-
Avid Meredian vs Animation Codecs
I’m a new user to AE and I was test rendering/exporting a 30 sec comp of multi-layered animated stills for import into an Avid system.
First, I rendered the comp with the “animation” codec, which took about 4 minutes and yield a roughly 600 MB file.
Being that this is for work on an AVID Meridian or Adrenaline system (not Xpress DV pro) I then tried the two AVID MERIDIAN CODECS.
Second, The AM Uncompressed had roughly the same specs as the ANIMATION codec export. Third export – I used the AM Compressed took roughly 22 minutes to render and yielded a file over 700 MBs!
Did I do something wrong with setting the specs for the Compressed render, that it would take that long and be that big? Also, shouldn’t the AM Uncompressed yield a substantial lower MB rate then the Animation codec?
If it’s worth knowing, I’m working on a G4 powerbook. 1.33 ghz with 768 MB RAM. AE was the only application running and while exporting the comp, the cue stated 60% of 768 MB in use.
Thanks,
Chris -
8 Replies
-
Hello, cjfilm.
The Quicktime Animation codec is a strange animal. It usess a lossless compression scheme. When set at 100 per cent quality, it is uncompressed in terms of image quality but achieves data rate/file size reduction by using a technique known as solids compression.What that means is: areas that truly have the same exact color values are expressed in a more economical way. Because of this, files with large areas of solid color or transparency (like… Animation!) frequently show suprisingly small file sizes with excellent qualityu. On the other hand, including fulll screen video -as acquired by a camera- would produce really large (uncompressed) files. If your project is somewhere in the middle of those cases, data rates will be also somewhere in the middle too.
This lossless nature and the fact that’s one of the few standardized video codecs that allow to store transparency information, make Animation a very important option as an archival or intermediate codec (this is, a working codec for processes where your material goes through several applications during the production chain).
Its’ disadvantages are also clear: not really optimized for real time playback (becuase of the demading nature of its’ file reduction scheme) it will make older computers choke in playback, Also, the fact that no NLE uses Animation as a native editing codec, ie, they will have to translate it into something else. I belive Avid does this translation on import, while FCP does it when rendering the timeline,
Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires – Argentina
https://www.adolforozenfeld.com
adolfo@adolforozenfeld.com -
Adolfo,
Much thanks for your technical explanation of this codec. Very informative and helpful. Would you suggest any other Codecs that offer strong results with AE? Somthing that does not yeild such a large file size but optimal quality? Again, somethign that the AVID can understand upon import/translation.
Thanks,
ChrisThanks,
Chris -
Well, AVID can understand any standard Quicktime codec on translation. Unfortunately, that translation process is absurdly painfull if the computer is not very modern (totally CPU based). I remember waiting hours for a Symphony to do that.
I believe it was version 6.5 of AE that added the ability to render to native OMF essence files. My knowledge of AVID speak is litmied, but common sense suggests those files should work on AVID without any translation needed. The OMF options are DV, 1:1 (uncompressed) and another 1:1 option for truly progressive scan footage. The standard 1:1 option should produce really “heavy” files but totally uncompressed.
Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires – Argentina
https://www.adolforozenfeld.com
adolfo(AT)adolforozenfeld.com -
My results with the Quicktime Motion jpeg-A setting have been most successful. I send opens and motion graphics elements from AE to our AVIDs all the time, and they are compact, look great, and work in both the older AVID Meridien machines, AND the Adrenaline Newscutter, of which we have three.
This codec is the one that is used by Artbeats for delivery on their high-quality DVD stock video collections. The setting they use is:
Motion jpeg-A, quality setting 94 (which is one step down from Best).
I’ve compared this codec setting to the Animation/Uncompressed, (which, from what I understand, is only for use as an interim file for moving between systems without experiencing loss, not for final delivery) and comparing the two side by side, can see virtually no difference in quality. Our chief engineer swears that he can see the difference, but that’s what they always say. Job security!
Joe Bourke
Art Director / WMUR-TV -
Joseph,
Much Thanks. I appreciate the info. I’ll do another test export based on your comments.
Thanks,
Chris -
In this post I included info on settings for rendering from AE to go into an AVID system…
https://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_post.cgi?forumid=2&postid=871896The advantage of compressing on the AE end and not on the Editor’s end — I’ve noticed to be twofold: A) it should not make much of a difference in your compression time on your machine but on the AVID machines if you set up the file in the codec the editor is editing in then it can reduce thier import time by 2/3 or more. B) I’ve noticed especially with the AVIDs that AE handles compressing to the DV format better than the AVID does compressing the Animation or whatever codec to the Meridien or Avid DV codec.
We were sending over highly detailed & animated map renderings to our AVID newscutters and they took 10-15 minutes to bring into the AVID system when we used to render to the animation codec. The text also looked blurry & certain small lines had a bit of artifacting/jitter around them. Compressing on the map program’s end to the AVID DV codec meant that the editors could import the map in about minute & removed the problems with the blurry text & artifacting.
You can try my Output Module & Render Settings presets at: https://fusinatodesign.blogspot.com/2006/03/settings-ae-c4d-settings.html
-Carolyn
-
Mmmm.
Motion JPEG A and B are mid 90s codecs that existed mainly because of their relationship to then existing video editing hardware. Aurora boards were using them recently, AFAIK. The PhotoJPEG codec, as found in Quicktime 6.x and later is at least of the same quality, with an even smaller data rate and its’ optimized for software playback. At about 4 MB/s it looks better than it has any right to. And yes, in many cases it’s different to tell it apart from uncompressed material. But it is true that with certain demanding stuff, the difference will make itself evident. It won’t take an engineer scared of loosing his job to notice it 🙂Still, it’s important to undertstand that most Avid sytems will surely transcode any of those into something else, so any space savings or quality advantages will be conditioned by the Avid codec your system is working with at the moment, right? I would say I have a good understanding of the different Quicktime codecs, but not that much experience with Avid, so I probably should stop talking 🙂
Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires – Argentina
https://www.adolforozenfeld.com
adolfo(AT)adolforozenfeld.com -
Also you need to make sure you output in the same res they need. Was worse with the older avids – and they are still out there with some smaller houses. But mainly you are making your editors happy. If you give them an AVID codec – the AVID is happy and imports right in. If it has to convert it – they gotta run and get some coffee and may take longer than that. But ask them what they are working in – if they are rough cutting I give them that version first – then give them the final in whatever flavor. Sometimes I have 2:1 for corporate work and uncompressed for commerical and so on.
Roman
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up