A question about Quicktime

Hi all, I know this isn't a quicktime forum, but anyhow, I have created an animation (using SA of course) from an image sequence, opened it in QT 7 pro, saved it out and it is 2.43GB, it stutters and drags on playback, both on desktop and viewed in iMovie / SA. Just out of interest, I opened it in QT 10, and saved it as (converted).mov, and now it doesn't stutter or drag on desktop or in iMovie / SA, and also its now only 615.3MB in size. 

I see from the inspector its format is now Apple ProRes 4444, I don't know wether thats a good thing or not? Quality seems comparable

You need to be a member of Studio Artist to add comments!

Join Studio Artist

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • What is the codec of the original movie file?

    If it’s “none” or even “Animation”, it takes a very fast machine to play it without stuttering, fast drives and fast connections (if external).

    I create all my movies with the Apple ProRes 4444, and it rocks for digitally created images.

    I used to work with “none”, but the files were getting so large (in HD 1080p), ProRes 4444 is just as good and more manageable, USB3 is fast enough to smoothly play those movies from external drives.

    A bit less good with digital files “only” but quite good, and with smaller file sizes is ProRes 422 (HQ).

    Files can be large, but the quality is there, so much so that some festivals are now accepting ProRes 4444 for official screenings (they also accept 422 HQ, am glad it’s no longer "all DCP”).

    You can set SA to work with ProRes 4444 as the original output, no need to convert anything after that unless you want to post your work on line (then it’s h.264 for now, h.265 is on the horizon).

    And QuickTime Pro 7 is waaaay better than QT X, I am sorry Apple is ditching QuickTime, and I know I am not the only one to feel that way.

    • Yes I used Animation for my QT7 movie, usually I'll output an image stream then open & save in QT7, its a pity they didn't put the capability of QT7 in 10. 

      Its so strange that Apple are ditching QT, I wonder what they are thinking people who use macs and FCP will think of it? Its not going to make much sense - or iMovie, I'm finding iMovie and Garageband both useful, I can open a QT movie inside Garageband and sync it to sounds, thats pretty handy! 

      I don't really output movies directly from SA, (tho I may want to do that at some point) Would ProRes 4444 be the Compression setting under Movie Codec Settings labelled "Apple Intermediate Codec"? A lot of these compression settings are a bit of a mystery to me, its hard to find detailed info (which is easy to follow) on them online. Cheers Jean :) 

       

      • I assume you have the “Pro” codecs installed (you must you did see ProRes 4444 earlier), so the ProRes options should be available.

        In SA, first open the movie settings this way:

        2472688407?profile=original

        Going deeper, you should see this:

        2472688714?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024

        Once you’ve made the choice, it should stick for further movie processing/rendering.

        If you do not see the ProRes options, you need to find and install the Apple Pro codecs (I may have them somewhere on one of the Macs here, let me know).

        • Oh, I don't have those - I was hoping to say I do now, but have just downloaded, and it says I can't install as I don't have FCP, Motion, or compressor! I got 4444 with QT X, so I guess I'll survive, but it does seem a bit corporate of Apple to behave this way!! 

  • I love Apple ProRes codecs too. I used to religiously use Animation Codec... mostly because it looked so good and cause I liked the name. But as soon as my fps rates got higher and resolutions got larger than 720x480, things began to bog down. Once Apple introduced the ProRes codecs I did extensive comparative testing and concluded that ProRes is virtually identical to uncompressed or Animation codec. BTW I hate when folks use terms like "virtually identical". But it is true. I can see no difference in detail. Possibly a slight difference in color or brightness... but nothing important. And, without doubt, the data rates of ProRes (and therefore how smoothly it plays on your computer) is a tiny fraction of Animation codec data rates; and file size is proportionally smaller too.

    I don't use ProRes 4444 since, my understanding is that it is mostly important for it's ability to carry an alpha channel (tho, I admit, I don't fully understand the 'bit' depth differences), which I rarely use. I use either regular ProRes or ProRes HQ.

    The other advantage of ProRes codecs is that they play natively in FinalCutProX without needing conversion.

    ~Victor

    • Very interesting - I found 4444 because QT10 was using it, I do use alpha channels quite a bit for compositing 3D software output, also file size is becoming an issue as my 1TB is getting full now!

      • As I must have said earlier, I had the opportunity to test one of my movies twice in a movie theatre, once in ProRes 422 (HQ) and the other in ProRes 4444.

        At that huge size, any flaw and differences are/can be very noticeable.

        It was obvious that computer generated images (at millions+) look a lot better in 4444 than 422 (HQ) (I have been told that 422 HQ is fine for movies done with straight camera footage). It was obvious that my film looked a lot better in 4444 than in 422 (HQ), so much so that the festival has decided to accept ProRes 4444 since even if the files can get very large (they used to take 422 HQ or lesser, they like to keep the file sizes below 20 GB per film, not always possible depending on duration and resolution).

        If you plan on doing sustained serious work with these kinds of monster files, you are going to need a lot more than one 1TB drive: I have in excess of 60 TB storage on hand (all original material, practically no backup copies of anything), and am starting to feel cramped once again.

        Also, and this is important: if you do serious editing in FCPX or similar, having the source files on one or several drives other than the boot drive where the application resides makes the work a lot easier, smoother.

        • Thanks Jean, all very interesting, I shall probably want to get FCPX at some point.

          I just popped on to share this page on Rousseau which has a quote from him about Cezanne which I'm sure you will find amusing! 

          https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-new-european/20180322/2815608813...

          • Thankfully, Rousseau did not finish Cézanne’s paintings, it probably would have been as “convincing” as this “restauration”!

            For the record, I am one of those who never really “finish” a piece, we most often simply abandon it (and in this, I am in very good company).

            Here’s a quote about Cézanne’s work that points in the right direction (from Ronald Hayman in the Spring 1980 Yale Review): “The mature Cézanne had no designs on the field of vision except to uncover the designs he saw in it. It is this suspension of will power that gives him admission to the undifferentiated world which precedes knowledge, to Eden as it was before Adam conferred separating names on each form of vegetal and mineral growth."

            I quoted Hayman in my "Black & white, the most direct way to making the visible visible” article.

            I have been using FCP since version 1.5, and when FCPX appeared, I was really turned off by the enormous changes in the way it works.

            I stayed with FCP 7.x but could see functions in X that were very appealing, so I bought X and took a class on FCPX at the Apple Store here in Montréal.

            That was a good idea and it enabled me to get the hang of it fairly quickly, I even managed to a do a piece during the class: Milles Regretz

            I kept FCP 7.x on one of my older Macs, but I barely use it these days, FCPX won the battle. 

This reply was deleted.

Interdimensional Coincidence Control

Hi everyone, I am glad the site is still here! Here is a new short video I made. All made in Studio Artist, several separate videos with alpha channels, then combined in layers with the music in Blender. A lot of MSG running through brushes, with several of the brush Path Starts being controlled by the MSG Scan Generator in the Generator part of the Path Start in the Paint Synthesizer. Also some MSG running through a brush, then making a video of that with an alpha channel, then making that a…

Read more…
3 Replies · Reply by Thor Johnson on Friday

Whats going on with this site?

Has anyone else gotten a warning about this site disappearing? An email form just popped up, asking me to contract the owner and leave a message to let them know that they may loose their "network"Did Synthetik forget to pay it's bills, or is something else going on?I think 8 months is more than enough vacation time. Is anyone at Synthetik doing any development work at all? 

Read more…
4 Replies · Reply by Emil G. on Saturday

Having difficulty exporting canvas as image

I'd like to export a canvas as a .tiff/.tif image file to a folder I made on my desktop.I select that from a dropdown menu, I can name the exported file, change the extension, etc, and I press save but nothing happens.It's always worked until now. It seems like a simple task. Any ideas?I'm on Mac OSX 12.6, if that matters, and my system hasn't changed since the last time I was able to export successfully.Thanks  

Read more…
2 Replies · Reply by Tony Bouttell Mar 5