Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5452468 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:38:26 +0200 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q58so2525134wes.6 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/2YsMsTRPmjjDfatxk3heJlGZRf++xSRgv8C0bt1zLQ=; b=RFMA4Fcqs6jeZXKo0kYYc1Q8nfp8lQRfYtkq/kdSEwai7vYdnMt7w23e8Q86s7tNWo I4QHC/ShlnLSpa9txUd5IQ2/hsqcNygyEUsEmKZs/zKxnRSUVKBAUYnzLoyl/Qzy8iCZ vCILqbYuImaV33KiwgUj065f2Ivp+jw/jboL/xq4KM8QIdjPCus4VXCNQlGyzquzt8r6 Tp1imjOhiIE4sR0C3Q0s8wI4rHqIbKa09c7SjgtRrB3eoHqnmkf4jCSTl8vyeyA9yLRV z2GhqHXwOvtwZozREx5qClRPGbZWYdPSL1a0T/FFzz/HR3yoNoSQCqRBym5lm2gfLg8y 9ZWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.69 with SMTP id hq5mr82848wib.30.1398361105551; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.161.68 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:38:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] render second output module as QC render: reliable? From: D To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3baa07f6d8da04f7cd5030 --e89a8f3baa07f6d8da04f7cd5030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh I see, sorry, not thinking your issue through properly. Unless he gave me a clear technical reason exactly why AE might render some dud frames in this scenario then I=E2=80=99d carry on (with your method) and ignore him. On 24 April 2014 18:33, scott.aelist wrote: > So are you saying my co-worker is correct? > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM, D wrote: > >> If bad frames do occur you can just re-render the bad frames. >> >> >> On 24 April 2014 18:10, scott.aelist wrote: >> >>> I'm rendering some large 4k tiff sequences in the evening and I want to >>> check them to make sure there aren't any errors. So I render a separate >>> quicktime that is viewer-friendly so that I can check them. A coworker >>> suggested to me that my quicktime may render fine, but that AE could wr= ite >>> bad TIFF frames and I'd never know it. He things to be 100% safe I shou= ld >>> first render my TIFF sequence, and then re-render that sequence as a >>> quicktime. What do people think? >>> >>> >> > --e89a8f3baa07f6d8da04f7cd5030 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh I see, sorry, not thinking your issue through properly.= Unless he gave me a clear technical reason exactly why AE might render som= e dud frames in this scenario then I=E2=80=99d carry on (with your method) = and ignore him.=C2=A0

On 24 April 2= 014 18:33, scott.aelist <scott.aelist@gmail.com> wrote:=

So are you saying my co-worker is correct?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM, D <dow.hanson@g= mail.com> wrote:

If bad frames do occur you = can just re-render the bad frames.=C2=A0

On 24 April 2= 014 18:10, scott.aelist <scott.aelist@gmail.com> wrote:=

I'm rendering some= large 4k tiff sequences in the evening and I want to check them to make su= re there aren't any errors. So I render a separate quicktime that is vi= ewer-friendly so that I can check them. A coworker suggested to me that my = quicktime may render fine, but that AE could write bad TIFF frames and I= 9;d never know it. He things to be 100% safe I should first render my TIFF = sequence, and then re-render that sequence as a quicktime. What do people t= hink?

--e89a8f3baa07f6d8da04f7cd5030--