-
Rendering – AE or AME or both?
Hi everyone, I’ve been a lurker and a reader on these forums for a while now, but this is the first time I’ve felt I needed to post a question to be sure I’m getting the right answer…
I recently got back into using after effects, but I was off for a year or two so I am a bit rusty on a lot of things.
I have made an animation in after effects, and during the process whenever I made test renders to put on youtube so I could get people to give it a look, I always exported it straight into the AME queue, because I remembered vaguely that it was faster/better than the direct rendering using after effects. This was an older version of after effects though, I’m now using CC. However I then did some research in different work flows and methods, and tried a couple different ways.
The 1 minute animation takes:
20 minutes to render in AME straight to H264 1080p youtube format. Ends up 63mb
15 minutes to render in AE as a lossless animation, and then 1 minute to render to H264 1080p in AME. 62mb.
So it seems to be quicker to do the process in two stages? Is this normal? The outcomes look the same to my eye, though there’s not a huge amount of crazy effects going on in the videos… in fact most of the animation renders faster, its only one section with a bunch of particle effects that slows things down.
Just thought I’d find out for sure I’m not doing something silly! (before I do more projects and end up wasting lots of rendering time).
My system (in case it matters) :
iMac i7 3.5gz
nvidia 780m
24gb RAM (20gb set to adobe)Thanks 🙂
-
4 Replies
-
I’m guessing you misunderstood the question sorry, the point was that I wanted to end up with a decent H264 file… but doing it in two stages seemed to be quicker than doing it directly in AME. Which seemed strange to me. So I wondered if AME was well known to be slower to render from after effects, or if AME maybe struggled to output certain AE effects or something.
Otherwise in future I might keep doing it in two stages, at least for bigger projects, as it seems to be 10-20% faster to do it as a two stage process, instead of a single export to AME.
-
Thats fine, thanks for the help 🙂 I assume from your response that there’s no downside to using AME directly for all my rendering? (I have read forum replies in the past tht have said AME doesn’t support a bunch of different effects and things, but I dunno if any of that is relevant to the current version)
-
Adobe Media Encoder does not support the After Effects multiprocessing feature (CC 2014 and prior). This means that in most circumstances, it’s faster to render to an intermediate with Ae with multiprocessing on, then compress with AME than it is to render AME directly.
FYI, AME renders Ae comps by starting an instance of After Effects in the background, then passing the rendered frames from this invisible instance of Ae to AME via dynamic link.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
there is also to consider that Ae->AME->Render+Encode has different behaviour than AE->Render
if that slows you down also than you should choose the first option – Render Lossless and then AME.I try to explain in this tutorial the Ae->AME workflow and what to watch out for if you do
want to send you Ae composition to AME.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWzRgxRqUUs
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up