#AVI Codecs testing
6 messages in this thread
Well – I was able to take a few hours and go through all the possible CODECs
for saving my 300 frame 320×240 JPG series to an AVI file with Animator Studio.
I never found a satisfactory result but hopefully someone can use this data (or
maybe even explain it to me <grin>).
"Quality" represents the quality setting when choosing the compression scheme.
Some have two settings, some have none.
"Size" is the size in MB of the resulting AVI file.
"Image" is my own impression of the quality of the resulting AVI's image on a
scale of 1 to 10 (1 being really bad and 10 being very good).
"Motion" is my impression of the smoothness of the animation.
CODEC Quality Size Image Motion
————————————————————–
Cinepak 0 1.2 5
Cinepak 100 1.2 5
MS Video 1 0 .75 .436 1
MS Video 1 100 .75 1.2 4
MS Video 1 100 1.0 1.2 4
MS Video 1 100 0 1.1 3
MS RLE 0 1.9 5 Stop motion
MS RLE 100 1.1 1 Stop motion
Intel Indeo Raw 25.9 10 Jerky
ATI RLE 20.2 10
Intel Indeo R3.2 0 1.2 5
Intel Indeo R3.2 100 1.2 5
Autodesk RLE 69.1 10 Jerky
Autodesk 24 Bit RLE 66.9 10 Very Jerky
Autodesk FLC 19.7 10
ATI RLE Video 20.2 10
No Recompression 69.1 10 Jerky
Full Frame (Uncomp.) 69.1 10 Jerky
This is what Renderize gives directly:
7.1 10
I hope someone can use this info. It didn't help me much.
>> Well – I was able to take a few hours and go through all the possible CODECs
for saving my 300 frame 320×240 JPG series to an AVI file with Animator Studio.
I never found a satisfactory result but hopefully someone can use this data (or
maybe even explain it to me <grin>). <<
wow! nice bit of lab work here, Behymer!
>> "Quality" represents the quality setting when choosing the compression
scheme. Some have two settings, some have none. "Size" is the size in MB of the
resulting AVI file. "Image" is my own impression of the quality of the resulting
AVI's image on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being really bad and 10 being very good).
"Motion" is my impression of the smoothness of the animation. <<
okay.
CODEC Quality Size Image Motion
————————————————————–
Cinepak 0 1.2 5
Cinepak 100 1.2 5
MS Video 1 0 .75 .436 1
MS Video 1 100 .75 1.2 4
MS Video 1 100 1.0 1.2 4
MS Video 1 100 0 1.1 3
MS RLE 0 1.9 5 Stop motion
MS RLE 100 1.1 1 Stop motion
Intel Indeo Raw 25.9 10 Jerky
ATI RLE 20.2 10
Intel Indeo R3.2 0 1.2 5
Intel Indeo R3.2 100 1.2 5
Autodesk RLE 69.1 10 Jerky
Autodesk 24 Bit RLE 66.9 10 Very Jerky
Autodesk FLC 19.7 10
ATI RLE Video 20.2 10
No Recompression 69.1 10 Jerky
Full Frame (Uncomp.) 69.1 10 Jerky
This is what Renderize gives directly:
7.1 10
there are a few things we can draw from this, Behymer. first of all, AVI
becomes a meaningless term. <ggg> the codecs seem consistent by manufacturer;
Cinepak at 1.2, MS Video 1 at 1.2, Intel Raw 25.9, Intel Indeo R3.2 at 1.2, ATI
RLE at 20.2, Autodesk 24 lossless at 69.1, and Autodesk FLC at 19.7. definitely
what i would expect as rations go.
and as applies here at out office too, the Cinepak and Intel Indeo modes seem
to be the best compromise on size/image. a few sidenotes also. the 24-bit
lossless compression schemes from Autodesk were not intended for playback, but
for maintaining the integrity of the data for future editing sessions. it has
been highly recommended that folks save two versions of any animation… a
lossy and a lossless… one for playback and one for editing.
also, curious… did you try playback using a RAMdisk? this improves playback
dramatically. other aspects of system which can affect playback:
defragmentation of hard disk, disk caching, FLC preloaded in scriptor (if 8-bit
images are allowed), and faster hard drive access times.
-dave
>>wow! nice bit of lab work here, Behymer!
Thanks. I'd like to say "it was nothing" but it was a lot of time spent. At
least I'm finally using Animator! <grin>
<<there are a few things we can draw from this, Behymer. first of all, AVI
becomes a meaningless term. <ggg> the codecs seem consistent by manufacturer;
Cinepak at 1.2, MS Video 1 at 1.2, Intel Raw 25.9, Intel Indeo R3.2 at 1.2, ATI
RLE at 20.2, Autodesk 24 lossless at 69.1, and Autodesk FLC at 19.7. definitely
what i would expect as rations go.>>
But what I want to be able to do is produce AVI files that can be distributed
to others. I'd like to keep them in the <10MB range without sacraficing too
much in quality. I just don't understand why Renderize is so effecient.
(Sorry to keep going back to that. It's my only frame of reference.)
<<and as applies here at out office too, the Cinepak and Intel Indeo modes seem
to be the best compromise on size/image. a few sidenotes also. the 24-bit
lossless compression schemes from Autodesk were not intended for playback, but
for maintaining the integrity of the data for future editing sessions. it has
been highly recommended that folks save two versions of any animation… a
lossy and a lossless… one for playback and one for editing.>>
Hmmm… The Intel codecs didn't work so well for me. One was too large (26
MB) and the motion was jerky. The other was bad visually. As far as working
with lossy and lossles versions: I understand this and will work this way
whenever possible.
<<also, curious… did you try playback using a RAMdisk? this improves playback
dramatically. other aspects of system which can affect playback:
defragmentation of hard disk, disk caching, FLC preloaded in scriptor (if 8-bit
images are allowed), and faster hard drive access times.>>
Thanks for the tips. Someday I hope to have a PAR and be able to dump to tape
for the final product but for now I have to settle w/ AVI.
>> Thanks. I'd like to say "it was nothing" but it was a lot of time spent.
At <<
i can tell!
>> But what I want to be able to do is produce AVI files that can be
distributed to others. I'd like to keep them in the <10MB range without
sacraficing too much in quality. I just don't understand why Renderize is so
effecient. <<
one might as well ask why any AVI standard is different than another. Indeo
seems very reliable, okay quality, fast… and yet i've had cases where is was
readable by another's player at all.
we're opening up a dreadful can of worms here… that AVI is not a standard,
and neither are CODECs, and neither are truecolor image files (such as TGA)…
one again has to know what kind of system a movie file was generated on, and
will be played on. it's not ASCII text. <gg>
>> Hmmm… The Intel codecs didn't work so well for me. One was too large (26
MB) and the motion was jerky. The other was bad visually. As far as working
with lossy and lossles versions: I understand this and will work this way
whenever possible. <<
much of the practicality of a gievn codec also stems from the task at hand. an
extreme example… Tugboat Willy (first mickey Mouse cartoon). if my foa was to
do only black and white cellular animation, any of these lossy codecs would do
perfectly and the matter would be to use the fastest and smallest options. as
color becomes an issue, we start taking "acceptible losses".
>> Thanks for the tips. Someday I hope to have a PAR and be able to dump to
tape for the final product but for now I have to settle w/ AVI. <<
before you do, you ought to also check out Digital's (PAR makers) new PVR.
-dave
<<we're opening up a dreadful can of worms here… that AVI is not a standard,
and neither are CODECs, and neither are truecolor image files (such as TGA)…
one again has to know what kind of system a movie file was generated on, and
will be played on. it's not ASCII text. >>
I guess I had no idea of the complexity going in. So what else is new?
<<before you do, you ought to also check out Digital's (PAR makers) new PVR.>>
Actually – that's the one I was looking at. Now if I can just get the suits to
loosen up on the green…
>> Actually – that's the one I was looking at. Now if I can just get the suits
to loosen up on the green… <<
<g> the ancient struggle continues…
-dave