If the seq. is made in 1080i/1080p you can use H.264 Blu-ray
What is the best format to render out a movie in After Effects to have play smooth in Premiere.
Why use PR as a player? Why not AMP, WMP, VLC, or any other player? PR is not intended for playback. What is your intended delivery?
No, not as a player. I am still editing. I created somthing in AE to put into my edit in PR. I want to keep it the best quality, but I don't want it to slow my machine down. For example the person before said use the H.264, but i feel even at 100 percent the text is not as crisp.
H.264 is great as a delivery format, nor for editing. For simplicity either use the same format as your source or use Lagarith or HuffYuv, the latter two are visually lossless and require only one third of the space of uncompressed. If you are still pressed for disk space, get another disk.
Right now I am using the MPEG-2 Blue ray. The files are small size and the quality looks pretty good at 100 percent. I was wondering if people thought this was the best or not.
I agree with the H.264 as not being good to still edit with. Is Lagarith or HuffYuv in AE professional or is that a thrid party plugin.
Also just to be clear, it is not just about file size, it is also about playing back smooth.
Why do you not use Dynamic Link.
If not mpeg-bluray is just fine in a hd(v) sequence.
Well if u are playing using "spacebar" you need a very good computer rig with a lot of ram, try to use "render". If its still not playing at correct speed. Your computer may lacks of the right amount of RAM memory, or better, a Matrox Axio hardware to put the preview at real time without render. And if even using H.264 Blu-ray, the preview still slow, try to imagine using a lossless codec or without one?
Dynamic link can solve your problem only if u have the amount of ram needed too, or wait for a render to preview.
Dynamic link is slow as hell, and with HD files it is even slower.
I have 8 gigs of ram, dual quad process, and a fast harddrive. The computer is there.
I am mostly looking for suggestions.
Do yourself a favour by running the http://ppbm4.com benchmark and submit the data to Bill. We can all see if there is any problem in your setup that can cause the lack of fluent playback.
Lagarith and HuffYuv are free codecs ready for download from the internet. Just install them and AE and PR can use them. BTW, these are the ONLY acceptable codecs to install on your system, anything else is inviting disaster to strike.
Again, keep it either in the format of your source or a visually lossless codec, don't try anything in delivery format like H.264 or MPEG2-BR.
I agree with Harm. For DI work, you want something at least visually lossless. Uncompressed, Lagarith and HuffYUV are about the best choices you have. Other options introduce their own level of compression, which means some degree of image degredation.
This is my results:
BOXX Technologies, Inc, Computer Manufacturer
3DBOXX-W8400, Computer Model
86, secs Total Benchmark Time
12, secs AVI Encoding Time
38, secs MPEG Elapsed Time
36, secs Rendering Time
Intel, CPU Manufacturer
Intel(R) Xeon(R), CPU Model
E5440@2.88, GHz CPU speed
2, Number of CPU chips
8, Total Number of Cores
8, GB RAM
4.1, APP Version PPBM4 DV
WinXP Pro 64, OSVersion
SCSI, OS Disk Interface
139, GB OS Disk Capacity
10,000, OS Disk Speed
SCSI, Project Disk Interface
139, GB Project Disk Capacity
10,000, Project Disk Speed
SCSI, Preview Disk Interface
139, GB Preview Disk Capacity
10,000, Preview Disk Speed
SCSI, Output Disk Interface
139, GB Output Disk Capacity
10,000, Output Disk Speed
Quadro FX 4600, Graphics Board
That is a serious system with nice disks as well. I would wait 3 weeks longer and then upgrade to Win7 x64. That may give you around 10% performance increase. In the meantime if you have a consumer video card laying around, ATI HD 48xx or nVidia GTX 2xx or similar, try if that will improve performance because the Quadro line occasionally has some performance problems.
Another thing to consider is that your AVI encoding time is slower than I would have expected. This is relatively disk intensive and shows, in comparison to Bill Gehrke's system the disadvantage of a single disk versus a raid5 with 5 similar disks.
For the rest, all I can say is first of all, thanks for running the test and secondly your performance is not significantly different than other similar systems and even better than Roger Averdahl's system at a lower clock speed. You profit from the SCSI disks.
No thank you. The lagarith codec is awesome. I have been using it non-stop all day so far. That is exactly the result I was looking for.