Can someone tell me why my pngs are being numbered so strangely in my designated Windows folder? They are numbered as I would expect in the Blender view of the folder. But I’ve never encountered such numbering in my rendered animation images in Windows. The images seem to be in sequential order, but the numbering is confusing to me.
The Blender view:
In my Windows folder:
Blend file:
http://www.pasteall.org/blend/24465
Can’t see anything strange in that. Windows hides the file extension and all is left is the filename that doesn’t fit on one line. First circled frame is the 1st frame, second circled frame is the 14th.
Filename consists of the name you gave (robot_video02) and blender adds 4 numbers to it because you probably have more than 1000 frames. In the file btw it’s set to render 50% of the given resolution.
Yep looks normal to me for Windows.
File icons only display a certain number of characters and then wrap to a new line. If there was a space in the file name it would likely choose there to break. In your case it just happened to be in a spot that makes it look like it’s being numbered differently.
Boy, do I feel stupid! Thanks.
In the file btw it’s set to render 50% of the given resolution.[/QUOTE]
I was going to post another question about this. My individual frame pngs are a megabyte in size. Isn’t that sort of big? I will be posting the final animation video on Youtube, so I’m wondering if my images are unnecessarily big. I’m also wondering why they are so big. The Robot tutorial called for 17 thousand vertices. Is that a lot? What’s making the images so big? I’m only rendering at 100 samples and it’s taking about a minute for each frame png to finish. I’d like to render with more samples (1,000 for example), and at full 1920 by 1080 resolution. But I think that would just be too big for my computer to handle or take an hour for each frame. So far I’m planning on 3,000 frames (about a two minute animation). Anyway, this is not my final render. I just wanted to see how it looks so far so I could make additional changes. Any pointers would be appreciated.
No, a megabyte for a png file is not big at all. The more pixels (resolution) your image has, the more information and a bigger file. Also bigger resolution makes longer rendering times. A jpg file is very lossy and that’s why it gets the file size down. With png you’re not losing any visible color information.
Final animation will be compressed with the video codec (mpeg-4 probably) which gets the best quality output if it starts with some sort of quality in the first place. Although the same might not be true for youtube converters.
Multilayer openEXR with many passes can easily go over 50 and 100 megabytes per frame, so a megabyte per frame is quite reasonable. EXR is very much needed in compositing. It saves all information, including information that’s not in the visible color range.
It takes a long time to render an animation. Best to use multiple computers or a renderfarm, such as http://raypump.com/
[QUOTE=Best to use multiple computers or a renderfarm, such as http://raypump.com/[/QUOTE]
I never even heard of renderfarms before. I checked out the site and a couple of other render farm sites. I didn’t quite figure out how the raypump.com works for free yet. It seems these render farms are for professionals. But I will try it out. Thanks.