to use the file for later comps this compression setting will cause errors - so only use this as a FINAL output.

Also - you can use Windows Media file format if you are sending the file to PC users. The image quality and file size are excellent!

[beenyweenies]

XVID is an excellent AVI compressor and if you are just trying to output the file for others to view - this is a great way to do it.

Last time I checked, codecs like this don't ship with Quicktime/Windows Media Player, and therefore require the user to download them to view the vid. I would say this makes codecs like these a poor option (despite their decent compression) for anything but specialty distribution where you know for sure your viewers will all have that codec installed.

When I was in school it amazed me how many kids turned in their projects in these wacky codecs that wouldn't play back during class review, and they would simply say to the instructor "Just go download the codec!" Wrong answer, try again - the instructors routinely marked them down for it, as they should have.

The moral is that NO codec is good for distribution unless it's universal, which is why MPEG-4 and Sorenson are typically considered safer/better choices.

[Creed]

...when i save the movie in after effects the 1 min 20 sec short takes up about 2.66 GB .

You didn't say what movie format you're saving it to, or what settings you're using, or
even what resolution the composition is.

[trancor]

Last time I checked, codecs like this don't ship with Quicktime/Windows Media Player, and therefore require the user to download them to view the vid. I would say this makes codecs like these a poor option (despite their decent compression) for anything but specialty distribution where you know for sure your viewers will all have that codec installed.

Many MANY players can now play divx xvid vorbis and the such already built in. To say needing to download something is a poor choise is horrible. VLC, Media Player Classic, quicktime, I think winamp now all support a multitude of codecs. Frankly there is no real difference between using quicktime or using avi it's really prefrence, but you would be limited by what codecs you can use for each. I know many more codecs that compress much smaller for avi then anything for quicktime besides the mac divx now. It's mainly old video players that wont support the big time, pirate inspired, codecs of our age. If this was 5 years ago, yeah saying that would be valid. When you can get compression ratios to bring a video like that 1:20 second video that was 2.66 gig, xvid could compress it down to a meg. Or less if you will it to.

Frankly, I can't wait till MKV becomes a standered for video, the possiblilities with the file type are endless, multiple audio tracks and multiple video tracks per video along with multiple sub title tracks.

beenyweenies, I didn't mean for that to sound negative toward you, technology progesses, and maybe there will be a day when codecs will have the ability to retain their own player information within the video file itself.

[Mylenium]

Many MANY players can now play divx xvid vorbis and the such already built in. To say needing to download something is a poor choise is horrible. VLC, Media Player Classic, quicktime, I think winamp now all support a multitude of codecs. Frankly there is no real difference between using quicktime or using avi it's really prefrence, but you would be limited by what codecs you can use for each. I know many more codecs that compress much smaller for avi then anything for quicktime besides the mac divx now. It's mainly old video players that wont support the big time, pirate inspired, codecs of our age. If this was 5 years ago, yeah saying that would be valid. When you can get compression ratios to bring a video like that 1:20 second video that was 2.66 gig, xvid could compress it down to a meg. Or less if you will it to.

Frankly, I can't wait till MKV becomes a standered for video, the possiblilities with the file type are endless, multiple audio tracks and multiple video tracks per video along with multiple sub title tracks.

beenyweenies, I didn't mean for that to sound negative toward you, technology progesses, and maybe there will be a day when codecs will have the ability to retain their own player information within the video file itself.

Actually I think Brendans greatest concern is the lack of standardization of those CoDecs, which is a more than valid argument. You know, you cannot play back every flavor of Xvid or DivX in any player and on any system and even the formats themselves are in part incompatible across versions. Just saying that it's not too much too ask to download an alternative player isn't really atacking the matter from the right angle.

In addition, you are forgetting how useless those formats are in practical day-to-day use. If I were to hand over DivX encoded files to our clients, they'd shoot me on sight because those files do not play back when embedded in PowerPoint presentations are close to impossible to embed in PDFs, cannot easily be imported into flash and so on...

Yes, Quicktime may be "lame" by sticking to standardized profiles for MPEG 4 and other stuff, but at least you do not need to worry that your files will become useless with the next 0.1 version update, as so often has happened with XVid and DivX.

Another big problem is that people simply do not understand that those formats are meant for delivery, not as intermediate working CoDecs. It's kinda creepy how today's artists have access to tools like AE, but never care for such seemingly mundane technical aspects. Anyone who ever had to work with a DivX file handed over by the client knows the pain and I personally will chime in with anyone who calls such clients stupid brats.

So for what it's worth, try to consider the bigger scope. It's one thing to say: "Look I have this cool animation and you all can view it in VLC" but it's a completely different story to actually have to work with such atrocious formats on many levels. And we do not even need to get started that none of your beloved formats really supports such "minor" things like Alpha channels....

And if you don't mind this personal observation: Take your time when writing your posts. They are full of typos and you often misspell important words, making it harder to even grasp their meaning.

[beenyweenies]

My position is based on professional-level media creation and getting files to clients with the least amount of potential for trouble. The story changes if your target audience happens to be other 20-somethings who are more hip to the various players and codecs out there. But I would definitely argue that most clients will NOT have VLC Player and the like, and even if they did they would probably be a bit annoyed when you tell them they have to use some non-standard player just to view the file. There are standard protocols in place in the industry, and no one likes it when they are broken. As Mylenium pointed out, many times clients will use your files in their own way, maybe even cutting them in with other materials. Odd codecs may work great in VLC etc., but not in Final Cut Pro or After Effects. Your client (the marketing guy or producer for company x) may also need to send it to other people who definitely aren't media-geeks, like the CEO, for approval. What then? Your client looks bad, you look bad, all because of a codec that didn't buy you much of anything special to begin with.

My approach is this - any codec not installed by default with either Windows Media Player 9 or Quicktime 7 are not wise to use for any level of professional-grade or commercial distribution. You do not want to erect barriers to viewing your file just so you can use a "cool" codec, it's just not worth it. Going one step further, my personal approach is to avoid Windows Media files altogether, since most mac users don't have or use WMP. Microsoft does not have any plan to update or offer new versions of WMP for Mac in the future either, so that file type is not a safe bet if you want the widest audience possible to see your video without problems.

So while you may have grievances against QT, in my opinion it is the safest bet of all the players out there, working equally well on both Mac and PC, and it offers the most universally installed distribution codecs out there - MPEG-4 and Sorenson. Not to mention H.264, which is such a beautiful and efficient codec that it virtually eliminates the advantages of using codecs like Xvid, anyway.

Needless to say these are just my personal opinions based on the situations and needs my studio faces. Yours may be different, and my intention is not to say these alternative codecs are horrible/unusable, just depends on the audience and your specific needs.

[trancor]

hey hey hey , I don't like getting bashed for getting a 450 in english on my sats, I can spell at the level of a 5th grader and can't do much without a spell check, I'm sorry if I'm retarded for spelling. BESIDES that. I would never condone to using any of those pirate based codecs for ANYTHING professional. He has a 2.66 gig file, which could have been a meg, I was simply mentioning facts.

And ALL formats, mov, avi, ogv, mkv, what ever you want to list, if you have the codec CAN support alpha. Frankly, if you want to be as real to broadcasting as you can get, use dv pro/ntsc or the hd version, that is what is broadcasted on tv. Though full of artifacts will look better then the 15 frame difference between keyframes in xvid (well user set) vs the 3 to 4 on the higher end codecs. I did not wish to get bashed, I simply stated a few facts.

frankly, I don't care if I can't spell well, that is my problem, I'm sorry if my points come across oddly because of my spelling, sorry.

[berniebernie]

...and correct me if i'm wrong, but files such as AVI or MOV are just containers, and each can have individual codecs (avi with sorenson, quicktime with mpg)

then again i might be totally off

[beenyweenies]

...and correct me if i'm wrong, but files such as AVI or MOV are just containers, and each can have individual codecs (avi with sorenson, quicktime with mpg)

then again i might be totally off

This is mostly correct. There are quite a few codecs common to both formats, such as MPEG2, MPEG4, Sorenson, etc. and obviously some that aren't, such as h.264 (QT), VC-1 (WMP), etc.

[trancor]

but there is stuff within the same realm as h.264 and vc-1 for either. h.262 and h.263 for avi for example

[Mylenium]

I did not wish to get bashed, I simply stated a few facts.

Not facts, but experiences based on your own working environment which you generalize and which on large levels do not apply to my working environment, Europe or Germany in particular for that matter.

I could go out on a limb and find counter-arguments to most of your stuff like many TV stations having ruefully gone back to DigiBeta and IMX 3 years ago because of the massive problems with DVC Pro (which really is only an acquisition format for news round here) to no professional audio facility even using Ogg audio CoDecs. You see, it's very much a matter of what you are dealing with everyday.

Still, doesn't change anything. DivX and Xvid are non-standardized CoDecs unsuitable for mass-distribution as are many others and they are also useless as intermediate formats. Like Brendan so nicely said - it's one thing if you have 20-something techheads dealing with that stuff and who are willing to jump hoops to be able to view their ripped videos, but it's a completely different story to get this stuff out to conservative clients who are even afraid they might cause a crash on their 'puter when they push the wrong button.

In that light ask yourself: Which is more important? The client who pays or some tech-kid? If it wasn't for DivX having licensed their stuff to some chip makers a few years ago so it could be integrated into DVD-players (which still does not guarantee playback of all such files, BTW), they would be long gone. Or do you really believe they are selling mass numbers of their professional tools and would still be around without all those licensing fees? Likewise, it took eons for others to even accept Ogg and Xvid and even today support for those formats is flakey in most encoding apps, to say the least. It's a simple matter of business. While all those formats are interesting on a technical level, they are certainly not driving the market.

Mylenium

[trancor]

VLC, Media Player Classic, quicktime, I think winamp now all support a multitude of codecs.
Frankly there is no real difference between using quicktime or using avi it's really prefrence, but you would be limited by what codecs you can use for each.
It's mainly old video players that wont support the big time, pirate inspired, codecs of our age.
When you can get compression ratios to bring a video like that 1:20 second video that was 2.66 gig, xvid could compress it down to a meg. Or less if you will it to.
Frankly, I can't wait till MKV becomes a standered for video, the possiblilities with the file type are endless, multiple audio tracks and multiple video tracks per video along with multiple sub title tracks.


yes, personal experiances, ok please stop misreading what I'm saying.


and I'll say again -

I would never condone using any of those pirate based codecs for ANYTHING professional.

Simply because you don't know that I never use xvid for any of my projects and will only work with uncompressed video, doesn't mean that I'm telling him to go out with some really important video to show to some production house's head encoded in xvid with artifacts GALLOR. I was giving a suggestion on a smaller file size, that is it.


edit -- left a bit too many spaces in there hehe.

[suztv]

Last time I checked, codecs like this don't ship with Quicktime/Windows Media Player, and therefore require the user to download them to view the vid. I would say this makes codecs like these a poor option (despite their decent compression) for anything but specialty distribution where you know for sure your viewers will all have that codec installed.

When I was in school it amazed me how many kids turned in their projects in these wacky codecs that wouldn't play back during class review, and they would simply say to the instructor "Just go download the codec!" Wrong answer, try again - the instructors routinely marked them down for it, as they should have.

The moral is that NO codec is good for distribution unless it's universal, which is why MPEG-4 and Sorenson are typically considered safer/better choices.

XVID is pretty common - and yes some people might have to download the codec. Like I said in my post it - depends on the end audience. It was just an option that I provided. If you are just playing it for friends and family - this is a good option. Professionally though I would stick with Quicktime or WMV depending on the client capabilites. I have found that although one client may have the ability to play Quicktime the other may not so it really depends on the end user platform and their installed codecs.

[trancor]

Thank you, simply put, suztv.

Like just yesterday I handing in a render I did, to my boss, in both a h.264 mov 20 meg file and a xvid avi 400k file, both of which looked nearly exactly the same. My boss showed the avi to the client at the meeting. It worked, it was 2% the file size of the mov, so why not, easy to transfer, easy to archive and it does't take up needless space. (Rough render obviously) It got the feed back that I required to keep working and no one was harmed.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.