From: "Teddy Gage" Received: from mail-yk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5483809 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Sat, 24 May 2014 02:05:38 +0200 Received: by mail-yk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 142so4590489ykq.16 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 17:05:36 -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=+LHu/JL6xWbyfd6Zq5QB0aIYaVVd5nd5+YSQn5HJlH4=; b=j7j37rY6QIYZJaWiAi+Dypp6UthZ7zJUBe/CEo2tgL2UmaWN23yhDvIvKdb0VuLU33 j8gb8bwrYeqPjD3CGcW+r2BWGGqeR7VffxcaEwBvsf94Kspy4vTpqaDc2sleGCGjuqpZ OpCx6kyoUlcVz+NDTF/My5KdbQbNQmuOTVejFWH252mmtHm1IGXhC5tE0uoMTUh+hlN/ vOyZF278K9lz9xwrze9YW6iREjR/SRT4hKtG1FTTwht2zGQkG19obEQPR4oXXvdtv4Xq sE6M5BXqcNZHcEe9Q5MqKd2f1KgSWrOV3MqSHf6f9+3shmVJF1bpHasLZaeIRAexcQBW zQ1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.190.72 with SMTP id d48mr11823627yhn.62.1400889936450; Fri, 23 May 2014 17:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.76.134 with HTTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 17:05:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 20:05:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Adding functionality to Render Queue To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e263d08369204fa1a1b5f --20cf305e263d08369204fa1a1b5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 AME has serious bottlenecks for directly rendering AE comps. It is, in my experience, significantly faster to render a tiff sequence or lossless 4444 prores QT from the render queue in AE, and then compress with AME to multiple formats as necessary. however, I would never render an h264 directly from AE, AME is many times faster and more reliable, especially with the recent mercury upgrades. Right tool for the job, etc TG On Friday, May 23, 2014, Todd Kopriva wrote: > I'll let others take the first run at answering that, since I'm curious > to see what the consensus is before I jump in with my perspective. > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* After Effects Mail List > > on behalf of Zack Lovatt > > > > > Is there any reason to not use AME for everything? Since CC release, I've > not once used the render queue, and my poor poor bgrenderer licence is > going unused. > -- _____________________________ VFX & Motion Graphic Artist teddygage dot com --20cf305e263d08369204fa1a1b5f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AME has=C2=A0serious=C2=A0bottlenecks for directly rendering AE comps.=C2= =A0It is, in my experience, significantly faster to render a tiff sequence = or lossless 4444 prores=C2=A0QT from=C2=A0the render queue in AE, and then = compress with AME to multiple formats=C2=A0as necessary.

however, I would never render an h264 directly from AE, AME = is many times faster and more reliable, especially with the recent=C2=A0mer= cury upgrades.=C2=A0Right tool for the job, etc
TG

On Frid= ay, May 23, 2014, Todd Kopriva <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

I'll let others take the first run at answering that, since I'm = curious to see what the consensus is before I jump in with my perspective.<= /p>

=C2=A0


From: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv> on behalf of Zack Lovatt <<= a href=3D"javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AE-List@media-motion.tv&= #39;);" target=3D"_blank">AE-List@media-motion.tv>
=C2=A0

Is there any reason to not use AME for everything? Since CC = release, I've not once used the render queue, and my poor poor bgrender= er licence is going unused.



--
__= ___________________________
VF= X & Motion Graphic Artist
teddygage dot com

--20cf305e263d08369204fa1a1b5f--