inventor studio: how to get good quality videos?

[MauroTC]

Hello.
I'm trying to try to flirt with inventor studio to generate a video.
After so many tests and tests I have received with satisfaction to combine, as I wanted, constraints animations, position, transparency effects, camera handling and zomm, etc. in order to generate a sequence of 20 seconds.
but the disappointment (the problem) now lies in the true generation of the video; as much as you change the settings and options that offer quality is very poor. in the rendering phase (which lasts about 40 minutes to generate the 300 frames!), the individual frames can be perfectly seen and everything seems ok.
In fact, instead, reproducing the video, apart from the first frames, which are a static shot, all the following, with the camera zooming and rotating around the machine, have a sharp decay of quality, with showy squares on the surfaces and a poor definition of many contours of the components, sprattutto supoerfici lucide.
In short, a very unpresentable video!
I'm probably wrong with the settings, or is some hw component not up to?

Here, what I would ask is, to whom there is already passed and surely has more experiences than me:
could suggest the optimal settings (there are tens, already only by choosing the wmv or avi format and for the latter a sledge of different compression systems, each of which can be set with certain settings...) to get a good result?
also because every test counts almost an hour between settings and generations of videos!

(e.g. to give an idea, the 20 seconds of video in wmv format give rise to a file of 1.3 mb.)

thanks in advance. . .

 

[davide75]

then you have to see the motions of the resolution, as the higher the resolution the more the video is better but however it weighs in size and in time to do it.In addition to having more fluidity you have to increase the number of frames per second that they always go to affect the time to make the video and the final size of the video itself.

 

[MauroTC]

Thank you. .
the core of the issue however turned out to be (as I thought) the output format.
Apparently the wmv format that the default set program gave me those results I have already exposed, any other settings made (resolution, frame rate, etc.) in all attempts made.
instead, trying to make an avi format and choosing among the many possibilities the compression format (the ones that most sounded familiar to my ear) the mpeg4 codec v2 and leaving for this the default settings the result is definitely acceptable, definitely better than any other wmv attempt .:smile:

 

[davide75]

depends also on the codecs you have installed on the pc.io I usually use the avi format with divx codecs and then I go to adjust the resolution, the number of passes, the quality etc. cmq once you find the ideal set-ups saved a configuration cois use it once and for all.
Hi.

 

[Ilario]

the resolution counts little, indeed it counts only on the basis of where you want to reproduce it. calculates that a fullhd TV has a resolution of 1920x1080 so unless you want to project it on a PC monitor in higher resolutions, you do nothing. solitamtne for a video is enough 768x576 or 720x576 (your home TVs in 4:3 crt have all this resolution) then you decide that rsolution to use but go beyond the fullhd does not make much sense.

as if you are on 25fps (pal) or 30fps (ntsc) you are more than in place.

the substantial problem are the codecs and the compression method of the frames, by experience I recommend you to go out in uncompressed frames jpg, bmp, tga, png... it is up to you the choice, but with jpeg or png with a good quality/compression compression compression you go well (in a dedicated folder) and mount everything with special programs. should be there also free, virtualdub type goes to god and you have more controls then out on codecs and quality.
If you want to spend some money I recommend you buy quicktime pro with which you can save, usually movies in .mov are the best, but still you go out in other formats and compress in an egregious manner.

 

[MauroTC]

Thank you for your contribution.
I am very ignorant in the world of video technology...
consider that the video is intended to be displayed on a website; I realized it in 800x600 that it seems to me a resolution suitable to show good everything that had to be seen.. .
for the rest, as mentioned, with the settings adopted (.avi, compression mpeg4 codec v2) I got results more than acceptable!
then I do not know if with other settings you could also do better (I did so many tests that the first valid I assumed it as valid!).
the video "weight" 3.2 mb; My work ends here, then if, as I think, it will be lightened, we will think about who has to make the site, which I imagine will have all the sw of the case!

 

[Ilario]

800x600 for a site is already hail, but better bigger than smaller in this case.

if the installation has to do it someone else then I recommend that you give it directly the frames not included that with other software then they manage to optimize and also improve the content with special effects without too many begs if it can interest you.

Hi.

 

[ecomusposta]

the resolution counts little, indeed it counts only on the basis of where you want to reproduce it. calculates that a fullhd TV has a resolution of 1920x1080 so unless you want to project it on a PC monitor in higher resolutions, you do nothing. solitamtne for a video is enough 768x576 or 720x576 (your home TVs in 4:3 crt have all this resolution) then you decide that rsolution to use but go beyond the fullhd does not make much sense.

as if you are on 25fps (pal) or 30fps (ntsc) you are more than in place.

the substantial problem are the codecs and the compression method of the frames, by experience I recommend you to go out in uncompressed frames jpg, bmp, tga, png... it is up to you the choice, but with jpeg or png with a good quality/compression compression compression you go well (in a dedicated folder) and mount everything with special programs. should be there also free, virtualdub type goes to god and you have more controls then out on codecs and quality.
If you want to spend some money I recommend you buy quicktime pro with which you can save, usually movies in .mov are the best, but still you go out in other formats and compress in an egregious manner.

Sorry if I interfere and if I reopen the discussion after a long time, but I did not understand well the fact of rendering animation in jpeg or png files; choosing the uncompressed frame entry the output file remains a single avi video file, perhaps the latter should be inserted into the virtual db program and in turn perform an exportconf in a specific folder of many jpg files?
I'm sorry if I've been a little worn out but I'd like to understand this procedure well.
p.s. however I made a render animation using as codec divx codec 6.5.2 (it seems to me that this is the version) and I must say that by inserting 25 fps or even 30 (but 25 already enough) you get a pleasant result. 18''' animation, with applied materials, without constraints, and with camera animation, plus lights + shadows even 2 mb, seems to me a good compromise between quality and space on hd. However to mount everything on a program like virtualdb I think it is all another thing, maybe you can also insert some musical track as background who knows , etc...

 

[Ilario]

Uncompressed frames serve to tell him not to apply compressions to frames so as not to lose in quality, but then it is obvious that if as an output extension the .avi gives you a video file, you have to give it as static file output format, jpeg or png.

you with virtualdub you can apply a background sound, but even if you use a file avi, the fact of having photgrams instead of direct video files is that with compost programs you can have multiple parameters of "fineness" of the codecs or to make some corrections in post in a less brigorous manner.

 

[ecomusposta]

Uncompressed frames serve to tell him not to apply compressions to frames so as not to lose in quality, but then it is obvious that if as an output extension the .avi gives you a video file, you have to give it as static file output format, jpeg or png.

you with virtualdub you can apply a background sound, but even if you use a file avi, the fact of having photgrams instead of direct video files is that with compost programs you can have multiple parameters of "fineness" of the codecs or to make some corrections in post in a less brigorous manner.

ok I entered comand image sequence format, you were right, but at the time of giving him input to render he did not notify me if you wanted compressed frames or not.
p.s. sorry I wrote little virtual db I wanted to write dub.