Ive got 250 pictures, now what?

[toontje]

Now try to model a proper environment for the tree like a rolling hill, grass etc. Add a nice sky texture.

[Lesst]

I was planning on doing that, the thing is though that I wanted to make a short movie to post here to get help because the textures and bump map look a bit screwed up...

[mfoxdogg]

Look up the info on the sequencer

[DanielWray]

You need to load those images into the sequence in blender and render them out as a movie format. You could have done this straight from render, instead of rendering out images.

Look at the blender wiki and it will explain how to do this, it's really straight forward :)

[RendoGog]

I would argue that it's better to do what you have done render to image sequence rather direct to a video.

Then either use the blender sequencer or a video editor to turn to a movie, I use Adobe Premiere, but I have tried free alternatives such as Jahshaka and they can be excellent..

[Lesst]

Awesome. I managed to get it done. However... My animation is 250 frames 25 frames per second, ergo 10 seconds long... buuut, the .avi file ended up being 343mb big! :argh: :surprised

What went wrong?

[Lesst]

Should perhaps metion that each picture is 800x600 pixels and 35.4 kb big....

[RendoGog]

Did you use a compression codec? if not then the video = the sum of the frames....

[TheANIMAL]

Codecs use formulas which basically only use data for pixels that change rather than every pixel for every frame. This way a shot of 10 second where there are alot of similar colours or there are continuous shot parts then 1 frame can be re-used in parts of the next frame to save space.

If you simply edit the pictures together you file size inflates quickly.

[Lesst]

At first I didn't, that gave me the 343 mb result. I then fiddled around with the codecs getting a result as low as 12 mb. I still think that is pretty big for a 10 second movie. Especially considering three fourths of the picture doesn't change (white background) and all that happens is that the tree slowly rotates.

Correct me if I am wrong, but 250*35.4=8850, shouldn't that yield a result somewhere around the 8-9mb size?

I am at such a complete loss at what is happening. If anyone could explain this in a really simple way that would be great:P

Okei, while typing this, I rendered out a result that was 588kb... Now I am really confused, the only difference now is that I didn't load the rendered pictures back into sequencer and then render movie, I skipped the picture part and rendered out a movie straight away....


This is all so far beyond my skill it is a little frustrating to be honest.

But thank you all for taking the time to help me out, much appreciated!

[podmon]

Correct me if I am wrong, but 250*35.4=8850, shouldn't that yield a result somewhere around the 8-9mb size?


You have to consider that you are using two different compression formats - one for the image and one for the video. Different compression codecs will have different file sizes and quality. A jpeg frame won't equate to a frame from a divx video.

You mentioned the newest render was a much larger file size. Did you change which image compression you are using? I would suggest rendering the animation to a lossless image format (like png), then use something like the xvid video codec to create the video file. You can download that video codec for free. Others might have better suggestions for compression.

You can also try different settings for the video codec to get the best file size vs quality. For an 800 x 600 animation, you might try saving in the xvid video format with 1500k/sec data rate then try 2500k/sec data rate and compare the quality and file size. This will help you learn the best options for you particular animations.

[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.