Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Beaver

Space Efficiency Tip of the Week

Recommended Posts

I had been using .tif sequences for my C4D renders, because I figured it was a pretty universal format... however, I just did some tests and found that rendering PSD sequences gave me about a seventh the file size. I'm guessing it uses some kind of lossless compression, so it probably depends on how complex your frames are, but jeez, that's a lot smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a reason we shouldn't be using png's instead of tiff?

 

If you need more than 8 bits.

PNGs are pretty good for some things, but PSDs will give you more scope.

PNG quicktime movies probably the smallest non lossy movies with alpha capability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the TIF is bigger because C4D wont do any LZW or Zip compression on it. I think that if PSD fits your workflow, then go for it. Not every program is super excited to see PSDs, but if your going from C4D to AE, then it seems fine to me.

 

If I feel I am going to need to render out 16bit from 3D, lately I have just been rendering out OpenEXR seq instead. Its 32bit float, but it is much smaller than a 16bit TIF and still has more info. It leaves the option of staying 32bit until the final render. Might be overkill if you are not going to be doing a filmout.

 

If you want to stay 16bit, SGIs work great as well. I don't know that there is a correct answer. I think there may actually be a valid argument to using a truly uncompressed (LZW or ZIP) TIF if you are compositing, because the machine is going to have to undo the compression for each frame - which I suppose could actually make your comp take longer to preview and render. Although, most likely not to a noticeable degree.

 

If you are just looking to save space, do a test with the PSD and the OpenEXR. I haven't compared these two, but I will bet that the OpenEXR beats the PSD in space efficiency for nearly every frame - all while being twice the bit depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are just looking to save space, do a test with the PSD and the OpenEXR. I haven't compared these two, but I will bet that the OpenEXR beats the PSD in space efficiency for nearly every frame - all while being twice the bit depth.

 

I definitely will test this and that's good to know. I never even considered this format because I had no idea what it was but after some googling it looks like ILM's format of choice! One downside I've discovered though is that you can't open an EXR sequence with quicktime. (maybe Quicktime x does, who knows?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I went ahead and tested this...here's the file size results:

 

PSD 8bpc: 1822 KB

PSD 16bpc: 7201 KB

PSD 32bpc: 14401 KB

 

EXR 32bpc: 1071 KB

 

So EXR at 32 is even smaller than PSD at 8! Thanks for the tip fishface! Check out my tests below. What I did was take some source images, jack the levels way up, and check for banding. Also interesting to note is that the 32bpc image, though using the same levels settings, is a little more "resistant" to change. I understand that this is the nature of HDR, but good to know if you've got different bit depths going on and you're planning on copying your color correction settings to different sources.

 

nl7kg2.jpg

Project: 8

Image: 8

 

k0oo3t.jpg

Project: 8

Image: 16

 

1z5uat5.jpg

Project: 8

Image: 32

 

2ikcsr7.jpg

Project: 16

Image: 8

 

2cmxcw9.jpg

Project: 16

Image: 16

 

34pewar.jpg

Project: 16

Image: 32

 

2ikcsr7.jpg

Project: 32

Image: 8

 

2cmxcw9.jpg

Project: 32

Image: 16

 

34pewar.jpg

Project: 32

Image: 32

 

Lastly, I'm pretty sure the 8bpc source looks less bandy mainly because C4D uses dithering to make up for the lack of bit depth. If you look close, you can see where the dithering is taking place, and I'm sure if that dither wasn't there, the banding would be pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PNG and Quicktime don't work with C4D 64 on windows. Otherwise PNG is probably the most space efficient 8bpc format.

Since 11.5 Quicktime can be used with CINEMA 4D 64 Bit on Windows as well as on OS X (that was already possible with R11).

Also with 11.5 a native CINEMA 4D support for PNGs was implemented so you don't need QT anymore to read and write PNGs.

Cheers

Björn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...