Is there a benefit to exporting to quicktime -vs- avi?

touchdown · Post by **touchdown** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:27 pm

The subject line about covers it:

Are there any perceived benefits aside from size?
We're talking full-frame uncompressed renders.

Thankya

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:38 pm

I suppose if you're on a Mac there is...

touchdown · Post by **touchdown** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Heh, there you have it.

I ask because I'm currently using Vegas 7 and DVDA. It supports both formats. Up to this point I haven't even considered .mov.

I ran a test DVD last night of a clip (full frame, uc, avi) and noticed some 'wigglings' of layers. For example the borders of a square rotated -90 on the x-axis seemed to 'scoot' as you travel along it.

I didn't know if it was the format, or maybe because I didn't compile it out of Vegas with interlace-flicker reducing on. Another test is in order I suppose.

Thanks for the post.

jim

Rai López · Post by **Rai López** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:17 pm

touchdown wrote:DVDA

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:10 pm

Sounds like an interlace issue to me. Vegas does a good job of progressive work. If you're using DV, they have a project setting for full frame progressive DV and widescreen as well. Vegas is good with the presets, and lets you get down to actually working.

DVD Architect is one of the few tools that lets you easily author a fully progressive DVD also.

IsraelRN · Post by **IsraelRN** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:35 am

Well,

MOV works if you work on a Mac, or plan to edit using a Mac, in FinalCutPro for example.

I do edit video with FCP only, (but i have a Windows laptop on wich i'll use ASP) but i'm a new user of ASP and can't tell what would work better, MOV export or still images for later compositing of the video.

Best Regards,
Israel RN

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:24 am

Rendering .mov works quite well on a Mac. All programms support it, it's smooth. I suspect the same is true with .avi on a PC.

The real thrill starts when you have to share files cross-platform. I can't work with .avis on my mac, but most windows boxes can deal pretty well with quicktime.

Video services and the like should not be restricted to one format — if they are, it's a sure sign they don't run really professional hardware. Question their price list then.

Some studios might run older hardware with specific file requirements. My last animation I had to deliver in TARGA format — a batch of numbered image files. (It was impossible to render this straight from AS, I had to convert through other programs.)

F.M. · Post by **F.M.** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:19 pm

Can the Avi format keep the alpha channel intact?

Post by **Víctor Paredes** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:59 pm

F.M. wrote:Can the Avi format keep the alpha channel intact?

yes, using Huffyuv

touchdown · Post by **touchdown** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:46 pm

artfx wrote:Sounds like an interlace issue to me. Vegas does a good job of progressive work. If you're using DV, they have a project setting for full frame progressive DV and widescreen as well. Vegas is good with the presets, and lets you get down to actually working.

DVD Architect is one of the few tools that lets you easily author a fully progressive DVD also.

Yeah, I checked off "reduce interlace flicker" on the elements and that helped a little.

Still though, my images seem dull--hazy if you will. Yeah, I've got a blur 1 on a layer, but overall it doesn't seem that bright.

OT: isn't progresive used only when the final project WON'T be viewed on a TV (i.g., computer only)??

I guess I'm looking for good settings on: bitrate, fields, etc. Vegas is a nice app, but the documention is awful.

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:03 pm

touchdown wrote: OT: isn't progresive used only when the final project WON'T be viewed on a TV (i.g., computer only)??

Not necessarily. A true progressive image would not be ideal for TV (except HD) .If you are using NTSC DV standards and choose to do progressive output, Vegas will not actually get rid of the interlacing. Vegas will render the images so that two fields contain the information which makes up one solid frame. This is why de-interlacing live video can result in the appearance of a loss in resolution. If you're creating images entirely on the computer though, then visually it will appear as true progressive even in NTSC.

touchdown · Post by **touchdown** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:13 pm

Alright, thanks.

Now, exporting animation to DVD.

Not withstanding art styles and animation techniques, what could you suspect causes my rendered projects (after compiling in Vegas) to look "dull" on
TV? Compared with, say, store bought edition (e.g., family guy, CTN, etc).

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:34 pm

You want to be careful with what codec you are using, especially in Quicktime. Not all codecs operate in the same color space, and DV is one of the worst offenders. In Quicktime just by exporting using DV, Sorenson Video 3 or MJPEG you can get radically different color reproduction. Sorenson seems pretty accurate while MJPEG seems heavily saturated with black being too dark. DV can tend to look pale.

Some of these codecs tend to try and compensate for limitations in the format, like NTSC, so if you are already using filters in Vegas, like an NTSC legalize to keep colors in range, the codec may be doubling up that work and thus removing even more color range from the image.

In Quicktime you can take advantage of the filters they provide in the export panel. Brightness, contrast saturation etc. can be used to pump up the vibrancy of the animation on export. Otherwise you want to prepare your image knowing in advance what format you will export to. Use color correction in Vegas to enhance the image so that it will appear correct after the codec processes it. Since the process is always the same for a particular codec, you should only need one setting that will work for all scenes.

touchdown · Post by **touchdown** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:03 pm

I hadn't thought of color correcting.

Is that common for animation? Especially since we're dealing (mostly) with more direct, specific colors (as opposed to all the variations and shading real life video might have)?

I'll look into vegas to see if there is anything defaulted like that which might be "doubling" the work.

I'm not dead set on AVI, quicktime works in there too. At this point I'll take whichever is more reliable (or less work).

slowtiger · Post by **slowtiger** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:56 pm

It is common for everything which ends up on video. But since most people don't even think about correct exposure in their photos, it's no surprise no one spends a thought about good colours.

Every decent video editor should have a colour bar generator. Put this into your footage, apply the very same filter upon it, render with some codec. Open the resultiung file with some program which tests the colour bar. Sorry, don't know any name, it never was my part of the business.