Why do AME exports look worse than Premiere exports?

Has anyone else come across the situation where AME exports don't look as good compared to exporting straight out of Premiere?
I'm encoding the videos to H.264 MP4 files. The stills (JPEGs) in the video is where I'm having the problem. I've created a sort of slide show with 4 pictures in a short ~10 second part of the video using Scale keyframes and Cross Dissolve transitions.
When I queue the sequence for export straight out of Premiere, these parts of the video created from the stills look fine. However, when I queue them up in AME, these parts of the video look harsh and have jagged edges (the image quality is greatly reduced on the stills).
The export settings are identical, as I am using a Preset for H.264 / MP4 / 720p / 23.976 fps / Square pixels / NTSC / Profile: Main / Level: 3.2 / Render at Maximum Depth (checked) / VBR, 1 pass / Target 6 Mbps / Max 10 Mbps / Use Maximum Render Quality (checked)
Audio (if this would affect anything???) is AAC / 48000 Hz / Stereo / High Quality / 192 kbps / Precedence: Bitrate
Here are my system specs:
- The latest versions of CS6 through the Cloud membership (Premiere CS6 6.0.2 / AME 6.0.2.81)
- Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4 / 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 / NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2048 MB
- Video footage is AVCHD in MP4 (but that's not where the issue appears to be)
- Still images are large JPEG files (roughly 6000x6000 px); 300ppi / Bit Depth 8 / RGB Color Mode / Adobe RGB (1998)
My Premiere sequence is based off of the AVCHD footage:
AVCHD 1080p square pixel
23.976 frames/second
48000 Hz
Previews are I-Frame Only MPEG, but when I export I do not use Previews (unchecked).
So…any idea why the exports look crappy coming out of AME as opposed to straight out of Premiere? It would be nice to use AME in the background while working on other projects or when large batches of exports need to be done, but not if the quality is going to suffer (at least when still images are involved). One work around seems to be replacing the still with an After Effects composition. Any idea why this would make a difference?
Thanks in advance for your help!

I also had the Use Maximum Render Quality box checked in my export settings
This should carry over to the AME when you send it to the queue, but you should double-check in the AME.
So I guess the difference is in the GPU rendering vs software rendering?
In theory, software MPE with MRQ and Max Bit Depth enabled should produce (nearly) identical results to hardware MPE.
I had originally understood that this is for rendering previews, but looks like it's also used during final exports?
For exporting, video frames have to be rendered before they can be transcoded to the final format/codec. So hardware MPE helps rendering previews, but it also helps the rendering step of the export process.
That's unfortunate that AME does not utilize the GPU as well. What is the reason for excluding this feature?
That's a question only an Adobe engineer can answer! NB: I know for sure that the scaling-using-software-MPE limitation in the AME applied to CS5 and CS5.5. It may be fixed in CS6, or it may not. I don't have time to properly research that right now.
I don't really understand how something as simple as rendering a scaled JPEG image turns out looking bad, while AME can render full-on After Effects comps...???
If differences in scaling methods don't apply here, there may be system issues or a software bug at work.
Jeff

Similar Messages

Why is PP CS 3 worse than Premiere Pro 1.0? Please help

I have just bought the CS3 Master Collection. With PP 1.0 I could add a transition beetween two clips, apply the proc amp filter for color correction and even add a title with motion. In highest quality RT mode it would look very good on the NTSC monitor. It actually looked as good as it would fully rendered. Now if I apply any color correction filter I get pixilated artifacts when there is movement (a person waving there hands). Even if I add a simple title the video below the title looks awful. RT previews used to look very clean in the NTSC monitor. Could the CS3 bundles have a serious bug in them? I have thought of everything and can not get PP CS3 to work half as good as version 1.0. What gives? Any info would help.

I agree that the The Pentium D was the actual name but Pentium D CPUs are based of the P 4 netburst achitecture. That was stated even by Intel and many magazines. In other words they are not P2, P3 or even a Core 2 architecture. So yes I can call a Pentium D a Dual Core Pentium 4. That is infact what it is. I can not call it Dual Core Pentium 3. There is no dual core P3.
[edit] Presler
The last generation of Pentium D branded processors was the Presler identified by the product code 80553, and made of two 65 nm-process cores found also in Pentium 4 branded Cedar Mill CPUs. The Presler single package also comprised two single-core dies next to each other increasing its processing capability over single-core CPUs branded Pentium 4. The Presler was supported by the same chipsets as the Smithfield. It was produced using 65 nm technology similar to the Yonah. The Presler communicated with the system using an 800 MT/s FSB, and its two cores communicated also using the FSB, just as in the Smithfield. The Presler also included VT (Virtualization Technology, aka Vanderpool, although limited to the 9x0 models, and not in the 9x5 models), Intel 64, XD bit and EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology)[*]. The Presler was released in the first quarter of 2006 with a 2x2 MiB Level 2 cache. Its models included

Why do images I export look darker than they do in Aperture?

I'm using Aperture 3.2.3. Onscreen Proofing is on and set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1. In my image export settings, I've also selected sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and Gamma Adjust is set to 1.0 (which should mean no change, right?).
If I export an image and then view that image outside of Aperture (using Photoshop, Preview, even just selecting the image in the finder and pressing spacebar to view it), the image looks darker than the same image looks in Aperture. But I'm using the same Onscreen Proofing and image export setting of sRGB IEC61966-2.1. What's going on here?

Thanks Leonie, the second part revealed that I have been an idiot, although the behaviour is still surprising. The folder has a mix of DMC-G3 raws, Fuji X10 raws, and DNG files produced from both. For the Fuji X10 files, the DNGs produce images and the raws produce the "Unsupported file format" message. The latter is not surprising, the former a little surprising (as I've heard that DNGs only work when the associated raw works). The last two remarks don't directly address my problem (or perceived problem), but they perhaps set the frame for my expectations.
For the G3 files, when I look at it more closely, the G3 raws DO display correctly, while the G3 DNGs give "Unsupported file format". I had managed to fool myself into thinking it was the other way round (Aperture does rather hide the full file name).
So I was completely wrong, Aperture does support DMC-G3 raw, it's just it's DNG support that's a bit weird. However, it's on my side if I need to use X10 raws (via the DNG step). In fact so far I've given up the latter, as the noise levels are so much greater than in Fuji's in-camera JPEG conversion.
So, thanks very much for your help. Now I remember the first rule of system support: never trust what the customer tells you! (I know you're not really customer support, but I guess the same rule applies.) Thanks again

FCE export quality worse than iMovie with same settings

Hi, I'm having real problems exporting video from FCE. If I import an HD clip from my Panasonic sd200 into iMovie and export it as a .mov and do exactly the same in FCE using the same export settings, the quality of the exported movie from FCE is much worse than the same from iMovie. I have been struggling with this problem for months and cannot seem to get any sort of decent quality export from FCE (using H264) and spent hours trying different settings.
Also, the colours in the exported videos from iMovie and FCE are less saturated and look really bland next to the same clip in FCE canvas.
Please can anyone help? Even the guys in the Apple shop could not figure this one out.

Sorry the camera is actually a Panasonic HS200.
The native format is .MTS and films in 1920x1080 50i. Imported via iMovie as a .MOV which gives the same quality footage as if I imported via Log and Transfer.
I will expand on the problem I am experiencing. When I export from FCE4 using "QuickTime conversion" I use the following settings:
Codec: h.264 Key Frames: every 25
Frame rate: 25fps Frame Reordering: on
Data Rate Restricted to: 10mbps
Optimised for: Download
Quality: High Encoding: Best quality (multi-pass)
Dimensions: 1920x1080
Deinterlace Source Video: ticked
When the deinterlacing is ticked, the final exported video appears ghosted, with two of the same images projected side by side rather than one on top of the other, creating a very bad image. However when deinterlacing is not ticked the final exported video ends up with horizontal lines across the entire image. This is seen even more clearly when not in full screen.
When I export from iMovie 09, using Share>Export using QuickTime using the same settings as in FCE4 (deinterlacing ticked) the footage is very clear and there is no noticeable ghosting or horizontal lines.
When I export footage from FCE the video also end up desaturated and washed out, with low contrast. The same happens when I export from iMovie, but to an even greater extent!
My 'Easy Setup' for FCE4 is:
Format: Apple intermediate Codec Rate: 25fps
Use: AVCHD- Apple Intermediate Codec 1920x1080i50
These are the problems I experience; described above.
I do no know whether the problem is something to do with my export settings; settings in FCE; or whether FCE exaggerates the quality of my images (which i highly doubt); or if it is because FCE4 is now around 4 years old, and iMovie is from 2009, and therefore has more advanced settings for AVCHD?
I am by no means a professional when it comes to talking video jargon.
Any help is truly appreciated as i have completed over 150 test exports in FCE and the Final Cut experts at the Apple store spent almost 2 hours trying to work something about, but could not think of anything!
Thanks in advance.

Fonts in KDE always look worse than in GTK for me

Hello, here's a screen shot, compare the fonts of the GTK window with the fonts in the KDE window and judge for yourself:
http://xs127.xs.to/xs127/08225/fonts733.png
I have no specific KDE font configuration enabled, have no ~/fonts.conf either... Why don't fonts look the same in GTK and KDE?
Please post hints/opinions...
Last edited by bughunter2 (2008-05-30 20:44:11)

Try using this in your /etc/fonts/local.conf
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">

<fontconfig>

<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="rgba" >
<const>none</const>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="hinting">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle">
<const>hintfull</const>
</edit>
</match>

<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="antialias">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>

<match target="pattern" >
<edit mode="assign" name="autohint">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font">
<test name="weight" compare="more">
<const>medium</const>
</test>
<edit name="autohint" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>

<match target="pattern" name="family" >
<test name="family" qual="any" >
<string>Helvetica</string>
</test>
<edit mode="assign" name="family" >
<string>sans-serif</string>
</edit>
</match>
<dir>~/.fonts</dir>
</fontconfig>

Why does Compressor's HDV output look worse than iDVD's output of same?

Okay, here's the thing... for weekly updates I've been sending the client outputs via iDVD. And they've honestly looked great. The HDV footage fills the screen and doesn't show any noticeable compression funkiness. But for the screening of the completed first cut I wanted to deliver what I thought would be an even higher quality look (esp since I intended to deliver the completed project mpeg and AC3), so I exported the HDV cut out of FCP via QT and converted it with Compressor's DVD: Best Quality 90 minutes to turn the HDV into SD 720x480 16:9 letterboxed. I then burned it with DVDSP, complete with nice looking menus, etc. And I was shocked viewing the output. The two clips I'd reversed in FCP stuttered, and even a clip with nothing on it was strobing. Plus, close ups showed noticeable compression on the faces. So what gives? Why does it look so much better when I just slammed it out on iDVD? What don't I "get?" I've scoured the books I have and nothing seems to give me a clue.
Any direction would be greatly appreciated!

Lightroom uses its own raw converter and its own camera profiles to convert the raw data into an image. This will never be the same as the camera-manufacturer’s raw image decoding either in camera or using camera-manufacturer-supplied software or any other third-party software.
Here is a general explanation from a few years ago, that is mostly valid, with the one exception that there are no camera-matching profiles for your brand of camera:
http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?1285-Why-did-Lightroom-ruin-my-photo
The IDC is apparently using camera settings and is clearly sharpening the image and quashing some of the lens-flare, oversharpening in my opinion.
You can do these sorts of things in LR, too, but you have to tell it to do things, it won’t do this by default.
The 2010 and 2012 are related to Process Version not Profile, and one difference between the two PVs is how the toning responds to near clipping conditions. Your reds are very saturated and near if not actually clipping so it is not surprising that the two raw conversions are not the same.
Can you provide a link to the raw file, using DropBox.com or similar large-file-hosting-service and maybe someone will give some tips on how to make the LR processing closer to what you’re seeing with the camera-manufacturer version.?

Photos in Library module and after export look different than in Development module

Hello,
I experience a problem.
After I update photos in the Development module, the updates seem not to be shown in the Library module. And when I subsequently export to Flickr, Flickr is also showing the original photo, not the adapted one.
I noticed this the first time after making Blacks a bit deeper, causing a sunflower to become a deeper yellow. I thought that my adaptations were not applied in the Library module. After I checked with cranking down the Saturation all the way back (to almost black-and-white), that adaptation WAS applied in the Library view. So it had to be something else, causing the same color difference between the Library and Development modules.
When I switch from the Library module to the Development module, I see a slight delay in applying my changes, but they are applied. Before they are applied, I can see that the original photo is shown and that looks the same as in the Library module and on Flickr.
The photostrip on the bottom of the Lightroom screen also shows the original photos only, unless I go to the development module and select a photo (adaptations are applied in the photostrip after I select the photo, not before).
After I played a bit more in the Development module, I found something strange in the Camera Calibration menu of the Development module. The Adobe Profile (my default) caused an obvious color difference between the Library (less saturated) and the Development (more saturated) modules. The Camera Standard profile also showed a (very) slight difference, but I was unable to notice the differences using the other profiles.
So I was thinking (but it's only a guess), that the profiles are not applied in the Library view and on export, but they are in the Development module?
I use Lightroom 5.6, Camera RAW 8.6.
Please help me, as this is very annoying. I currently cannot export my photos to Flickr or anywhere else, unless I overcompensate before exporting. And I really don't want to do that. My Lightroom photo is my perfect photo, and I want to keep it that way...
Many thanks in advance for any help,
Peter

Hi ssprengel,
Thanks for your reply. Let me react to each possibility you mention and provide some extra information.
- "Check your Export / File Settings / Image Format and make sure they are set to JPG not Original". Done that, it's not on Original, but on jpg. This would not explain why I see the difference in the Library and Development modules, by the way. But better to know for sure.
- "...the most likely thing that is wrong is your color-management on your computer is not working properly". It is a PC with Windows 7. I have been using Lightroom for maybe 6 years and I never had this problem before. The last time I changed my setup is more than a year ago and this problem only started to happen a short while ago (after the update to Lightroom 5.6? I'm not sure, but that's the only thing that has changed lately). I use a Spider to create a custom profile that is correct for my setup and do a regular update on the profile.
- "what brand and model of monitor do you have?" I have an EIZO FlexScan S2411W and use that for a long time as well. I chose this brand of monitors for its good color reproduction and I have been happy with it for years now.
What I am not getting is why would all this show a difference between the Library and Development module? The only difference is the Lightroom software that is switching from one module to another, and that should deliver the same photo. I'm also stating in my first post that the differences are very noticeable using the Adobe Standard Camera Profile in the Development module. I have a feeling that the profile is part of the problem.

Why are iPhotos previews higher quality than my exports?

I have just now noticed this after using it for so long. I was using it to de-noise a photo I took earlier today and turned it up to 100%. I looks clean and smooth like I want, so I exported it first as a jpeg with max quality, but I noticed a lot of noise in it. So I exported it again as an original and it looks the same still. I just exported it as Current to see if there is still noise, and there is. I have exhausted the other formats as well, all export with noise.
I put iPhoto in fullscreen mode and took a screen cap of the photo via cmd+shift+4, and compared the the screen cap to both of the exports and it looks much cleaner, even though its more than half the resolution being displayed.
This is not right, plain and simple.
Here are two links, one to the original export, and the other is a screen cap.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/IMG_0006.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/Screen%20Shot%202011-08-06%20at%2010.06.48%20PM.pn g
What am I doing wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks?

I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

Still rendered in FCP 6 looks worse than preview???

I'm importing a still from Photoshop (CS1) into FCP 6. It's a PICT file w/ alpha channel (logo). When I slap the logo on top of my video it looks clean and sharp. But, when I render the clip, it comes out looking rasterized and I loose my smooth edges. My PICT file is 720x480 and I'm importing to a DV/NTSC 4:3 sequence. I've tried both a square pixel aspect and a D1/DV NTSC .9 ratio in Phsp but the end results are the same- crappy.
How do I maintain my clean, crisp logo in FCP?
~reicko

It isn't FCP that is messing up your logo, its the DV codec. Hence the reason people spend all the money on 4:2:2 Uncompressed 10-bit equipment.
That being said, there are some things you can do. First, make sure you are looking at a video monitor that is atched to your deck. What you see on your computer screen is not how the actual video will appear. So it might not be as bad as what you see on your computer screen. If it still bothers you then you might add a slight gaussian blur to "blend" it better into the video.
Message was edited by: Shawn Birmingham

Why does my dock look different than normal ML docks

Hi, I upgrade to ML and over time my dock started to look diffrent, it has two indicator lights instead of a line, can you help me, thanks.

I kinda like it the way you have it - it's easier to see the lights that way. Still, if you insist on getting rid of it...
Assuming this behavior survives a restart, a standard thing to try is to trash the Dock preferences. You will have to repopulate your dock afterwards.
The files start with com.apple.dock and are found in ~/Library/Preferences.
You can get to your home LIbrary via the Finder Go menu if you press the option key and select Library. The preference files are then in the Preference subfolder, and in the Preferences/ByHost subfolder.
To get the changes to take effect you will have to relaunch the dock, e.g., by quitting it in Activity Monitor or by logging out/in.
Hope this helps.
charlie

My photos look worse in iPhoto 6 than in iPhoto 4

In iPhoto 6 on my new MacBook Pro, the quality of images from my Canon PowerShot SD300 is lower than that of the images from the same camera in iPhoto 4 on my iBook G4. When I email photos from the new computer via Apple Mail, they look worse than emailed photos from my old system do--even when I contrast a small 30-40 KB iPhoto 4 image to a 150-900 KB iPhoto 6 image. Is this possible? If it is, then can I change a setting in iPhoto or on my camera, or do something, to rectify the situation?
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Thanks for replying, Old Toad. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you.
When I compare the same image, in edit mode, in iPhoto 4 (on my iBook G4) and in iPhoto 6 (on the MacBook Pro), the first distinction to make is that in 6 the color, especially red, is much richer. The same picture in 4 looks washed out. But while the contrast is higher in 6, the 6 image is less sharp than the 4 copy: in 6 everything's a little fuzzier, blurrier, more pixillated; lines are less distinct. It's as if the color is richer in 6 because the dot pattern is more apparent. This is especially evident when I email the pictures.
I should add that I've been comparing pictures at the default settings in 4 and 6. When I increase the sharpness in 6 (which I do not know how to do in 4), the problem seems to lessen---until I email the photo. In an email, the sharper 6 image is grainy and, overall, worse.
Can I do anything else to improve the quality of images in 6? Thanks again.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.6)

FLV quality looks better than F4V, what am I doing wrong?

Hi,
I exported a small clip as a on2vp6 flv, a h.264 f4v, and a h.264 mp4 file with the adobe media encoder cs4. Each file is the same clip, exported with pretty much the same settings. Resolution: 640x480, 0.5mbps target bit rate, 29.97 fps.
Everything I read says that for a given file and a given bitrate, h.264 should provide better video quality when compared to a h.263 flv file. I would like to know what I am doing wrong, because the h.264 files look worse than the flv file. I have provided download links for a short demo clip in each format.
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.f4v
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7b/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_f4v
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.flv
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7e/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_flv
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.mp4
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc71/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_mp4
Why does the clip look better in h.263? It seems that everything I encode at low bitrates looks better in h.263 which leads me to believe I am doing something wrong.

Okay, that is true, they are different codecs. But even adobe says:
Q: How does H.264 compare with the current video formats supported in Flash Player?
A: Flash Player supports the Sorenson Spark video codec (based on H.263) and On2 VP6. H.263 is the predecessor of H.264 and was designed for teleconferencing applications, at 64k rates. H.264 delivers even higher quality at lower bitrates. H.264 will deliver the same or better quality when to compared to the same encoding profile in On2. Factors you should consider when choosing a format include the complexity of the content, the desired reach, ability to archive, and licensing considerations.
at
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flash_Player:9:Update:H.264#Q:_What_is_H.264.3F
Are there any tricks to getting the h.264 to look "better" than the h.263? Like, the h.264 version of the video doesn't even look close to as good, and I think that the f4v version looks worse than the mp4, which I don't really understand since they are both h.264 files. The footage is from a canon XL2 and the original source is ntsc 720x480. Is there anything special I should be doing for encoding in h.264 instead of h.263. The video is going to be only for the web.

Why does my photo slideshow quality deteriorate when exported to iDVD?

I have a client whose photos look great in iPhoto & iMovie, but look all pixelated when exported to iDVD. I've tried making a slideshow directly with iDVD, but the photos still look worse than they did in the iPhoto slideshow.
The size of the photos is pretty large (as big as 5233 x 3546), which I'm guessing might be part of the problem, so I tried exporting them from iPhoto with a limitation of 720 x 540, but they still look bad. I expect a decrease in quality once I burn the DVD, but these look bad even in the DVD preview.
Any ideas?

All DVD slideshows are defaulted to 640 x 480 pixels. That's the standard. As long as the photos are in the 4:3 dimension ratio you can leave them at their fullest size. You can try using the Pro Quailty encoding to get better quality images. IMO the best image quality is obtained by creating the slideshow in iDVD from still photos. You don't get the Ken Burns effect, but in my opinion it's a bit over used too many time.
If you are creating your slideshow in iMovie then try the following.
1 - when your slideshow is how you want it quit iMovie.
2 - open iDVD, create a slideshow and open the slideshow edit mode.
3 - drag the iMovie project file into the slideshow pane on the left. (NOTE: this lets iDVD scale the movie file to the TV safe area when played on CRT TV sets.)
This also lets iDVD do the encoding for the iMovie assets and avoids two compressions, one by iMovie when you export to iDVD and the iDVD encoding.
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.≤br>
Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

Clips look worse after render

Hello,
I have added the Color Corrector and RBG Balance filters to my clips, but once I render the timeline, the clips look worse than when they are not rendered. (I play through the time line before I render, and it looks great.) They look really grainy after rendered.
Running FCP 6.0.2
QT 7.4.1
I used the Easy Set up -> HDV-Apple ProRes 422 1080p24
Clips were shot in 24f with XH A1
Sequence settings:
Frame size: 1440x1080 16:9
Rate: 23.98
Render Codec: Apple Pro Res 422
Do I have my settings right?
I appreciate any help on this!

It depends what you are doing with the color correction. Raising the blacks/mids too high will introduce noise in itself.
Another factor is how you are monitoring, FCP always uses a lower res proxy image to better enable real-time playback. You can only really assess the quality on an external pro monitor or at the very least, an excellent TV

Looks worse in the store??

I saw Apple TV today on display in the NYC 5th ave store and Jon Stewart looked worse than VHS. I mean he looked like internet video from 5 years ago. When I came home and looked at an itunes Daily Show on my Powerbook hooked to the same LCD TV (through VGA) it didn't look as bad. Kinda perplexed that Apple would display this thing without the highest quality material. In any case it was enough to keep the box away for the time being. I think VHS decks are selling for $20 these days if at all - not $300.
Oh yes, but the menus looked so cool. Funny I've never heard a restaurant review that was so excited about how the menus looked. It's usually about the food.

...If someone asks me, how such and such a restaurant was last Saturday, I cannot really give a truthful answer as I only, passed by and smelt how bad it was. What I didnt know was what else was cooking inside...but based on that single smell, I made my mind up and told my friends it was horrible...
P.S. a VCR is easily bought on ebay for 50 cents, however, atm, you won't find an AppleTV for quite that cheap...

Why do AME exports look worse than Premiere exports?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for