Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5063952 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 08 May 2013 02:26:20 +0200 Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 16so2204403iea.31 for ; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=84Sy88oev+UL6JhsE+VdsXE+gQ9XeUnLBlw6yqV6IDE=; b=molkES5LYIoRg5kQ6x2fe9JzB95Eai0qXJ2sHkstfVeSQ3Vn9nkazrJUS2B5XxaekM owBn8SZ5UXgOeXFyCRDJeMHoQOtZNQ+2mDI/U7cyFbqa3QibcaNAQULfE1eNJDyJVJTS aKdDugUMLGxHdw9OlrRwBtncsLfbXQnykggnQQXXky/shfCKAiCe/VIIVhCrrOa1lbG1 6sJNL+Xj6sWZlIOIh8JzXx6JTg8xlt7B7znF0VdID3f2RH//0sl/VCskqALihGztQF15 fyJBb/wsrYB/cRx35e4I9luhpQmidVf7zwfsSSvPP9hgUFQfc6RYJBtOVvdk/4PcWXfo Fmmg== X-Received: by 10.50.212.3 with SMTP id ng3mr1602898igc.43.1367973305701; Tue, 07 May 2013 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.7.194 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Mr. Eric D. Kirk" Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:34:45 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Best AE Render Settings for Long Footage To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93409f7f329ae04dc2a1a70 --14dae93409f7f329ae04dc2a1a70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Oh, I meant to say, my intent is to post up on vimeo as a draft review is all. Eric On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:46 PM, David Baud wrote: > I think the point is you are better off doing your render to an > intra-frame codec first and then compress that file to your liking. For the > compression, if you do not have a player/platform requirement, I would go > with H.264 at a low-bit rate (using an mp4 wrapper) With most compression > software now you can setup a watch folder so that you can automatize that > process. > > David Baud > K O S M O S P R O D U C T i O N S > david@kosmos-productions.com > www.kosmos-productions.com > > > On May 7, 2013, at 4:39 PM, patrick Siemer wrote: > > I agree...DNX HD, or Pro-res or Photo Jpeg compressors are super fast. Not > as small as H264, but quality is great. > > > On May 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > > > personally I'd probably output DNxHD 145 or ProRes LT unless you need to > push the file across the net on a slower connection. even then it might be > faster to output a ProRes file, then encode to h.264 > > > > -- *Eric D. Kirk | **Kirk Productions* *The Night Visitor | VFX* *443.206.1347 www.kirkproductions.com kirkproductions@gmail.com* *IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3351363/* * * --14dae93409f7f329ae04dc2a1a70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh, I meant to say, my intent is to post up on vimeo as a draft review is a= ll.

Eric

On Tue, May 7= , 2013 at 7:46 PM, David Baud <david.baud@gmail.com> wrot= e:
I think = the point is you are better off doing your render to an intra-frame codec f= irst and then compress that file to your liking. For the compression, if yo= u do not have a player/platform requirement, I would go with H.264 at a low= -bit rate (using an mp4 wrapper) With most compression software now you can= setup a watch folder so that you can automatize that process.

<= span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;font-family:'Comic Sans MS';= font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;let= ter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;w= hite-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
David Baud
K O S M O S =A0 =A0 P R O D U C T i O N S
david@kosmos-productions.com
www.kosmos-productions.com<= span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;font-family:'Comic Sans MS';= font-size:13px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;let= ter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;w= hite-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<= span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;font-family:'Comic Sans MS';= font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;let= ter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;w= hite-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">

<= /div>

On May 7, 2013, at 4:39 PM, patrick Siemer wrote:

I agree...DNX HD, or Pro-res or Photo Jpeg com= pressors are super fast. Not as small as H264, but quality is great.

On May 7, 2013, at 2:= 28 PM, Steve Oakley wrote:

personally I'd p= robably output DNxHD 145 or ProRes LT unless you need to push the file acro= ss the net on a slower connection. even then it might be faster to output a= ProRes file, then encode to h.264

=




--
Eric D. Kirk |=A0Kirk Productions
The Night Visitor | VFX
=A0
--14dae93409f7f329ae04dc2a1a70--