Which way is the best ?
I've got a question for anyone : usually, which steps do you follow ?
1st hypothesis :
1. Startmovie + Virtualdub > Uncompressed_File.avi
2. Montage with Vegas (transition / slowmotion / etc) + Uncompressed render > Uncompressed_edited_File.avi
3. Adding effect layer, colours and other cool advanced stuff with AFX to the Uncompressed_edited_File.avi + Final render > Final_compressed_edited_File.avi
2nd hypothesis :
1. Startmovie + Virtualdub > Uncompressed_File.avi
2. Adding effect layer, colour and other cool advanced stuff with AFX to each small clips + Uncompressed render > Uncompressed_edited_File.avi
3. Montage with Vegas (transition / slowmotion / etc) + Final render > Final_compressed_edited_File.avi
3rd hypothesis :
Explain me !
Cuz actually, imma make a movie soon, and in my opinion, the 1st hypothesis should be the best, but I'm afraid of AFX ability to handle a 4min // 150 Go file. So what's your opinion ?
Thanks ! :)
15/12/2010 01:54Use Lagarith Lossless codec instead of uncompressed.
For the order, that depends on what you're going to do with after effects.
How heavy is the Lagarith Lossless codec ? 50% less than uncompressed ?
I'm goind to modify colors, add some blur and maybe some basic effects from Videocopilot's Twitch. Will AFX handle it or will I get render bugs ?
Merci ndR ! ;)
15/12/2010 11:43(edited 15/12/2010 11:45)Keep in mind that you got to post-process all of your raw footages first in after effects to edit them in Vegas.
The thing is that you won't be able to sync' all the effects you're going to use in After Effects. The sync can only be made in Vegas, which is in my opinion quite disturbing.
Basically : startmovie > virtual dub with lagarith > After effects > Vegas.
Give Lagarith a try, you'll see the difference with the same video :)
After Effects or Vegas won't crash, don't worry.
I had used 1800 fps for the 257 LJ movie, it's extremely long to render but that's the only annoying side.
2nd for me ;}
Ok thanks a lot. ;)
Second question : Which render is the best for youtube to have a smooth video ? Does it only depend on your render's fps or your render's codec as well ?
15/12/2010 18:321800 frames must be an insanely long process in After Effects.
15/12/2010 22:27Originally posted by WqkOOk thanks a lot. ;)
Second question : Which render is the best for youtube to have a smooth video ? Does it only depend on your render's fps or your render's codec as well ?
I had made a video tutorial about it: http://xtreme-jumps.eu/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?248331
Here is what you can get in Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wuKJ9Jcdj4
720p will blow your mind :)
You can also try HuffYuv as codec to render,but I guess it will do the same as Lagarith.
Whether you choose option 1 or 2 depends on the amount of control you want to have when editing.
AE doesn't handle audio editing as good as Vegas, but if you don't plan on adding any complex sound effects, you can, basically, edit the entire movie in AE, which is what I end up doing most of the time.
Originally posted by st0kaWhether you choose option 1 or 2 depends on the amount of control you want to have when editing.
AE doesn't handle audio editing as good as Vegas, but if you don't plan on adding any complex sound effects, you can, basically, edit the entire movie in AE, which is what I end up doing most of the time.
so what is better for editing in AE ?
16/12/2010 18:21I use AE for advanced effects, and add the audio and video together and compile it in Sony Vegas. I sometimes make typographys in AE, so I sync the audio in there at times as well.
16/12/2010 19:01Originally posted by fizikYou can also try HuffYuv as codec to render,but I guess it will do the same as Lagarith.
Lagarith has a better compression ratio than huffyuv, and it's less bugged :)
Thanks for your help !
I tend to use the 2nd. For me, its much easier to just add the effects I need to the different clips in after effects, and then do all the other shit in vegas :)
I use the 2nd too
Please log in to post replies.