Best way to output animation for client? (besides the typical movie)

[Hazdaz]

I have a project coming up that I will be doing a walk-thru, and then throwing that animation onto a CD (AVI format probably).

 

But what kinda experience/comments do you guys have with other "walk-thru"/"interactive" formats? How easy are they to use (both on my end, and on the client's end)? How time consuming are they, and what kind of quality is the final output.

Just curious what you guys have to say.

[STRAT]

hi Haz

 

being a traditional max user i always used the cinepak avi codec. this has a fairly decent compression ratio, and is universally accepted on all pc's.

 

i'd like to switch to divX, but most clients (being non-computer users in general) wont have the divX codec installed, and sending the DivX installation proceedure to them to install themselves is out of the question. (most clients cant even tie shoe laces)

 

But since switching over to Cinema 4D a couple years back i now exclusivley use MOV format animations (even in max) -

 

They have excellent image compression quality, much better than avi (imho) whilst maintaining a fairly comparable file size (smaller in allot of cases) to DivX.

 

Quick time player is free and universally used to these days.

 

MOV's load into memory and handle memory much more efficienty than avi's. - i can render larger pixel size anims and play them more stably than avi's.

 

The time line in the quicktime player during playback has real time viewing. (excellent for showing client particular bits in the anim time and time again in real time)

 

Also, MOV and quick time alow me to very easily and effectively make QTVR anims, which clients love to bits!

 

These days i never use avi. no point. btw, did i mention i like MOV's?

 

Hope i haven't missinterpreted your queery, else i look silly

 

[ August 05, 2003, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: STRAT ]

[Hazdaz]

Silly STRAT! :ngelaugh:

 

All good info there, and Ill be sure to think about what format I really wanna use now, but I was actualy looking more for info on different output formats OTHER than just simple movies. You mentioned QTVR (QuickTimes's VR format)... how do you like using that? And what program can output that file?

[pmanahan]

A guy here at work bought a DVD authoring program to do this a lot easier. You will need a computer that burns dvd's and the software, but he says you don't have to worry about compressing the animations and can put on a title page so it is a nice little package, plus a custom dvd label looks very professional. Most everybody has dvd players or dvd in their computers. The guy here at work uses an apple/mac and I think the software is I-DVD. He is coming from Director and Flash programing and says the I-DVD is much easier to learn than Director and Flash.

[ingo]

Yes youre right, DVD is much better than CD; a DVD is automatically coded into MPEG2. But how do you put QTVR's on a DVD for playing it on a normal DVD player ??

[STRAT]

HAZ - lol, oops

 

anyway, i love qtvr. i dunno how max does it, but i use c4d to make them as it's standard in cinema. literally 2 boxes to check!

 

here is a 5 min render i knocked of to test it for you. only 1 frame @ 500K @ 6 mins render.

 

you can pan left/right and zoom in/out. but you prolly know that bit

 

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/qtvr.mov

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Originally posted by STRAT:

anyway, i love qtvr. i dunno how max does it, but i use c4d to make them as it's standard in cinema. literally 2 boxes to check!

have you tried a 'cubic qtvr'? ...it might be nice with the glass ceiling in that space. i have never used c4d, so i don't know if it supports them.

 

you can also set up a qtvr by rotating the camera like you would when you make qtvr's in real life. you will need a another software package to do this. for mac i would recomend qtvr authoring studio. it will also let you create hotspots, and link movies together. for pc i have only used 'vr works'. it works, but lacks a lot of features that authoring studio had.

[Ernest Burden III]

Also, MOV and quick time alow me to very easily and effectively make QTVR anims, which clients love to bits!

 

These days i never use avi. no point. btw, did i mention i like MOV's?

MOV is a good choice, but I have found that you can author them with dozens of compression algorithyms--so you still have to wonder which is right. Sorrenson?

 

Cubic VR is OK, but Lightscape outputs spherical VR images that can be played with the free PTviewer, and Igor from LA clued me into some Java code that will embed them into a website--I haven't put any on my site yet, but will, having done VRs for clients before thanks to Lightscape.

 

I think writing motion graphics for clients is probably best done with MPEG2 on a CD--any CD player will play it, don't need a DVD drive, and the OS-stock media players for both Win and Mac can run them--or am I wrong about that?

 

here's the best place to learn about doing VR images: panoguide.com

[John Dollus]

Bink from Radtools for linear animations. It requires no codec, is platform independent and generates small files that donot require DVD-r recording which can lead to compatibility problems and it's free.

 

For panoramas, I have a premade camera rig in Max that creates 6 equal images that are then compiled in a vrml file. Small and easy.

[Ernest Burden III]

Bink from Radtools for linear animations. It requires no codec, is platform independent and generates small files that donot require DVD-r recording which can lead to compatibility problems and it's free.

Is that Java-based, then?

[Hazdaz]

Interesting stuff there guys.

 

I espesially like that sample QTVR there STRAT - amazing that it only took 6 mins to render.

 

Ill have to see what kinda plug-ins there are for MAX to make those.. very interested in it.

 

Concerning DVDs.. I think its a good FUTURE technology, but even if I HAD a DVD burner, I know my client base would probably not have DVD players... so scratch that one for now.

[ingo]

MOV is a good choice, but I have found that you can author them with dozens of compression algorithyms--so you still have to wonder which is right. Sorrenson?

If you want quality choose PhotoJPG, thats still the best for QTVR's too. Otherwise Sorenson has the smallest file size but sometimes puts a lot of contrast in the movie. Thats at least my humble experience

[mbr]

DVD is the future. It will take some testing, though. From what I read, there is only about a 60% chance that the DVDs will work in home units (I could be wrong, but I recall that being the case in a PC Mag test a few months ago - simply because there are so many formats and the older players don't read the newer formats, etc.). I bought mine for archiving.

 

Why can't Max have something handy like that?!?! I've looked into buying some of the software, but a few hundred more bucks for something I have yet to have been asked to produce seems like a lot.

On the good side, there are Flash components that allow scrolling, panning, and zooming, all free. Plus, you dont need another player. Pretty nifty.

[STRAT]

i always use sorenson 3. i find no contrasty or image loss atall (other than slight compression).

 

this is the initial still that gets rendered -

 

 

pretty funky eh?

 

Haz - took a short render time because i've got a Xeon

[C.Vestal]

I have been using DVD here in NW Indiana for a year now. I have had architects who use my graphics purchase laptops with a DVD player just cuz they love the reliability.

 

On reliability, they just can not be beat.

I started with the DVD+R format right after HP started making one. I have found only the really old home players have issues (more than 3 years old). We recently taped a dance recital for a client as a favor, we burned 89 DVD-R. Only 1 came back. I loved those odds. Plus the fact the DVD+R format is suppose to have better playback compatibility.

 

If the client’s lack of player is an issue, then get a cheap one and let the client rent/borrow it. You will be building a good relationship with them.

 

You can get a cheap DVD player for about $40 if you have a Radio Shack near you. You can always check ebay.

[C.Vestal]

For interactive output, I am testing EonReality.com software called Raptor. Anyone had any luck with this? I like the fact I do not have to purchase a publishing fee.. and the tests off the site have been working good.

[Ernest Burden III]

Here's a spherical pano output in a hurry from LS just to show a client what I meant by a panoramicVR (I did a quick NPR treatment) -- also, this has been shrunk from what I showed the client:

 

 

If you save this picture and look at it with PTviewer, or similar, you can see howw well it does 360 degree viewing.

[jackb602]

Strat,

 

Your QTVR panorama looks great, smoother than most I've seen. One question I have is, can Cinema generate a QTVR that lets you look straight up at the ceiling and down to the floor? I haven't played with that feature yet, but I'd like to be able to do that. Thanks,

Jack

[ingo]

Hi Strat, why looks the still rendering much better than the blurry QTVR, does your slow Xeon doesn't render in high resolutions ? :ebiggrin:

 

Hi Ernest, looks great. But i think its easier to work with cubic QTVR's, they didn't have that distortion and are easier to work with in your image editor. JMHO

 

Would be nice if we could post QTVR's directly like images in the message ?! Or can we ???

[STRAT]

ingo - zoom out in the qtvr, it gets less blurry. obviously the higher the res i render at the sharper the qtvr. as i told Haz, this was a test.

 

Jack - to do that you require further software. as standard c4d will only let you general 360 degree panoramas, with minimal up/down coverage.

[Ryan Small]

Strat,

 

Since it *seems* that you like MOV can I ask you a question:

 

One of the things that I find troublesome about AVI is that there are so many different codecs to use. Therefore, it can become a real pain when sending files because you have to also have the recipient install the codec. Granted, you could use one of the "standard" codecs but still... Does the same codec trouble apply when using Quicktime? I'm essentially looking for the best format to use between platforms (windows and mac).

 

Thanks,

 

Ryan

[Ernest Burden III]

Hi Ernest, looks great. But i think its easier to work with cubic QTVR's, they didn't have that distortion and are easier to work with in your image editor. JMHO

I imagine it would be. Lightscape outputs those, too. But I have found with cubics that I can always SEE the various seems. With the spherical you can only get a hint of joinery when you look straight DOWN--notice that iPix put a circular logo there at your feet.

[STRAT]

Originally posted by Ryan Small:

Strat,

 

Since it *seems* that you like MOV can I ask you a question:

 

One of the things that I find troublesome about AVI is that there are so many different codecs to use. Therefore, it can become a real pain when sending files because you have to also have the recipient install the codec. Granted, you could use one of the "standard" codecs but still... Does the same codec trouble apply when using Quicktime? I'm essentially looking for the best format to use between platforms (windows and mac).

 

Thanks,

 

Ryan

avi's and mpegs are still more the industry standard and still ALLOT more used and 'tested' than MOVs.

 

Yuo'll still find that alot of ppl or clients havent got QT installed and wont even know what it is. most ppl just want to double click on an animation and watch it play - avi's do that without fail, MOV's are more tempremental.

 

saying that, i havent encountered ant problems with my client base yet.

 

about codecs? i only use the sorenson 3 codec. no special players needed for it, only standard qt.

 

sorenson 3 has a much better image/filesize compression than any avi imho.

[ingo]

....Lightscape outputs those, too. But I have found with cubics that I can always SEE the various seems. With the spherical you can only get a hint of joinery when you look straight DOWN--notice that iPix put a circular logo there at your feet.

Have you tried to render the cubic version by hand, so six square pics with 90 deg angle and put them together ? I know that you can see the seems when you use extreme camera lenses, but normally it looks fine.

Otherwise i realized that most people have problems navigating through the 360x180 deg QTVR's, its much easier to make it with a "normal" viewing angle.

And please don't talk about iPix, they are the SCO of the QTVR scene :ngeupset:

[Ernest Burden III]

Have you tried to render the cubic version by hand, so six square pics with 90 deg angle and put them together ?Otherwise i realized that most people have problems navigating through the 360x180 deg QTVR's, its much easier to make it with a "normal" viewing angle.

And please don't talk about iPix, they are the SCO of the QTVR scene :ngeupset:

This time I should try spelling the word 'seams' correctly.

 

I assume that the cubics output by Lightscape are going to be as good as they get--the sphericals are. In LS it a very quick and straightforward operation and it raytraces with all the quality you can get from LS. My issue is with the software that plays cubics.

 

And I'm going to have to ask: what is SCO and why are you unhappy with ipix?

 

The reason this came up for me was that a week or so ago I was asked to put in a proposal to do renderings of interior scenes on a cruise ship (my career at its peak). I looked at the website of the owner and saw that they had ipix spherical photos of the exact same spaces on their existing ship. So I threw into my proposal an extra fee to generate 'panoramicVR' images, and showed them a few that I have done previously. With a digital workflow they become just another rendered view. By they would not need ipix to display--there is that Java code that will show them on a website. I so far have not gotten them interested in animation, though that's really what I want to do on this project, should they hire me.