Sorry about that musicvid. The type of quicktime MOV file that I render out in After Effects CS5 is an "animation" type of quicktime MOV file. I also render out a "PHOTO JPEG" quicktime MOV file from time to time as well.

The project template that I use is: HD 1080-24p (1920 x 1080, 23.976 fps) and the preview is the same.

I shoot with a Sony PMW-EX1r and my computer specs should be more than enough to handle editing HD footage and these specific Quicktime files as the PC is brand new. Hopefully I provided enough information for someone to help me and please let me know if I can provide any other information to help sort this problem out as I am on deadline. Thank you very much.

The project template that I use is: HD 1080-24p (1920 x 1080, 23.976 fps) and the preview is the same.
Is it a safe assumption that is exactly what you are rendering out of Adobe?

You just don't have a good intermediate for editing. If you are looking for a free solution, Avid DNxHD 2.3.2 is your friend.

Animation is "practically" uncompressed (prehistoric RLE compression) and JPEG is lossy. It's best to avoid anything that uses the QT lib for decoding in Vegas.

DNxHD is much better compression than Animation, better quality than JPEG, and more efficient than either.

If you are looking for a more elegant solution and don't mind paying for it, Cineform is at the top of the heap. You can download a trial version.

[EDIT] Quicktime Player is probably the most inefficient available for Windows.

i have a different opinion but i'm gonna try to organize my comments before posting...

0) in answer to your question 1st, i'd suggest uncompressed AVI. i'm not sure why this wasn't already mentioned. Anyway if you're a PC try AVI for smoothest playback... just like on a Mac you should use QT.

1) there is nothing wrong with PhotoJPEG, unless u lower the quality % setting too much. Art Beats uses it to distribute their media; i've used the codec for 4 years and tested it over multiple generations. HOWEVER if there's any evidence to the contrary please tell me: this topic matters to me.

2) Animation codec is industry standard and used everywhere... especially short films* and motion graphics work... it ain't going anywhere for a long time yet.

3) If you're having problems with Animation codec playback, i would expect them to increase using DNxHD; Avid's codec is not gonna be easier on your CPU than Ani. it's made for exporting and archiving (in my opinion!)... i don't find DNxHD very edit-friendly; then again i don't edit much camcorder footage and when i do i prefer source than an intermediate.



* tho to be fair i just finished encoding another short for SIGGRAPH this morning and instead of Animation codec, this time i chose DNxHD (it was ultimately an SD vs HD decision not a codec one)

You are welcome to a different opinion; here is mine:

0) Uncompressed (.any extension) doesn't play back worth a s**t.
1) Render JPEG to multiple generations and see what you get. Compare that to DNxHD or Cineform or ProRes 422 (which Vegas won't accept) or Huffy or Lagarith or Sony YUV or Helix or MC and compare the results at the fifth generation.
2) Please provide some documentation of any RLE compression being "industry standard." Hopefully, from some date after 1994.
3) "Source" is irrelevant with the OP's question (AE). However, Animation is one step better than uncompressed. Acknowledged.

rob, although I respect your pov, there are more playable decodes than Animation or Uncompressed. That is why we have choices like Cineform, and DNxHD, and ProRes, and that is their raison d'etre.