Movie vs Image Sequence.

Is it better to render a Sequence or a Movie file?
1 love
Reply
  • Martin Bergwerf replied

    HI Wayne,

    I recommend to 'always' first Render as Image Sequence. 

    When you're done, you can Render the Image Sequence as Video.


    1 love
  • Dwayne Savage(dillenbata3) replied

    I second what Martin said. Nothing sucks more than waiting a few hours or days for a render to find a cliche in the middle of a video. Also if you lose power or anything else that causes you to have to re-render. With image sequence you can just render the missing or corrupted frames instead of starting completely over. 

    2 loves
  • Omar Domenech replied

    I third that, it's always better to use image sequences, even for final renders. Only pack it all into a movie file when you have all your image sequence done and you want a movie file of it all. 

    2 loves
  • Adrian Bellworthy replied

    ...And I do fourth.

    2 loves
  • Wayne Ranger(Wranger) replied

    Thank you so much gentleman for the input.

    • 👍
    1 love
  • Wayne Dixon replied

    Hi Wayne, it's Wayne here.

    I will add my 2 cents here.

    Animation:

    If you are just testing what your animation will look like you don't need to "Render" it.  You can render the viewport  as an animation (or "Playblast" it).
    I would recommend playblasting in a video format rather than an image sequence.  This makes it really easy to see that video w/o any extra steps.
    In the olden days I would have recommended an image sequence for this but rendering the viewport is so much faster these days that it's easier just to go straight to the video output.

    Actual Renders:

    Always, always use an image sequence then turn that into the final video output (this will save you hours and hours of wasted render time because of a an error in 1 or 2 frames)
    2 loves
  • Wayne Ranger(Wranger) replied

    Thank you Sir. I too come from the old school (63 yeas old). Very good advice. I started with computers back in the early 1980s. No internet like today (Just BBS). Thank you once again for your input. And I have to laugh; both are names are Wayne. Just a fun fact. The name Wayne comes from a Wainwright,(Thats a wagon wheel maker) . So I just love When you use a wagon  wheel as example in your course. BTW are you from Australia? Always loved Kangaroo's as a child. If so, please can you send me pitchers of one or Joey ( Hope I spelled that correct.)

    1 love
  • Wayne Dixon replied

    Ask and you shall receive.
    (Actually, you asked for a Kangaroo - this is a Wallaby and a albino joey.)

    MG20230917092748.jpg

    2 loves
  • Grady Pruitt(gradyp) replied

    For me, it depends... If I know it's going to take more than a few minutes to render a full animation (something that frequently happens for me when I do a Cycles render), I'll render the frames and then edit them together. Like some of the others have mentioned, there's very little more frustrating than having something render for hours only for something to fail along the way and having to start all over again.  If you render the frames as output, if it fails halfway through, you only have to render the one that failed and the remaining images. If I know the full animation can be rendered in 10-15 minutes tops (often the case if I'm rendering using Eevee), I'll just go ahead and render as a movie.

    2 loves
  • Wayne Ranger(Wranger) replied

    Oh my goodness !!! Thank You so much. When I was about 5 use to watch a Saturday program called Joey and fell in love with the idea that I would ride in there, (What at the time called their pocketbook). 

    1 love
  • Wayne Ranger(Wranger) replied

    Thank you, Grady for your input too.

    1 love
  • Omar Domenech replied

    Wow a real picture of a kangaroo, with a sheep on the pouch and eating like a vegetable ice cream? And it looks like a normal backyard, so you probably can have them as pets? Man I should move to Australia. This surely will be the top moment of my day. 

    1 love