QUAKELIVE movie making guide by aNtii

[KittenIgnition]

As muckyman said .jpegs are lossy, whereas the .avi is lossless so it has much higher quality.

jpgs are the EXACT same as tgas and avis. tests have been done, and theyre the exact same, pixel-for-pixel. the only difference is that tgas have a specified amount of "space" inside the file used for storing the pixels, so every tga will be the exact same size depending on your resolution. jpgs dont do that, and vary in size depending on how many colors etc. are in the image.

With jpegs you must use VDub for every single clip you make, re-rendering the entire thing every time!

some people like it this way. i dont have to do this though. i open the image sequence in vegas and render immediately. its perfectly fine this way. if youre making a frag video, then you probably want the files to store. but the outputted avis just feel less clean and stable than an avi rendered in vdub from a sequence of jpgs.

As I explained in post #10 you only need to use VDub on very large clips to change the codec. The only advantage I can think of using .jpegs is that when you initially render it, it would have a lower file size (as .jpegs are low quality), but when you change it into .avi the file size would be the same as if you had used /video avi from the start.

ever wonder WHY an avi made from a jpg sequence is the exact same size as the original avis? because they are the exact same thing. there is ABSOLUTELY NO loss of quality when using jpgs. in my situation, jpgs are the best, but i dont understand why domino etc. would use jpgs and render an uncompressed avi in vdub. i would do that too, only because its how i learned to do it and because it feels more comfortable/safe.

[Domino]

some people like it this way. i dont have to do this though. i open the image sequence in vegas and render immediately. its perfectly fine this way. if youre making a frag video, then you probably want the files to store. but the outputted avis just feel less clean and stable than an avi rendered in vdub from a sequence of jpgs.

You don't edit long videos. Opening a lot of sequences in a video will slow it down and or crash the project. I did that for hb2. It was a huge pain. You also can't load a sequence over 100fps in vegas. You would have to take a 300fps(or anything over 100) clip, load it in 100fps and try to speed up the clip for it to be normal speed.

ever wonder WHY an avi made from a jpg sequence is the exact same size as the original avis? because they are the exact same thing. there is ABSOLUTELY NO loss of quality when using jpgs.

Take a 320x240 youtube video, blow it up to 720p and render uncompressed. It will be the same filesize as a true 720p uncompressed clip.

but i dont understand why domino etc. would use jpgs and render an uncompressed avi in vdub. i would do that too, only because its how i learned to do it and because it feels more comfortable/safe.

Only time i've rendered a sequence into AVI is from my previous QL videos. Since i used cl_avidemo and did TGA files.

For Q3 i used to open sequences into vegas and that was terrible, so i switched to AVI (what i did for Coloris 2 and QCG movie)

[KittenIgnition]

ok good to know. i know you cant open high fps videos in vegas. i capture at 40fps, and 40fps is fine. i know i dont edit long videos, and i dont really know how its done. i was unsure about some of this stuff.

as for the uncompressed etc. thats not the only way it was tested. it was a long time ago, but im pretty sure the two images were compared pixel-by-pixel and they were the exact same. i also think it was tested with multiple images.

whatever though, i dont know much about moviemaking, im just pretty sure jpgs = avi/tga, quality-wise.

[fraggedICE]

jpgs are the EXACT same as tgas and avis. tests have been done, and theyre the exact same, pixel-for-pixel. the only difference is that tgas have a specified amount of "space" inside the file used for storing the pixels, so every tga will be the exact same size depending on your resolution. jpgs dont do that, and vary in size depending on how many colors etc. are in the image.

some people like it this way. i dont have to do this though. i open the image sequence in vegas and render immediately. its perfectly fine this way. if youre making a frag video, then you probably want the files to store. but the outputted avis just feel less clean and stable than an avi rendered in vdub from a sequence of jpgs.

ever wonder WHY an avi made from a jpg sequence is the exact same size as the original avis? because they are the exact same thing. there is ABSOLUTELY NO loss of quality when using jpgs. in my situation, jpgs are the best, but i dont understand why domino etc. would use jpgs and render an uncompressed avi in vdub. i would do that too, only because its how i learned to do it and because it feels more comfortable/safe.

JPEGs, TGAs and AVIs are completely different, but perhaps the way QL handles it they are all outputted at the same quality so you might be correct.

You would have to be a fool to LIKE re-rendering everything, I thought people only did this before Wolfcam existed.

The reason an uncompressed AVI would be the same is it doesn't recognize the JPEG codec. Uncompressed AVI simply saves it pixel by pixel, so the only thing that would affect it is resolution. Look at this JPEG for example, JPEG compresses stuff into these blocks to save space, while lossless codecs save it pixel by pixel. So when you save a jpeg as an AVI the AVI doesn't read the blocks, it reads the pixels instead. The only thing that would affect the file size is the amount of pixels present (resolution), so as long as the res is the same it's the same file size.

I may test to see if QL does treat TGA/AVI/JPEG the same way, and how it affects quality/filesize...

[KittenIgnition]

JPEGs, TGAs and AVIs are completely different, but perhaps the way QL handles it they are all outputted at the same quality so you might be correct.

You would have to be a fool to LIKE re-rendering everything, I thought people only did this before Wolfcam existed.

The reason an uncompressed AVI would be the same is it doesn't recognize the JPEG codec. Uncompressed AVI simply saves it pixel by pixel, so the only thing that would affect it is resolution. Look at this JPEG for example, JPEG compresses stuff into these blocks to save space, while lossless codecs save it pixel by pixel. So when you save a jpeg as an AVI the AVI doesn't read the blocks, it reads the pixels instead. The only thing that would affect the file size is the amount of pixels present (resolution), so as long as the res is the same it's the same file size.

I may test to see if QL does treat TGA/AVI/JPEG the same way, and how it affects quality/filesize...

ql is only tga while capping, and tga/jpg for screenshots. if you guys know so much about all this, then whats motion jpeg?

[fraggedICE]

ql is only tga while capping, and tga/jpg for screenshots. if you guys know so much about all this, then whats motion jpeg?

So in theory an AVI frame would be equal to a TGA frame while a JPEG frame would have a lower file size... and all three will have the same quality. Time to test this, I find it hard to believe though. M-JPEG is useless... it's a video codec that applies jpeg compression to every frame right? IMO huffyuv is the best video codec, lossless but still a low file size. Like .PNG to .BMP, both are lossless but .PNG has a lower file size. M-JPEG is better if you want REALLY small file sizes though I guess.

[Domino]

So in theory an AVI frame would be equal to a TGA frame while a JPEG frame would have a lower file size... and all three will have the same quality. Time to test this, I find it hard to believe though. M-JPEG is useless... it's a video codec that applies jpeg compression to every frame right? IMO huffyuv is the best video codec, lossless but still a low file size. Like .PNG to .BMP, both are lossless but .PNG has a lower file size. M-JPEG is better if you want REALLY small file sizes though I guess.

Idk why m-jpeg is being compare to huffy or any uncompressed video lmao. uncompressed isn't really meant to be viewed normally. now you can compare m-jpeg to wmv, mp4, or x264 etc. but comparing that to uncompressed is stupid XD

[fraggedICE]

Ok, I opened a demo in wolfcam, paused on part of a demo, and did /video jpg, /video tga and /video avi.
I opened the .avi in virtual dub and saved a frame as .bmp which like I said above is uncompressed and lossless.

Now, I don't know any scientific way to tell them apart... but I opened them in Photoshop and did some tests, here are the results [6MB].
Firstly, the TGA/TGA comparison shows that the method works, the image is completely black, and therefore there is no difference.
The TGA/BMP comparison shows a small amount of difference, this means that TGA export is not exactly the same as AVI export, so the AVI may indeed be completely lossless - unfortunately I didn't printscreen the wolfcam window to confirm this.
The TGA/JPG and BMP/JPG comparisons show lots more difference, showing that the JPEG is actually far lower quality than the AVI or TGA.

So we now know that QL doesn't output the three at exactly the same quality. The quality difference is negligible though so using JPEG output rather than TGA is a better option since it saves loads of space (over 3MB per screenshot in this case), but as explained above when it's converted into an AVI it will make no difference, so using /video avi is the best option as it has the highest quality and is most convenient.

[KittenIgnition]

Ok, I opened a demo in wolfcam, paused on part of a demo, and did /video jpg, /video tga and /video avi.
I opened the .avi in virtual dub and saved a frame as .bmp which like I said above is uncompressed and lossless.

Now, I don't know any scientific way to tell them apart... but I opened them in Photoshop and did some tests, here are the results [6MB].
Firstly, the TGA/TGA comparison shows that the method works, the image is completely black, and therefore there is no difference.
The TGA/BMP comparison shows a small amount of difference, this means that TGA export is not exactly the same as AVI export, so the AVI may indeed be completely lossless - unfortunately I didn't printscreen the wolfcam window to confirm this.
The TGA/JPG and BMP/JPG comparisons show lots more difference, showing that the JPEG is actually far lower quality than the AVI or TGA.

So we now know that QL doesn't output the three at exactly the same quality. The quality difference is negligible though so using JPEG output rather than TGA is a better option since it saves loads of space (over 3MB per screenshot in this case), but as explained above when it's converted into an AVI it will make no difference, so using /video avi is the best option as it has the highest quality and is most convenient.

well, i just took a jpg screenshot and a tga screenshot. i opened them both in photoshop, zoomed in closely, looked from far away etc. and they were both the exact same, pixel for pixel. and i thought that i MIGHT have missed something, so i saved them both as .bmp (you said it was lossless and uncompressed, so what the hell...).

The .tga > .bmp: 4.94 MB (5,184,072 bytes)
The .jpg > .bmp: 4.94 MB (5,184,072 bytes)

however, the outputted .jpg is 1.79 MB (1,881,062 bytes), while the .tga is 3.70 MB (3,888,018 bytes). 1440x900, every single tga screenshot, no matter what, will be the exact same as the jpg, but it will be a much larger file. I didn't test /video, which I might do next, but this proves that .jpg = .tga, though i dont think it was part of the original argument. I guess ill test jpg/tga/avi next.

[KittenIgnition]

ok so. i just capped 6 jpgs, 6 tgas and 6 avi frames. this was using /video, with cl_aviframerate 40 (not that it matters, because the demo was paused). I opened them all in photoshop, once again, and looked. I saw no differences. I saved each one as .bmp, because its lossless (the avi i flattened then saved, just fyi). I havent looked at the exact sizes, but each one is about the same size.

THE RESULTS:

final_avi.bmp - 4.94 MB (5,184,072 bytes) [original size: 22.2 MB (23,382,016 bytes)]
final_jpg.bmp - 4.94 MB (5,184,072 bytes) [original size: 10.6 MB (11,173,806 bytes)]
final_tga.bmp - 4.94 MB (5,184,072 bytes) [original size: 22.2 MB (23,328,108 bytes)]

the "original sizes" are from 6 frames, because the avi was 6 frames long. each jpg and tga were the exact same size, because it was the same scene. avis use the tga-style "compression", where each frame seems like its a "container" of a specific size, and no matter how much actual data is in the "container", it doesnt change size. so each frame is 3.70mb at 1440x900, whereas each jpg is 1.77mb at the same resolution.

just like i said, they are all the _EXACT_ same. i realized it while i was taking the screenshots, but you probably have some bad settings (chances are its r_jpegcompressionquality, default is 90, mine is at 100). This proves that jpg is the best POSSIBLE choice, in every way, aside from time saving, because you have to re-render as uncompressed .avi after. there might be other ways, but whatever. The size:quality ratio for jpgs is the best, no doubt.