Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5453334 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:23:45 +0200 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id cc10so2855034wib.8 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:23:45 -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=nfmR3mrGO4z1UFEBcmJy4PVo3DvYgfCXl9RKW5xgUJ4=; b=P4/b580QjNqD9stEM1dinilHwlA8snJZ40GXG76BFvqmPheTUMXdXhGUKfpM7PQ+Jl Y980t6voiItr/Ow2vOtchMhtg/Glnnj2F0apD/BtZ/eJEJy4fjyiVFuL7ArIe1QOM7es ndFYQDUsQgCtcwhw2HJkzsafEGmNCjhy52t3wJO4MMqVanYpxz2uLwWLgySCL/NVvxIh Q6EIi0fbLBuaQ9Y8b96oOM+fVnoStiDz+NYN/X+I2MjYVMEyKa///WsY1JFfhCKUoee8 zrGHzeQhSlQi+CKvzsdzxjAuqIlbtES7ToqqvGY9/eRJbKVD8KAYYMAV/8bhs85g7oIx HYpw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.186.140 with SMTP id fk12mr7281333wjc.47.1398439425195; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.161.68 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:23:45 +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=047d7bea45182deffc04f7df8df5 --047d7bea45182deffc04f7df8df5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How did it go? On 24 April 2014 18:38, D wrote: > 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 i= n > 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 t= o >>>> check them to make sure there aren't any errors. So I render a separat= e >>>> 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 w= rite >>>> bad TIFF frames and I'd never know it. He things to be 100% safe I sho= uld >>>> first render my TIFF sequence, and then re-render that sequence as a >>>> quicktime. What do people think? >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --047d7bea45182deffc04f7df8df5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How did it go?

On 24 April 2014 18:38, D <dow.hanson@gmail.com= > wrote:

Oh I see, sorry, not thinking your issue through properly. Unl= ess he gave me a clear technical reason exactly why AE might render some du= d 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@gmail.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?

--047d7bea45182deffc04f7df8df5--