Animation question

[ZuluQ]

Here is a question for the experts in animation, is true that is better to render the whole animation frame by frame (tiff, jpeg, bmp) save them and then do the compositing part with this archives :?:

[Tong]

no. you ask because of flickering?

[ZuluQ]

I read that somewhere, cant remember where, im pretty newbie with all this, and i want it to know if that was true or not. But, why is such a bad idea? is better then to compress right away?

[Tong]

yes it always better if you have space and time.

but why make something in hard way when you can do it in easy way?

[ZuluQ]

But, it takes the same time to render, the only difference is that you dont compress for example an avi movie or quicktime with cinema, just save the pics and then compress them in another program? am i wrong? (sorry if my english isnt good enough :oops: )

[STRAT]

you generally render to a series of un-compressed pictures first, because it gives you greater flexibility and safety, not because it's any quicker, which it isn't.

flexibility - if you have a set of uncompressed images you can then compile them into whatever animation format you want, again and again, depending on their intended use or client request.

safety - or what happens if you have, say, a long 5000 frame animation that takes maybe 3 or 4 or more days of solid rendering, then you get a computer crash maybe 4999 frames in? if you've been saving straight to an animation format you'd be buggered and would loose everything. If you'd been rendering to frames, then you'd just pick up the rendering at the frame you'd crashed at.

[ZuluQ]

Thanks a lot STRAT, now i understand :wink:.

[sadece]

is there any quality differance between uncompressed video codec (avi..) and uncompressed (tif,png..) ?

[STRAT]

if it's uncompressed, then no. just that images are more flexible.