Avoiding Quality Loss

When I import MiniDV videos into Premiere Elements, the resulting AVI's are of great quality. When I edit in Premiere, even before exporting, the vid quality degrades horizontally. On vertical lines, there are jagged edges. Here's an example:
Imported from MiniDV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw2O4uBqvXk&fmt=6
Exported video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkjTIF7vhGw&fmt=6
Can anybody help me fix this?
My platform:
Camera: Panasonic PV-GS80 (minidv)
Premiere Elements 3.0 (B137 - 9/11/06)
I've used many different export settings, although they don't really matter because I have the problem before exporting. Here's one set of settings:
480x320, 29.97fps
Audio: 128kbps, 44khz, 2 channel 24bit VBR
Compressed, VBR, 2 pass, peak: 2500kbps, avg: 750kbps, allow interlaced processing, keyframe interval: 4sec

Looks like interlacing. If you are going to view on a TV then this is not an issue, however if you view on a monitor the lines will appear. What will be the final viewing medium?? If computer based you would need to deinterlace for export.

Similar Messages

  • Use Smart Objects to rotate single TIFF to avoid quality loss?

    I am archiving numerous historic photographs by scanning the originals as high-resolution TIFF files. I need to rotate the scanned images slightly in Photoshop for presentation/archiving purposes but I am worried about losing some image quality.
    To maintain lossless images, is it necessary to open my TIFF images as "Smart Objects" before rotating them? If so, this increases my file size many-fold on saving. Is there a way to maintain the approximate size of my original TIFF file?
    I am working in Photoshop CS4, Windows 7 64-bit. Thanks for your time,
    Ilford3200

    Any angular transform that isn't in 90 degree steps will cause resampling no matter what method you use. You are looking for something that doesn't exist. A pixel-based SO will resample the same as a native transform. there would only be a difference with vector data due to how vector rasterization works, but that's irrelevant for what you describe.
    Mylenium

  • HELP! iPhoto 08 Quality loss after edits

    HELP! iPhoto 08 Quality loss after edit!
    Any edited version, no matter how minor, causes the file size to be cut in half!
    Original 3872 x 2592 is 3.1mb at 300dpi .
    Edit version 3870x2590 becomes 1.5Mb at 72dpi.
    B&W conversion 3872x2592 becomes 1.6mb at 72dpi.
    Seems like a major degradation! iPhoto 6 wasn't this bad.
    DPI change is not a problem but the file size change sure is!
    PLEASE! any ideas before I upgrade all my files to 08. Please - don't say Aperture, it's still too slow and cumbersome. Trying to avoid Lightroom and stay within Apple sphere.

    It really isn't a big degradation. There is a jpg compression when you make any edit but you might be hard pressed to see the reduction unless you're enlarging/printing the file to very large sizes. The most critical part of an image file is the number of pixels in it.
    The reduction in size depends on the image content of the photos. If there's a lot of the same color, i.e. like lots of blue sky or a same color wall, that type of image will see much more compression than a very intricate photo. Also when removing the color information for a B/W conversion reduces the file size considerably. Do a Google search for jpeg compression and you'll find some very informative descriptions on how the compression is performed and what part image detail plays in the resulting file size.
    You would have to compress the file a number of additional times time before you'd see the change. And with iPhoto's Revert to Original capability, you can start a new edit fresh with the untouched digital negative.
    Do you Twango?
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto 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 written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), 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 08 libraries. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

  • .MTS encode to .MPG Quality Loss

    Hi, I have a Panasonic ADVHD camera that records .MTS files.  I edit the videos in Premiere Pro and I export them as a .mpg (mpeg2).  I've noticed that I lose a lot of quality of the file when I export.  I am using Windows 7 quad core 4gb of ram.  Is there any way to avoid this major quality loss? I've been reading forums and I haven't been able to find anyone else having this problem. Thanks.

    First off.. your files are HDV anamorphic, not HD:
    1440x1080 (1.3333)
    You need to be sure your sequence settings match your media:
    1440x1080 (1.3333)
    With your media file, using proper (matching) sequence settings,
    I exported from Premiere using these default settings:
    Comparison of my encoded .mpg file (middle), with yours (edges):
    How to easily create a sequence that matches your media:
    Also... what is that thing?
    Is it a bell tower clock?

  • IMovie HD6: HDV to AIC to HDV... quality loss?

    Hi All,
    I'm curious, when I use my normal workflow (HDV to AIC (imovie 6) to HDV), does it lose quality?
    If so:
    * Is there a way to avoid this?
    * How much quality is lost? Is there a visual comparison available?
    Thanks for any input!

    Dear catspaw,
    Here are my thoughts, based on my experiences, and what I think I understand of all this..
    1. Standard-definition DV (those little tapes, or the larger 'broadcast' tapes) is pretty much compression-free ..we-ell, strictly speaking there's some, but relatively little, compression used in DV. It looks perfect, although it is slightly compressed. The material recorded onto tape - and imported into iMovie - contains every frame which the camcorder optics see. So editing it is simple: all the frames get copied into iMovie, and you can chop out, or insert, anything you want. Using iMovie HD 6, or earlier, you can then copy the edited material back to a DV camcorder ..all the frames get shuffled out of the computer and back onto tape again. (You can't do that with iMovie '08, as it has no option to Export to Camcorder.) What you see in iMovie - after importing from a DV camcorder - isn't exactly the same as what you've imported, because iMovie runs on a computer, and uses a computer display, and that generally shows complete "progressive" frames of video, whereas a TV ..or TVs with cathode ray tubes; precursors to the latest LCD or DLP or plasma TVs.. will generally show interlaced 'half-frames' one after the other, each comprising half the TV picture, but shown in such rapid succession that they blur into each other, and our brains see a succession of complete frames.
    (..Here's a good visual representation from one of Adam Wilt's pages:
    ..There are two 'fields' of video, each made of half the entire number of lines down the screen, superimposed on each other, and blending into a full frame of video comprised of all the lines. That's what happens on a TV screen when the interlaced 'fields' of video blend together..)
    So standard-def DV is really plain and simple, and there should be no quality loss after shooting, importing, editing, exporting.
    2. Hi-def. A can of worms. There are several different varieties of "hi-def". What we're working with in our 'amateur' movie program, iMovie, is generally the HDV version of hi-def, or the AVCHD version. (And a few people may be working with JVC's version of 'progressive' frames, but with a lower total number of lines down the screen: 720p, instead of 1080i. 720p has 720 pixels down the screen, and records and presents an entire 'progressive' ..one-line-after-the-other.. frame of video at a time, whereas 1080i shows 1080 pixels down the screen, consisting of half that number, 540; all the 'odd-numbered' lines.. at a time, immediately followed by the other half ..the even-numbered lines.. slotting in-between the previous lot. That repeating pair of 540 'interleaved' lines gives a total of 1080 interlaced lines in every frame. Movement appears smoother using 1080i (..after all, the picture is refreshed twice as often as with single-complete-frame 'progessive' video..) but may not look as super-sharp as progressive video, because at any moment there's only half the total information of a frame onscreen. 'Interlaced' video is smoother, and any action flows more "creamily", whereas 'progressive' may be considered 'sharper' (..it is if you freeze a frame..) but more jerky.)
    So our 'amateur' hi-def movies may be recorded as HDV, AVCHD or some other similar format. 'Professional', or broadcast-intended, hi-def may consist of several other non-amateur formats, some of which are completely uncompressed and require extremely fast links between the cameras and recording equipment, and massive-capacity hard discs to capture and edit the huge quantity of data which such cameras..
    ..deliver ..for $150,000. Or here's a remote-control broadcast hi-def camera for (only) $7,995..
    (..Tell me if I'm boring you..)
    The hi-def cameras which we're more likely to be using..
    ..record compressed video in MPEG-2 format, or H.264, or some similar codec. The idea behind HDV was that the companies which make 'consumer-grade' (amateur) camcorders wanted a method to record hi-def - with about 4x the data of standard-def - onto the little miniDV tapes which we were all familiar with. So a method was found to squeeze 4x the data onto a tape which normally records standard-def DV data at 25 megabits per second. The method decided upon was MPEG-2 ..the same codec which is used to squeeze a two-hour Hollywood film onto a little 4.7GB capacity DVD. (Bollywood movies, as distinct from Hollywood movies, tend to be three hours long!)
    If MPEG-2 was good enough for the latest cinema releases, in nice, sharp, sharper-than Super-VHS form, then it was thought to be good enough for 'domestic' hi-def recordings. The only awkward thing about that - from an editing point of view.. (..but which of the camcorder manufacturers are seriously interested in editing..? ..they primarily want to sell 'product' which - according to their advertising - is terrific at simply recording and playing-back video. Like car advertising shows you how wonderful cars are to sit in and for travelling to places, but the adverts don't tell you about how tricky it may be to get into the rear sidelights and replace a blown bulb..) ..is that in HDV there's only one 'real' frame for every 15 frames recorded on the tape. The other 14 are just indications of what's different between the various frames. Therefore, for editing, the 'missing' frames must be rebuilt during import into iMovie.
    Steve Jobs heralded 2005 - at MacWorld, you may remember - as the "Year of HD!" ..It became possible to import and edit hi-def in iMovie ..that is, the HDV version of hi-def, not the uncompressed 'professional' broadcast version of hi-def, of course.. but ONLY with a fast enough computer ..and many weren't fast enough to import and convert HDV to editable-format in real-time (..no mention of it being the year you would import at half, or a quarter, or an eighth, real-time ..ugh-ugh).
    So HDV gets converted to AIC to make it editable ..and then what d'you do with it? ..Few (none of them?) HDV camcorders let you import HDV back to tape from iMovie. No Macs had/have Blu-Ray burners ..although you can burn about 20 mins of hi-def onto normal DVDs with a Mac's normal inbuilt SuperDrive DVD burner with the appropriate software ..DVD Studio Pro, or Toast, etc.
    (..Once again, there was some omission from the hoopla ..yes; you can import HDV! ..yes; you can edit HDV! ..er, no, sorry; no mention that you can't burn a 1 hour hi-def home video onto a hi-def DVD with a Mac ..iDVD would/will only burn in standard-def, and there are no Blu-Ray burners built into Macs..)
    Then came AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec; High Definition). This compresses video even more than HDV (whose compression is pretty much invisible, and is in regular use for broadcast material) by using a different method. And along came progressive hi-def recording, trying to supersede HDV's generally 'interlaced' 1080i hi-def.
    But the problem with progressive, non-interlaced AVCHD is that if there's rapid movement in a scene - if you move the camera, or something rapidly crosses the picture - instead of the "creamy flow" of interlaced video, there's a jerky lurch from one frame to the next. And with the added extra compression of AVCHD this jerkiness can be (..to my mind..) even more horribly evident.
    Anyway, unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced MPEG-2 HDV is pretty much invisible - to me, anyway. The video looks sharp, moves smoothly, looks 'true-to-life' and doesn't have terrible artifacts and jerks.
    Unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced or progressive AVCHD (..which is sometimes described as MPEG-4 or H.264..) - I know that you know this, but I'm also writing for others here - isn't quite as simple as doing the same for tape-based MPEG-2 hi-def HDV. Here's all the gobbledegook about what AVCHD can consist of.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_AVC
    ..Oh, and here's a bit about the "usability" of AVCHD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
    There are many more 'varieties' of encoding in AVCHD than in 'simpler' hi-def, such as HDV. There's less data sent in an AVCHD data stream than HDV (..AVCHD has jumped from 17MBits/sec to 24MBits/sec ..just below HDV's 25MBits/sec..) so the video is more compressed than HDV. And there are all sorts of video formats (interlaced, progressive, HD, 'Full' HD) which are recorded by different cameras under the all-embracing 'AVCHD' label. iMovie - or a Mac - has to work much harder to unscramble and convert the more-compressed AVCHD format(s) than uncompressing HDV. And has to work harder to compress the output of iMovie to H.264 (an AVCHD codec) than when re-compressing to MPEG-2 (the codec for standard-def DVDs and hi-def HDV).
    To - finally! - come back to your question "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." I'd say that there ARE advantages in using tape-based vidcams for editing purposes ..using your two categories:
    1. Non-hi-def tape-based DV is ..to all intents and purposes.. lossless. And the material can be imported in real-time, and be output - with no loss - in real-time, too, using any Mac from an old G3 onwards. Importing non-tape material into iMovie ..e.g; miniDVDs, or chip-based, more compressed video.. is more long-winded, and generally has to go through various external bits of software (..e.g; MPEG Streamclip or somesuch..) to put it into a format that's editable in iMovie. AVCHD can, theoretically - as 'AVC', without the 'HD' - be used for recording in standard-def, but there are currently few AVCHD camcorders which are built to record standard-def video as well ..there is the Sony HDR-SR12. But only iMovie running on an Intel-powered Mac will decode AVCHD, apart from separate standalone Mac software such as 'Voltaic'.
    2. Hi-def tape-based recording IS an advantage on anything that's less than the fastest, or highest-powered, of Macs, because it needs less "horsepower" to "unpack" the compressed data and to get it into an editable format through recovering, or rebuilding, the necessary individual frames. I think it's an advantage in every case, as not only can tape-based hi-def be edited on older, slower Macs (including pre-Intel Macs) but also:
    (a) HDV data's less compressed, and so motion is generally expressed - currently - more "fluidly" than with the more compressed hard-disc or chip-stored AVCHD,
    (b) HDV original material is "self-archived" onto its tapes ..you don't have to "empty" a camcorder's hard disc or memory chips onto something else - such as a separate hard drive - in order to re-use, or continue using, the camcorder: you just drop in another cheap 1-hour tape,
    (c) Tape-containing camcorders tend to be heavier, less lightweight, than fewer-moving-parts chip-based AVCHD camcorders. They're therefore inherently less "wobbly" and don't tremble so much in your hand ..that gives smoother, less "jiggled-about" recordings ..even taking into account the stabilisation built into most camcorders,
    (d) Tape-based camcorders are less likely to lose an entire 'shoot' by being dropped or mis-treated. Material already recorded onto a tape will not be damaged if you drop the camera and its tape-heads thereby become misaligned. The data can be recovered by simply ejecting the tape and popping it into another camcorder. If a hard-disc camcorder is dropped, subsequent head misalignment may mean that all data already on the hard disc is irrecoverable. If a memory chip becomes corrupted, all data may similarly become irrecoverable. If a tape becomes damaged, it's usually only a few seconds' worth which be lost. (..I dropped a tape-based camcorder in the sea when I was trying to get shots of waves coming in onto the beach from an offshore viewpoint, and a wave washed right over me and knocked me down. The camcorder was a write-off, but I managed to prise the tape out, and recover the 30 minutes of movie I'd already recorded. I don't really want to test it, but I have doubts about whether I'd have been able to recover my video from a similarly-drowned hard-disc based camcorder ..maybe, in the interests of factual objectivity I'll try it some day with an old, no-longer-used 2.5" hard disc..)
    (e) AVCHD camcorders - unless you're looking at 'semi-pro' or professional 'cost-a-plenty' record-to-chip camcorders, or that Sony HD12..
    ..are generally built for "point-and-shoot" amateurs. This means that AVCHD camcorders generally do not have the assortment of manual controls which you find on most tape-based HDV camcorders (..because the camcorder makers also aim, or aimed, HDV at low-cost broadcast users, too). There's usually far greater flexibility and more shooting options (shutter speeds, exposure, audio handling) on tape-based HDV camcorders than can be found on AVCHD camcorders. If you're just pointing and shooting, that doesn't matter ..but if you want to shoot good-looking video, there are generally - and it is a generalisation - more adjustment options to be found on a tape-based camcorder than on a chip-based or hard-disc AVCHD camcorder. In my experience - yours may be different - people tempted by AVCHD camcorders tend to buy (..and manufacturers tend to publicise..) high pixel counts (like "Full HD 1920x1080") and that magic word "progressive" (perhaps because it has the flavour, in English, of "futuristic" or "more advanced") rather than their being concerned with choices of apertures or shutter speeds and the clearest representation of what the camcorder's pointing at.
    In summary ..at last!.. "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." Yes; the advantages, I believe, are that HDV converts fast into AIC for editing; my perception is that HDV delivers smoother action (onscreen movement) than AVCHD; and with a suitable deck..
    ..HDV can be returned back to tape, whereas it's more long-winded and needs more subterfuge to export AVCHD back to a chip, or a camcorder's hard disc, for in-camera replay ..and thence out to an HDTV.
    As always, these are simply my opinions ..others may disagree.

  • Is there a way to reinstall an older version to avoid the loss of my valuable extensions and a feature without first uninstalling the current ve

    Is there a way to reinstall an older version to avoid the loss of my valuable extensions an a feature (where there are no add-on upgrades) without first uninstalling the current version.
    A great feature now missing from the 34 or 35 version forward, is where I could previously grab a tab, and drop it into my bookmarks and if necessary (which is always), simultaneously scroll up or down with the mouse and drop it in. NOW, i either have to scroll the bookmarks first and then grab and drop, or I have to drag the tab over to the top or bottom of the bookmarks screen for the system to recognize that it's there before it scrolls for me, then drop it to the correct location. Was this feature too difficult to keep from crashes occurring? This feature compensated for a bookmarks save window feature lost in version 3+ for which there is no add-on currently.
    i wish you guys would leave the awesome features alone. Really. You guys help and hurt us with every new version.

    Direct Download Links for Adobe Software
    Mylenium

  • Significant quality loss and jagged diagonal lines when exporting from FCP

    I've been working on this problem for several days and I'm going insane! Every time I export my movie from Final Cut, there is a significant quality loss. It is most noticeable in two ways: diagonal lines become very jagged (looking somewhat like diagonal lines in an older video game -- more a diagonal sequence of blocks); also, in some areas such as faces, the colors get a little blurry and there seems to some "pooling" of colors around the edges of the face.
    I'm pretty sure the problem's not in capture: the Quicktime clips that I captured from the camera are all pristine. When I play them in Quicktime, I can blow them up several times their original size, and they maintain their sharp lines. (I also Reverse Telecined them all with Cinema Tools, if that's relevant.) I also know the problem's not just my computer monitor; when I play these movies on my external monitor and TV, they look bad too. The clips look bad after I bring them into Final Cut, and while I'm editing, but at first I figured that was because Final Cut sometimes doesn't show full resolution in the timeline. Still, when I export, the quality of the original captures just isn't there.
    Some details:
    Captured from 24A progressive, Sony HVR V1U HDV.
    Using Final Cut 6.0.1, Compressor 3.0.1, Quicktime 7.2.0, OS 10.4.10 (all the most recent versions I believe).
    I've exported in many different ways: using Compressor (and have tried a number of different settings: the DVD Best Quality 90 Minutes default Setting, as well as using a variety of bit rates from 3.0-8.0, One pass CBR, Two pass CBR, Two pass VBR, Two pass VBR best; Video Formats NTSC, HD 1440x1080...I have tried many combinations. Regardless of the size of the m2v created, the files seem to have the same problem over and over. I've also tried exporting from Final Cut as a Quicktime Movie and with Quicktime Conversion. Same result. I also tried using different compressors with my Final Cut sequence: Apple Intermediate Codec (which I used when capturing -- you have to with the Sony HVR), HDV 1080p24, HDV 1080i60, Apple Pro Res 422, H.264...
    What's happening? Why is Final Cut turning my nice pristine captures into jagged foulness? What can I try that I haven't yet?

    Welcome to the forums!
    Unfortunately, you seem to have tried everything I can think of, and I don't have the latest versions of FCP to know if it is a bug. However, in the off chance that you haven't given this a shot:
    Take a problematic 10 second section of your timeline (set in and out points) and the Export -> Quicktime (not QT Conversion) and make sure that you have it on Quality settings that you captured, and select the "Make Self Contained" box.
    Look at that in Quicktime and see if it's bad. If it's not problematic, use that video file in Compressor for your render.
    Hope that helps!
    ~Luke

  • Tif export quality loss

    hi,
    i exported a tif sequence from a mp4 in premiere (cs6) to do some compositing on it. the exported images look the same but when doing some color correction on it the tif sequence reveals that it's in lower quality.
    the left side is the tif export with significant less detail.
    i also tried ae with color management but i always had the same problem.
    rendering with 'use max depth' and 'use max quality' did not solve the problem.
    did i miss something or is premiere processing some colors wrong internally?
    (as a sidenote, quicktime player, nuke, vegas12 worked just fine)

    hi,
    it looks like the problem is related to mpeg 4. i did not have time to do further testing. here is the file info:
    Format                         : MPEG-4 Visual
    Format profile                 : Advanced Simple@L3
    Format settings, BVOP          : Yes
    Format settings, QPel          : No
    Format settings, GMC           : No warppoints
    Format settings, Matrix        : Default (H.263)
    it did not occur with other videos.
    the interesting thing is that the quality is fine within the timeline. but upon output there is a quality loss.
    no, output is 8bit. as mentioned in the first post 'use max depth' did not solve the problem.
    quicktime based applications did not have the issue.
    as for the color shift problem i thought it is related to the same issue but it was something different and is fixed now. i was unable to edit the post to remove it.

  • Sound Quality Loss

    When I create a track on an audio instrument track using the Vienna Symphonic Library Special Edition, the sounds are great. But then, when I export it to an audio track in order to save room, the sound quality goes way down. Is this because I am using the built-in audio on my macbook pro? 16 and 24 bit exporting doesn't seem to make a difference.

    Colin, theorectically, there should be no difference.
    theory sometimes lets us down.
    it does here.
    i find the same thing: everything sounds like a million bucks then you press bounce or export and the resulting file sounds like a quarter of a million.
    some things you can do to keep up the dub quality are: get the instrument to peak at no more than -6 on logics meter.
    keep the playback tracks level down, especially if you have a full orchestra going (25-40 tracks). mine end up somewhere around -18.
    a frozen track results in a 32bit file. 24bit is the max for export and bounce.
    i can hear a difference there too.
    this is nothing compared to the quality loss, as in Waveburner, when dropping to 16bit for CDs...... THAT is very noticable.
    let's not mention CD to mp3(:
    maybe things will change in a future edition of logic where 32bit files may be used anywhere.
    make sure you are listening to the playback at the same level (spl) as before dubbing.
    The built in audio has nothing to do with the quality of a bounce, it only outputs the result.
    apples conversion is not top grade, never has been.
    it might be time to invest in a pro D/A. Benchmark make a beauty.
    if you don't need 8in/8out, just go for a 2in/2out. at the same price point, the 2/2 should be of better quality.
    the loss with digital is nowhere near as bad as with analog, if that makes you feel any better.
    best, david r.

  • Quality Loss When Importing Video into Timeline...Any Ideas??

    Hey all -
    I'm fairly new to CS4, so excuse me if this question is a little dumb.
    I've offered to edit a friend's actor showreel to familiarize myself with CS4. He gave me a bunch of HD clips: they're .MOV files, and are 1920x1080 and 23.976fps.
    I can import a clip and drag it into the preview screen in the middle: it looks fine. However, when I drag it onto the timeline, it suddenly looks faded and blurred. It's not horrible, but it loses the vibrancy of color, the sharpness and the contrast of the original clip. A lot of the quality is gone.
    I've tried opening the project with a number of different settings, no difference. I thought it might look OK when I exported it, but it looks just like it does on the timeline monitor: a little washed-out, blurred, just not as nice as the original.....
    I'd hate to present it to my pal looking like this, can anyone suggest a solution? I tried everything I could think of already....
    Thanks!!
    B

    Hi Hunt -
    many thanks for your reply. I've spent the last couple of days trying to follow your advice and do more research.....still no luck.
    Firstly, I upgraded my OS to Windows 7, thought it might help for some reason. Didn't. I downloaded a bunch of codec packs.
    Gspot reports:
    Codec: AVC1
    Name: H.264
    Codec Status: undetermined
    So I'm basically running through all the possible output formats, but really it doesn't seem to be an encoding problem: the quality loss happens as soon as I move the file from the preview screen to the timeline.
    If you have any othe suggestions I'be very pleased!!
    Thanks
    Bruce

  • Another quality loss issue: exporting

    I see a lot of people have problems with quality loss.
    I am importing an movie of an animated screengrab (using Snapzpro). This movie looks great - nice and sharp when viewed in QT. After importing into iMovie it's slightly blurred, notr a big deal just looks a bit "warm".
    However when I export it looks bad, diagonal lines are very jagged. I've tried export at Full quality, I've tried expert settings with DV-PAL and many other codecs.
    It's just about OK if I use "none", and then import into QT Pro and export with DV-PAL - what I don't understand is why I can't just use DV-PAL direct from iMovie.
    Is this something I just have to put up with? Would it better with Final Cut Express?

    Actually I discovered since posting the question, that the dimension is something to due with it, but too small rather than too large. I was capturing at 640 x 480 and I discovered that capturing 768 x 576.
    I also think that the nature of the image is crucial. This is large scale musical notation - lots of diagonal black and white straight lines so any jaggedness becomes very obvious.
    What I still don't understand is why the export from iMovie using DV PAL is not as good as the export from QT using DV PAL - I have to export from iMovie with no compression, then re export from QT Pro.
    Although I,m totally ready to accept this is a human operator error, I've also seen lots of people say iMovie does degrade on importing which is why I wonder if I need final Cut Express or Pro

  • Huge quality loss in iMove '11

    Hello fellow iMovie users.
    Yesterday I upgraded to iLife 11 to get the new iMovie and its "new" audio editing capabilities. I could ofcourse just buy it from Mac App Store, but I am principally against App Store and its strict rules, so I choosed to get it the old way.
    Anyway, I liked what i saw. Finally the new iMovie was about as good as the five year old one, and had some neat features like chroma key and cropping.
    So I decided to start practicing and create a short video based on some old DV-videos filmed with my Canon MV950 DV-PAL camera.
    I imported the footage into iMovie, and noticed some significant quality loss after the import.
    And it get worse. After I exported the video, it seems like it is heavily compressed, even if I'm exporting to QuickTime and selects the highest quality possible.
    I have some screenshots to show you the differences.
    This is the original DV-footage.
    The imported video. Notice the higher compression and the choppy edges.
    And this is the exported video. Notice the insanely bad quality, especially in dark areas.
    Is there any way to fix this, or do I have go back to iMovie HD?
    PS. Sorry if my post is a bit unreadable. I'm from Norway.

    Steve,
    While I agree everyone should have owned a HD camera by now, there are a lot of low-end SD cameras that are still being sold today. In this era of our economy, consumers are sensitive to prices; especially low or lower prices.
    And unlike the video camcorder boom of the 80s with Sony introducing the Video8 handycam (shoulder mounted camcorder), people today do not video using traditional camcorders. Most either do it through a digital camera, DSLR, iPhone or blogger cameras and are already mostly in an acceptable progressive format. There is nothing wrong with DV style cam. Canon GL-2 and the Panasonic DVX-100 are still commanding such a very high price tag for cameras of older technology and still being repaired goes to show that there are people out there still using it.
    If one can convert quality interlaced footage into quality progressive footage, you can use that footage and create good results using iMovie 11. I agree with you and Tom that iMovie 11 captures interlaced footage in full. But what's the use if it can't make a good product in the end that looks like what iMovie 6HD can do and when there are PC software out there including the free Windows Movie Maker that can do this with no problem.
    Consumers, unlike some of us, only relate to past software used and are usually benign to the fact of progressive vs interlaced. I have dealt with some mis-informed customers that they believed FULL HD only means 1080p at 60fps; anything else is not. I digress.
    With Mac users, they don't necessarily follow the same upgrade frequency as PC users either. Macs generally last a lot longer between upgrades compared to a PC because they don't have to run a barage of virus/spam/anti-malware growing definition files which ultimately slow an otherwise healthy PC down. Macs do not have to worry about this.

  • Quality loss after exporting 1280 x 960 30fps footage

    Hello everyone,
    Everytime I edit and export footage shot with my GoPro camera (1280x960p, 30fps) the quality gets a little less. Very frustrating as I am clueless after a long time of looking for what I'm doing wrong..
    I use Premiere Pro Version 4.2.1
    Sequence presets:
    General
    Editing mode: Desktop
    Timebase: 29,97fps
    Video Settings
    Frame size: 1280h 960v (1,0000)
    Frame rate: 29,97 frames/second
    Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels (1.0)
    Fields: No Fields (Progressive Scan)
    Export settings:
    Format: H.264
    Preset: Custom
    TV Standard: NTSC
    Frame Width: 1280
    Frame Height: 960
    Frame Rate (fps) 29.97
    Field Order: None (Progressive)
    Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels.
    Has anybody got an idea what could help here?

    Thanks for the replies guys, but unfortunately the problem isn't really solved yet..
    I tried checking the maximum render quality, but that only resulted in my laptop not being able to smoothly play the exported video.
    Filming with the 1280 x 720 setting is possible, but then the footage just doesn't look that sharp.. (as I can't film in 60fps, I got the first GoPro 960).
    I installed Cineform and converted a little test video to AVI. This resulted in an export video without quality loss, but the conversion with Cineform took way too long for it to be a practical solution cause I edit a lot.
    At last, Abhishek Kapoor, I couldn't find the video setting you're talking about to increase the maximum bitrate.
    Any other ideas that might work?

  • Video quality loss

    I am importing video from a DVD using "Mac the Ripper", then converting the VOB files using "Video converter for mac 3.2.6".
    Making up the my movie in Imovie 06 sending it to Idvd 08, and then burning a disc image using the best performance setting.
    This all works fine except the quality from the original DVD is much better than the final result, being digital I thought there would not be much quality loss.
    Is there a better way to achieve this without losing video quality. Or should I use different settings in any of the programs, (I have not changed settings from default setting in "Mac the Ripper" or "Video Converter".
    Any advice appreciated, I am new to this process, but apart from quality loss I am having success.

    Noted Bazmond, but we have to be careful!
    You need to convert the VOB files back to DV which iMovie is designed to handle. For that you need mpegStreamclip:
    http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/video/mpegstreamclip.html
    which is free, but you must also have the Apple mpeg2 plugin :
    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mpeg2/
    which is a mere $20.
    Another possibility is to use DVDxDV:
    http://www.dvdxdv.com/NewFolderLookSite/Products/DVDxDV.overview.htm
    which costs $25.
    Obviously the foregoing only applies to DVDs you have made yourself, or other home-made DVDs that have been given to you. It will NOT work on copy-protected commercial DVDs, which in any case would be illegal.

  • Quality loss when converting pro res to mp4

    Hi
    I have a problem with the workflow from After Effects to a final .mp4 video.
    I have been editing time lapses in After Effects, and exporting them as Pro Res HQ- all good so far. However, I can´t seems to be able to convert the Pro Res file to a .mp4 (or quick time .mov for that matter) without significant quality loss. This happens if I convert using adobe media encoder, or if I import the Pro Res files to Premiere and export through Premiere.
    However, if I import the original JPG/TIFs to Premiere, and export using the exact same setting- I get a better result. Also, when I have uploaded the original Pro Res HQ file to vimeo, they do a much better job of converting it than Media Encoder or Premiere do when I convert to .mp4 (I´m aware that it is not the same conversion, but still..).
    So my conclusion must be that AME and PP does not convert from Pro Res to other codecs very well? I have to work on my files in AE, and I need .mp4 as the final product (requirement for uploading to a stock site). How do I do this without getting lower quality video than if my workflow and export was only in Premiere? After Effects does not render out .mp4 very well it seems...
    A screenshot showing the setting I use when exporting from PP or AME. The settings produce a good result when exporting other files from PP, but not the Pro Res files I have exporter from AE.
    Thanks for your input!

    Figured it out after testing various settings. I read an article describing the keyframe interval setting at 1 as the best option- clearly that was wrong! After searching I found a better description of keyframe interval: "Having too many keyframes severely reduces quality, because the efficiency of reusing image areas from previous frames is completely lost at each keyframe – the encoder has to "start over" at every keyframe. Therefore, we want as few keyframes as possible to achieve the highest quality for the given target bitrate."
    Tested with keyframe settings 25 and 75- both seem fine.
    Thanks for the feedback

Maybe you are looking for