10 Replies Latest reply on Nov 24, 2009 11:01 PM by canoli99

    General RENDER SIZE Question:

    canoli99 Level 1

      I am wondering if the size of my pre-renders is about right or if I'm missing something.

      I'm getting close to 2GBs for very short clips using nothing but vectors - no effects.

       

      For instance:

      5 cropped layers from AI

      14 small 80x80 vector shapes on each layer.

      I import them, make a 1024x768 comp and put all 5 layers rotating in 3D.

      4 of the 5 layers fade from 100 - 0 in the final 30 frames.

       

      Pre-render:

      .AVI render, no compresison - 599f @ 30fps - 1,839,488KB.

       

      Is that about what you'd expect? I was hoping for 200MB. I figured the vector layers would be like 80K ea, times 5 layers = 400K.

      Multiply that by 600 frames = 240,000K - but I guess it doesn't work that way...

       

      Am I way off in my figuring? I never expected almost 2G for a 20-second vector clip.

       

       

      Thanks for any help you can give me.

        • 1. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
          Adolfo Rozenfeld Adobe Employee
          figured the vector layers would be like 80K ea, times 5 layers = 400K.Multiply that by 600 frames = 240,000K - but I guess it doesn't work that way

          No, it doesn't

          In general, for video files there's no relationship at all between the source files size in megabytes and the file size of the exported file. It really depends on the format/codec.

          "No compression" AVI files are probably the most inefficient way of storing video with no compression. In this case, the only variables are frame size in pixels, frame rate and duration. A single color pixel or a simphony of animated graphics will produce the same file size, since "No Compression" has a fixed data rate.

          There are many other lossless codecs which will produce smaller file sizes with the very same quality. For example, Quicktime PNG, QT Animation and QT JPEG2000. If you want to use the AVI format, you can download the free Lagarith video codec which also offers lossless encoding. Once you install it, it will appear in the Video for Windows format options. I personally prefer the industry-standard QT codecs mentioned before, as you know after nuclear warfare two things will still be around:  cockroaches and Animation-encoded Quicktime files

          • 2. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
            canoli99 Level 1

            Thanks for your reply.

            Okay so that's how it goes. If I understand you right, the content on the layer has absolutely nothing to do with the render size?

             

            I would love to finally "get this" ...

             

            you said "In this case, the only variables are frame size in pixels, frame rate and duration."

             

            2 Questions about that:

             

            1.) How do I do the math?

             

            The "frame size in pixels" is 1024x768 = 786,432

            frame rate = 30 fps

            duration = 599 frames


            When I use those 3 numbers multiplied together I get 14TB -

            If I use 20 (seconds) instead of 599 I still get a crazy 471 GB number -  obviously my math is off...

             

            I'm not particularly fond of math but I do need a reliable way to estimate my render sizes, trying to learn how to keep them small...Is there a better way besides actually multiplying the variables?

             

            Are you generally able to estimate your render sizes before you render - and do you find that knowledge useful?

             

            2.) You said "In this case , the only variables are frame size in pixels, frame rate and duration." I was wondering what are the other cases (if it isn't too much to ask - and type!)?

             

            ************************************

             

            I will certainly stick with QT - same render that was ~2GB as an .avi rendered out to a 100MB QT file (animation "best").

             

            Thanks again for your reply - much appreciated!

            • 3. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
              Adolfo Rozenfeld Adobe Employee
              If I understand you right, the content on the layer has absolutely nothing to do with the render size?

               

              As a general principle, yes. This is, for codecs with fixed data rates, yes, content doesn't matter at all.

              For mathematically lossless codecs (lossless means, an uncompressed file that uses some clever technique to reduce data rate without affecting image quality), it depends (but "it depends" doesn't mean that it's related to the original source files sizes, just that it depends on the nature of the final result).

               

              For example, the Quicktime Animation codec uses a technique called "Solids compression". This means, that it produces drastic file size reductions  when several contiguous pixels are exactly the same color (as so frequently is the case in... animation). So, with a Quicktime Animation file that has full screen video footage or photos, you can expect to have a very, very large file size. For something that has a (say) half-screen sized video element with vector graphics, it will be around half the file size of the former case.

              PNG and JPEG2000 use other lossless techniques, and they are more consistent (they won't achieve the extremely small data rates Animation can have in some cases, but they won't be as huge as Animation can get either).

               

              Then you also have "visually lossless" codecs. This is a loose category that means that some form of image compression exists, but it's very, very hard to notice it. One example is Quicktime PhotoJPEG, which if you ask me, is terrific when set at 100 per cent quality.

              • 4. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                Adolfo Rozenfeld Adobe Employee

                you said "In this case, the only variables are frame size in pixels, frame rate and duration."

                 

                2 Questions about that:

                 

                1.) How do I do the math?

                 

                The "frame size in pixels" is 1024x768 = 786,432

                frame rate = 30 fps

                duration = 599 frames

                 

                You don't need to do math. AE does it for you

                When you go to the Composition Settings dialog to create a new Comp or modify the setting for an existing one, you'll see AE displays how large in MBs each frame will be. If you multiply it by the frame rate, that's the data rate per second. But this only applies if you render out a file with "No Compression" which is hardly the best way to export with no compression

                • 5. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                  canoli99 Level 1

                  Thanks so much A - I really appreciate your help.

                   

                  At the end you said, "but only if you render out a file with "No Compression" which is hardly the best way to export with no compression."

                   

                  You meant use a lossless compression right - instead of .avi and "no compression"?

                   

                  As long as the format / codec can handle transparency...

                   

                  Only one problem remains - I think it's a problem anyway...

                   

                  The final render needs to be available on the web. I'm already at 70MBs (did a PNG sequence, no compression). Do I need to be concerned about file sizes right now? I will prob need 4 or 5 additional intermediate renders...Is there any way in the world I'll be able to post the final render to the web?

                   

                  Since the final animation won't need transparency I can use a lossy compression, maybe even .GIF. Would you say I have a shot, or am I wasting my time and need to rethink this whole thing - maybe make the frame size much smaller?

                   

                  Thanks again !

                  • 6. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                    Adolfo Rozenfeld Adobe Employee
                    You meant use a lossless compression right - instead of .avi and "no compression"?

                    Exactly.

                    As long as the format / codec can handle transparency...

                    All of the mentioned QT codecs (Animation, PNG, JPEG2000) can handle transparency. You only need to set the channels in the Output Module to RGB+Alpha.

                     

                    The final render needs to be available on the web. I'm already at 70MBs (did a PNG sequence, no compression). Do I need to be concerned about file sizes right now? I will prob need 4 or 5 additional intermediate renders...Is there any way in the world I'll be able to post the final render to the web?

                    For a production/intermediate/master file, you don't need to be concerned with file size.

                    These codecs are meant to mantain the highest quality while you're actually producing the content, or making a master file of your finished work.

                    Once you're done, you can easily create compressed versions for distribution from this master file. The Adobe Media Encoder is a dedicated app that comes with AE that can take care of this.

                     

                    Since the final animation won't need transparency I can use a lossy compression, maybe even .GIF. Would you say I have a shot, or am I wasting my time and need to rethink this whole thing - maybe make the frame size much smaller?

                    GIF is a terrible idea.  Beyond obsolete. You want a Flash video (FLV or F4V) fille or an H264 file (which can be wrapped as MP4 or Quicktime, but I'd suggest the former for wider compatibility). The Adobe Media Encoder has presets for all these formats. You feed it your production master file as source, large as it can be, and you should be able to get very good quality at a tiny fraction of the original size.

                    • 7. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                      canoli99 Level 1

                      Ah that is great news. Thank you. I was hoping for an answer like that.

                       

                      So GIF is "beyond obsolete"?  wow, I know it's an old one, but - sounds like you wouldn't use it under any circumstances. I was under the impression it was still useful for certain animations - few colors, nothing complicated, etc.

                       

                      Anyway - thank you for the reminder that FLV is the right thing to use. Once I learn how to configure the settings in the Format Options I'll start exporting (rendering) to FLV. The AE help is good but like most Help appendices it tells you what something is, hardly ever when or why to use it.

                       

                      You don't happen to know a reference that's available online to learn about the various rendering options within FLV, F4V and H.264 - and the DVD formats? I've done the wikis and Lynda, I buy Layers and Photoshop User regularly - still have a lot of questions.

                       

                      In any case, thank you very much for your help!

                      • 8. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                        Todd_Kopriva Level 8
                        > You don't happen to know a reference that's available online to learn about the various rendering options within FLV, F4V and H.264

                         

                        See "Online resources about FLV and F4V formats" in "Render and export a compositon in FLV or F4V format" for information about FLV, F4V, and H.264.

                        • 9. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                          Adolfo Rozenfeld Adobe Employee
                          So GIF is "beyond obsolete"?  wow, I know it's an old one, but - sounds like you wouldn't use it under any circumstances. I was under the impression it was still useful for certain animations - few colors, nothing complicated, etc.

                          Yes, it could still make sense for a tiny and super simple, 5-10 frame loop you create in (say) Photoshop using old school frame by frame animation.

                          For anything longer, smoother or more complex than that, FLV/F4V and MPEG-4 will give you drastically better quality, with much larger frame sizes, much higher frame rates and at a fraction of the data rate.

                          Above all, what works for you is what works, period. So, if GIF addresses your needs, feel free to ignore my opinion and by all means take advantage of it.

                           

                          Anyway - thank you for the reminder that FLV is the right thing to use. Once I learn how to configure the settings in the Format Options I'll start exporting (rendering) to FLV. The AE help is good but like most Help appendices it tells you what something is, hardly ever when or why to use it.

                          I think that was more the case in the past. In the last few versions, in my opinion, AE Help gives a lot more attention to the whys. But since documentation can't be infinite, it's also important to remember that when you perform a search in AE help, the results you get don't just come from the Help pages themselves, but it also keeps track of many other resources, like web sites, forum posts, tutorials, etc. Also, many users posts comments in the Help pages which are very insightful. And as you know, anything that it's not clear in relevant AE help page, you can hang around and ask question in this and other AE-related forums

                          • 10. Re: General RENDER SIZE Question:
                            canoli99 Level 1

                            Thanks for your reply.

                             

                            I'm not sure if I appreciate the "advantages" of the ad hoc help system - I tend to check the "This Help File Only" because I know I'm getting reliable answers from Adobe. There are 5 or 6 other sites I trust, but I prefer not wading through 100s of results.

                             

                            The forums here are great though, almost like having coworkers - for those of us not working full-time in the industry. The "whys" are always the most difficult to teach; I understand enough to get some ideas onto the screen. Just wish they would render faster...need to upgrade to a fast processor next!

                             

                            Thanks again.