I bought an AE project file (VideoHive.net) and the first time I tied to use it things worked fine, although it took most of a day (9 hours) to render a 2 minute project. Then I made some changes (substituting pictures in the sample) and attempted to export it again. At high quality 1080 AVI, it took 52 hours and the result was a jittery poor quality mess. So then I rendered the project again at 720 as an MP4 and it only took 37 hours, but this time it was even worse and even more unusable.Same machien, same memory assignment, same project file.
I don't know if I was supposed to render in RAM first (I may hve done that before the first rander just to see what it looked like) or what combination of settings I should be using or if I should be sending it directly to Premiere (although I can't seem to make that work). I think my first attempt was an MOV which I imported into Pr with no problem and it only took 9 hours to render. Same machine, same project. This should be an adequate machine (6 core, 16 GB) with 80% memory assigned to CS5. I've spent hours on Lynda.com watching all the AE courses but they don't seem to include the minor details and steps. They assume the viewer can figure that out, I guess.
What is the correct process to follow (RAM first?), what render file should I be using and how long should it take for a (less than) 2 minute finished AE project?
First, can you give a link to the exact project that you purchased?
9 hours for a 2 minute project isn't totally insane, depending on the nature of the project. As many folks here can attest to, 9 hours for a 10 second project used to be the norm!
What kind of files did you use as replacements (all specifics...frame size, frame rate, codec, etc...)? Are you rendering to a local drive? A network drive? What kind of connection are you using to your render drive? Are you rendering to a different drive than your project file and source files are located on?
You don't need to RAM preview prior to rendering. With 6 cores, you should have more RAM if you wanted to make the most out of your processors. You may want to consider limiting the number of processors to 3 or 4.
Here's the project: http://videohive.net/item/photo-album/94595
I have it running on 5 of the 6 processors using 13 GB of the RAM.
Rendering to local SATA drive, same as the source files.
I have no problem with the 9 hours, but I do have a problem with 3 days and
a jumpy mess as the result.
The images I switched out are mostly smaller than the ones in the sampler
and about the same as the scanned pictures I used in my trial run.
Should I try to export to my Premiere project or export to a file to bring
back into Pr? (added to video interview). If I export it, it needs to be 720
for standard DVD - What is the best format and settings for that? AVI? MOV?
MP4? Obviously what I selected was outside of what the machine could
Just because the images are smaller does not necessarily mean that they're easier to process. In what format are your replacement images?
Also, you mention export. You should be using the Render Queue, not the "Export" function under the File menu to generate your rendered file. Are you using the Render Queue? As for settings, you will probably be fine using the (default) Lossless output module template. If your project has audio, make sure that you enable the Audio Output checkbox.
The replacement images are JPG the same as the ones I used the first time.
I started a QuickTime render now and it says 20 hours, but I've come to
learn it will probably take less than that. The one that came out really
good only took 9 hours, though.
Yes, I am using the Composition -> "make movie" -> render cue> custom
Are we perhaps facing a situation where you inadvertently habve enabled OpenGL rendering for final output? This would wreak havoc with a project such as yours... Other than that I can only assume that there may be some issue with your Quicktime install or that the project itself uses some feature (layer styles?) that may produce artifacts due to how AE's render order works.
At high quality 1080 AVI, it took 52 hours and the result was a jittery poor quality mess.
Was it actually faulty, or was your system simply unable to play back the rendered file because it was so large? Don't rely on quality playback from uncompressed/lossless files unless you have very fast RAID drives.
So then I rendered the project again at 720 as an MP4 and it only took 37 hours, but this time it was even worse and even more unusable.Same machien, same memory assignment, same project file.
When working with intensive renders, never compress your material in AE. If the compression settings are wrong, or need to be changed later, you have to re-render everything. Render to an uncompressed/lossless format (Quicktime Animation codec at 100% quality, for example) and use an external compression tool like Quicktime Pro/Apple Compressor etc to make compressed, viewable versions.
What you say makes a lot of sense to me. The finished file was 330 MB for a
1:44 video and it was generated using "lossless". I'm not running RAID
because my projects don't use all that much space. Most of the drives are
1.5 SATA 7200 but the one with this project may be an older (350 GB) drive.
Does that mean that if I put the "jittery" file on a CD or rendered it in
Premiere that it might still play OK? My video card is the recommended
Nvidia GTX285 - 2 TB. Is the card or my monitor a limitation?
The OS and programs are installed on the main drive and all the working
files are on added SATA drives.
Here's an FAQ entry that addresses some of what Andrew was talking about regarding playback of uncompressed files:
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all who provided advice, assistance and information. I would like to report my project was a success. The quality is excellent. It did take several days to render a 2 minute project but the result was most satisfactory. Again, my thanks to all here who provided guidance, advice and information. This forum is a real asset to the Adobe community.
Europe, Middle East and Africa