Extra Movie Options?

TastigerTastiger Posts: 76
edited September 2013 in Carrara Discussion

Hoping someone can help here, despite having installed extra codec packs on my computer Carrara 8.5 is still only showing animated gif, avi and sequenced images as the movie output options - as can be seen by the attached image.

Any clues on what is happening?

p.s. Machine specs / OS in signature.

Schirmfoto_2013-09-19_100059.jpg
276 x 525 - 29K
Post edited by Tastiger on

Comments

  • Rich GellesRich Gelles Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Tastiger--
    What other options might you been looking for? On 64 bit windows we do not have quicktime if you were looking for that one in particular.

    Rich

  • TastigerTastiger Posts: 76
    edited December 1969

    Tastiger--
    What other options might you been looking for? On 64 bit windows we do not have quicktime if you were looking for that one in particular.

    Rich

    It's just that I have seen other threads where there were more options than I have displayed - I cannot find the thread now.

    So the only option is avi?

    Guess I am spoiled by the options in Poser (see below)

    Schirmfoto_2013-09-19_115115.jpg
    696 x 578 - 44K
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    Have you clicked the options button next to the dropdown menu?

    I basically have the Mac equivalent to your initial screen shot, but if I click the Options button I get a whole bunch of different codecs to choose from. They're a bit more technical sounding than the ones you posted, because what you posted was a mix of some codecs and some codec presets optimized for specific devices.

    If you're going to do any editing of your video clips, use the least compression possible and a lossless codec to avoid trans-encoding issues later.

    Picture_2.png
    666 x 640 - 120K
    Picture_3.png
    234 x 73 - 9K
    Picture_1.png
    194 x 253 - 26K
  • TastigerTastiger Posts: 76
    edited December 1969

    No - my list is way less than that :-

    Capturea.jpg
    755 x 486 - 190K
  • Box8068_31c338ee4bBox8068_31c338ee4b Posts: 278
    edited December 1969

    As stated above. You're on windows. For more options you need to use the 32 bit version. I model and animate in 64 bit but render out of the 32 bit version to get more options. Also be careful, I have seen codec packs wreck computers before. Esp klite
    8068

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    If you render to an image sequence, then you can use the 64 bit with no issues, then compile the image sequence in whatever video software you use. Png is a good format for image sequences as it's efficient space-wise, lossless and supports alphas. There are other ones as well that support alphas but are larger file sizes such as tiff.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 14,689
    edited December 1969

    Tastiger said:
    No - my list is way less than that :-
    I couldn't help but to notice Lagarith Lossless Codec in your list. For some reason, I have been unsuccessful with using that in Carrara, so I am still making Full Frames avi files. I don't want loss in my raw render output. I am still not too keen on sequenced image output. Not sure why. But it drives me nuts when I go to view one of my renders and I discover that I did 'That one' in image sequence! Argh!
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    If it's along complex scene I'll use an image sequence. If it's a short noting little scene, I'll render to a movie file right away. If I have issues with bumping up against my memory limits, or a mysterious crash I'll use an image sequence.

    It's a tool like any other. It only takes a few seconds to open Quicktime and compile an image sequence to a movie. Plus, the advantage for you 64 bit users, is that you can render using 64 bit if your choice of codecs or whatever is 32 bit, which may be your issue Dart.

  • TastigerTastiger Posts: 76
    edited December 1969

    Thanks all - I may just install the 32 bit version and see how we go - although you have provided plenty of information to mull over.

  • FractalDimensiaFractalDimensia Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Tastiger said:
    Thanks all - I may just install the 32 bit version and see how we go - although you have provided plenty of information to mull over.

    Another option (that I am fond of) is to send the output file to uncompressed AVI and then use another utility to do the compression. I do this mostly because I like to have other video and audio control options available.

    My go-to app for this is usually VirtualDub.

    Just another option...

  • TastigerTastiger Posts: 76
    edited December 1969

    Another option (that I am fond of) is to send the output file to uncompressed AVI and then use another utility to do the compression. I do this mostly because I like to have other video and audio control options available.

    My go-to app for this is usually VirtualDub.

    Just another option...

    That is what I have been doing - would be nice to see some more options in there though

  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,921
    edited September 2013

    I discover this post only today,
    My experiment says to me that one should not any more waste its time with render in .avi, except for fast tests!
    The best manner is to make render in sequence of images, why?
    Because, if there is a sequence which takes one long period, one can stop it constantly and to start it again later from the following image.
    If there is only one small portion to modify, one makes render only on this part (between two keyframes).
    It is able to me to have render which takes three days for eight film seconds!
    When there is compositing, I make a Targa sequence, if not, I make a sequence .bmp.
    Naturally, one needs a soft like After Effects or Premiere to import the sequence of images and to export the footage...

    Post edited by DUDU on
  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,921
    edited December 1969

    I discover this post only today,
    My experiment says to me that one should not any more waste its time with render in .avi, except for fast tests!
    The best manner is to make render in sequence of images, why?
    Because, if there is a sequence which takes one long period, one can stop it constantly and to start it again later from the following image.
    If there is only one small portion to modify, one makes render only on this part (between two keyframes).
    It is able to me to have renders which takes three days for eight film seconds!
    When there is compositing, I make a Targa sequence, if not, I make a sequence .bmp.
    Naturally, one needs a soft like After Effects or Premiere to import the sequence of images and to export the footage...
  • dot_batdot_bat Posts: 373
    edited December 1969

    if you have QT Pro to you can import sequence and xport footage only 30 dollars

  • stem_athomestem_athome Posts: 363
    edited December 1969

    I have used the modded x264vfw codec (open source), but that is on win7 64 ("Carrara 8.1.1.12 pro 64" does use the codec).
    Not sure if it will work on win8 64, but you could give it a try.

    http://www.digital-digest.com/software/download.php?sid=2162&ssid=0&did=2

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    I discover this post only today,
    My experiment says to me that one should not any more waste its time with render in .avi, except for fast tests!
    The best manner is to make render in sequence of images, why?
    Because, if there is a sequence which takes one long period, one can stop it constantly and to start it again later from the following image.
    If there is only one small portion to modify, one makes render only on this part (between two keyframes).
    It is able to me to have returned which takes three days for eight film seconds!
    When there is compositing, I make a Targa sequence, if not, I make a sequence .bmp.
    Naturally, one needs a soft like After Effects or Premiere to import the sequence of images and to export the footage...

    .bmp? Are you sure? I think you'd be better off going with .png or even .tiff.

  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,921
    edited December 1969

    Evil,
    I use the format .bmp and I have good performances.
    I make my renders in 1050/576 square pixels and not interlaced what enables me to import the sequence of image in A.E and to create a progressive footage .avi not compressed (sometimes more 800Mo for 6 seconds!)
    This quality enables me to inflate film into 1440/720 by having always an excellent quality.
    I make projections in cinema and it is excellent.
    What do you have against the format .bmp?

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    Evil,
    I use the format .bmp and I have good performances.
    I make my renders in 1050/576 square pixels and not interlaced what enables me to import the sequence of image in A.E and to create a progressive footage .avi not compressed (sometimes more 800Mo for 6 seconds!)
    This quality enables me to inflate film into 1440/720 by having always an excellent quality.
    I make projections in cinema and it is excellent.
    What do you have against the format .bmp?

    Just in my experience the edges aren't that clean. Of course, that was for still images. Does it support alphas?

  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,921
    edited December 1969

    Not, it is for that, as I above mentioned, than I make my renders in Targa if there is compositing (very often).
    For me, the format .bmp (not compressed) is equal to the Targa format without the alpha layer.
    Perhaps that I am mistaken but, visually, it is similar.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,018
    edited December 1969

    Hey, if it works and you like it, that's great.

Sign In or Register to comment.