Exporting to AVI

jady · Post by **jady** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:45 pm

Hi,

very recently i started learning Anime. I am working with Anime Studio 5 pro and having a little prob in exporting the animation.

if I export any animation (even with 72 frames) into an AVI movie, and play the AVI file the animation is no longer as smooth as it looked in the anime studio. as if it stops for a while and then plays again ... I am not sure if I am doing it correctly or it's a normal case(??)

Pls help ...

Rasheed · Post by **Rasheed** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:55 pm

It looks like you used the wrong codec. Select one without compression and see if that helps. Unfortunately I'm on a Mac and have no AVI export, so I can't help you any further than this.

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:10 pm

Depending on the power fo your computer, you might be better to export an AVI with compression. A large frame size of an uuncompressed animaton requires a lot of RAM and processing power to playback.

What codec are you using for the AVI? What speed is your computer?

jady · Post by **jady** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:03 am

artfx wrote:Depending on the power fo your computer, you might be better to export an AVI with compression. A large frame size of an uuncompressed animaton requires a lot of RAM and processing power to playback.

What codec are you using for the AVI? What speed is your computer?

AMD Sempron 1.5GHz with 512MB Ram. I tried using all the different codecs that were available I think I get the smotthest result using Intel Indeo codec, and yeah the worst case is when I export it fully uncompressed... so is it about my system? If yes what do i need more Ram or do I need to upgrade the processor too?

Rasheed · Post by **Rasheed** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:27 am

Before I had installed 1 GB of RAM, I had all kinds of problems with the program. I think 1 GB is the least amount of RAM you will need for a large movie file.

Video playback of files with large dimensions (pixel-wise) can be very tricky. Possible bottlenecks are the installed amount of system RAM, the speed of your processor, your video card (which has RAM too) and your harddrive. If you have a LCD display, and you don't have your video card set to your LCD's native resolution, you can expect all kinds of artifacts to appear as well.

And oh, don't forget to install the latests drivers for your hardware. An older driver can sometimes be incompatible with updated system software.

That was one of the many reasons for me to switch to a Mac (viruses and spyware were a concern as well). It just works out of the box.

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 am

Yes, with a 1.5 Ghz processor and 512 Mb of RAM, you will probably get a slot of slowdown playing back a video larger than 640x480. Even with a video of 640x480 it will have to be compressed.

Ideally 3 Ghz processor and 1 GB RAM would be a good minimum for media havey work like animation. It's not an absolute requirement, as I made a lot of animation on systems much slower than 1.5 Ghz, with only 256MB RAM, but in order to work in freedom without having too much worry of constraints, faster and more RAM is the way to go.

jady · Post by **jady** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:27 am

Okay I got it now.. I was thinking of upgrading my system anyway ...

Thanx a lot for the help guys

Genete · Post by **Genete** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:20 am

AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz I think) 1GB RAM, nvidia GeForce4 MX440 64MB and Ubuntu linux 6.06

No problems with Apple 720p movies if use mplayer and latest codecs.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/bbc-cfb.html

Rasheed · Post by **Rasheed** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:38 am

Yeah, but that's no fair comparison. You're comparing a closed source OS with a highly polished and stable open source OS. Much more people are developing for Linux than for Windows, and are keeping Linux lean and fast. I guess you'll need twice the resources on Windows to get the same performance as on Linux.

BTW Mac OS X also needs more resources than Linux, but luckily the Mac OS kernel is open source, so that's probably why Mac OS X is somewhat less resource hungry than Windows. But it still needs more resources to run than Linux.

Sorry, if I went off topic here.

artfx · Post by **artfx** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:01 pm

That's not off topic. It raises a very good point. The same could be applied to using mplayer as opposed to the bigger media players out there. mplayer is scaled to just the "nuts and bolts" of pushing media files and easily outperforms Microsofts Media Player.

Under Windows I couldn't play 720p files easily with a 3.06 Ghz processor and 1GB RAM. That was pushing the limit.