Comparing FCP and Media 100 file sizes

Hi again,
As suggested in the response to my prior question, one of the areas I could use help with for comparing FCP with our access studio's current Media 100 systems is the relative files sizes that can be expected with each. As I mentioned before, the feedback we got from our high school was that FCP seems to create very much larger working files than Media 100. Is that a fair comparison?
As an example, if you have an hour of material on DV, how much disk space do you expect it to take on each of the systems when you bring it in for editing?
(I suppose this gets back to what the normal working file formats are on both systems - I don't know)
It seemed to be suggested that in the course of editing that possibly FCP created a lot more files (e.g. more disk space) than Media 100. Again is that fair, and to what degree?
Thanks
Bob
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Well, not knowing how Media 100 captures this footage
puts us at a disadvantage.
Me too
FCP captures DV at 13.64GB/hour. This is NATIVE
resolution...no compression whatsoever. A simple
file transfer.
OK, that is a helpful start.
Does Media 100 do this, or does it
capture it using one of it's codecs?
Not really knowing that is part of my problem. Media 100 started with analog video capture which must have used a codec, and which I think creates a proprietary compressed file format. I have to suspect that DV intake is converted to that same format. If I understand correctly the analog intake offers options for the compression level so the files sizes will vary, but my impression is that the common ones are considerably smaller than 13 GB/h.
The main issue I am trying to get a handle on is that the feedback we got from the high school was that "a typical 30 min. project comes in at over 100 GB". By comparison we input a 3 1/2 hour tape on the Media 100 and use on the order of 30 GB - something like 8 GB/hour or 4 GB for a half hour. Comparing against that report from the school for FCP there seems to be some sort of disconnect that I am trying to resolve. One hint was the thought that maybe the 100 GB included additional working files beyond the basic input files - working files generated during editing I suppose. By comparison Media 100 seems to generate a minimal amount of extra files.

Similar Messages

Trying to compare FCP with Media 100 for a Public Access studio

Hi all,
I am new here. I do most of the review of products for our Public Access studio. We have a couple of existing Media 100 systems and we are considering adding or upgrading our NLE capabilities. Our studio manager had a chance to look at FCP being used at our high school and she came back with a number of impressions that I wonder about and would like to vet with people who know more about FCP. So, any comments would be helpful.
The high school media person demo’d FCP for her and let her play with it a bit. After looking at it herself, she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before. That is fairly typical of the people doing Public Access production in our town.
However, it looks to her like there are a lot of tools that come with FCP that Media 100 either doesn't have or are not easily found in it. For example, she feels FCP’s set up looks more complicated and confusing compared to Media 100’s, but in FCP you can have up to 99 video lines in a program, where with Media 100 we're just going back and forth between the a and b video lines. Plus you can have up to 99 Audio tracks on FCP as well, where our max at the moment is 8. Now as to when you would need 99 video or audio tracks, she is not sure, but it is definitely a capability that we don't have in Media 100.
Titling looked easier to her on Media 100. With FCP there were a lot of filters involved and hoops to jump through, plus she couldn't do a word with each letter a different color, for example, unless she did each letter on a different track.
The media person warned her that FCP is really large. Apparently the program itself takes up like 35 GB of space on the hard drive, and a typical 30 min. project comes in at over 100 GB! She couldn't believe it, but she was assured it’s true. Even with our longest programs, like like a School Committee meeting thqat went 3 1/2 hours, it would came in at a max of 30 GB on the Media 100. She got the impression this big difference was so because Final Cut renders everything you do, including rendering any edits you make on your footage as new files, and stores it all in a huge folder. She thinks with Media 100, you import the footage and use it as is - the only things it will render are screen freezes, transitions, and color effects. Is that sort of comparison correct (and fair), or is something being missed?
She says in her experience that something like iMovie is the most basic as far as what you can do, then Ulead would be a step above that- the editing is basically the same, but you have a few more options. Media 100 would be next as far as ease of use and understanding of the program. FCP seemed a little confusing even to her. Comments or insights?
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Welcome to the family, maybe.
I switched from M100 about four years ago, I was never so glad to give that company the boot. A direct comparison just isn't possible but I'll try to answer some questions. There is a Media 100 forum on creativecow.net.
she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before.< </div>
Yes, absolutely, M100 has always had an elegant and refined interface. However, the paradigm in FCP is not opaque. It's far more interesting, deeper, more complex. So, yes, it's a bit tougher to grasp. But don't sell your students/users short. They'll get it.
99 tracks is marketing BS. The serious work is done with nesting. How many public access pieces need more than 5 or 10 video tracks?
Titling in FCP depends on third party filters like Boris or tools like LiveType and Motion. The basic titling tools in FCP are lame and difficult to use, in my opinion, compared to the elegant titler in M100 (as long as you don't launch Graffiti).
The installation includes tens of gigs of animation, movie and music loop resources that you don't need to load. The suite includes Motion, LiveType, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and FCP.
If you're shooting DV, a 3-1/2 hour show is, umm, well, you look it up, DV is DV. But if you're capturing 3 hours from each of three cameras, that's a lot of DV.
Rendering depends on lots of things. M100's native codec handles lots of realtime stuff that FCP can't unless you've got a huge Macintosh. Previewing is not a big deal at lower rez in FCP, you get used to it. .
FCP is really scary. You can look at thousands of "I'm in way over my head, HELP!" posts here. But all those folks find they slip right into the Apple paradigm, the weirdly new workflow and start exploring the wide new world of serious editing that FCP opens up. You'll hate it for a few months because it's so dramatically different from M100. You'll love it, though.
If you want to continue the thread, give the rest of the disaffected former M100 users a few days to post their comments. There are many of us here. Then maybe start a new thread, one question at a time.
bogiesan

FCP vs Media 100 Colour Space

I have a client who will not digitise material into FCP because he says that the colour space in his Media 100 system is far superior.
He is editing DV material via firewire to FCP and component analogue to Media 100, (yes I know the perils of going in via analogue from DV to a DV codec... but he insists...)
DV vs analogue arguments aside, is the colour space in Media 100 superior?
Actually, what is colour space? I get the concept, (just,) in Photoshop but is there a difference for editing systems.
I was once told that the DV encoding system was better in Avids than in FCP, but I'm unsure of the quality of my source information... So now I'm wondering if there is a difference on all edit systems.
Finally, if there is / isn't a difference in the DV codec, does it make a difference for uncompressed material.
Many thanks,
LEE

Here are some things to be aware of:
Media 100 picture size is either 640 x 480 or 720 x 486. DV picture size is 720 x 480. Those numbers don't convert easily. There will be jittery motions during pans and when people move. The only way to combat this is to make FCP use the D1 picture size of 720 x 486. My experience is this never looks good.
Everything that will be recompressed will have to go through the P6000 board of the Media 100. This takes FOREVER! It takes me 5 hours to encode a 1 hour DVD on my Media 100, which has 2 1GHz processors. My 700 MHz iMac at home encodes a 1 hour DVD in less time. The P6000 hardware slows encoding to other formats way down.
There is a difference from one codec to the next. But capturing in one Codec 1 and converting to Codec 2 to try to make up for poor quality of Codec 2 will not help. Codec 2's quality problems will still be there. It's the nature of Codec 2. Graeme is right in saying that it will ruin picture quality. On top of Codec 2's problems, you're adding a generation. It's like transferring from DV to Beta, and then recording Beta to VHS because the Beta quality is better than VHS, even when your final output is intended to be VHS. It makes more sense to go DV to VHS in the first place.
Unless you intend to edit on Media 100, there is no point in digitizing to it. Save the hassle, the time, the money, and the quality by keeping everything native DV. Have your client read these posts if he still won't budge. We are experienced in this field.
By the way, before anyone says anything about me comparing DV to VHS, that is not my intention. I threw obvious formats out there to show workflow orders and to give an analogy. DV is a very good codec. I will tell you that I like M100 better, but DV is not that far behind. I use DV at home, and I am very happy with the results. In fact, I was debating between M100 and FCP at home for my side business of wedding videos, and have decided to go the FCP route due to quality and cost efficiency. DV is not VHS quality. It is far beyond VHS. DV is far beyond DVD quality. I feel DV is above even Beta SP.

Export QuickTime file with new audio and maintain the file size and quality as the original.

I shot some footage for a client yesterday and ran into an issue. To make a long story short I have QuickTime mov files shot with my Panasonic GH4 that have a buzzing sound in the audio track. I have clean audio from a recorder that can be sync'd. Is there a way for me to do this for the client and deliver them as the same QuickTime file but with the clean audio and keep the file size close to the original and not have quality loss in the image?
If so I will probably put all of the spanned clips together from each interview and sync the audio before delivery. I am just not sure which codec will give the client the same quality footage compared to the originals and not have a massive difference in the overall file size. They did request that they be Quicktime MOV files though so that is a must.
I don't see this as an option in the codecs in the export settings in PP, but is there a way to export as ProRes or another MAC native codec that will save them from having to convert it on their end? I am on a PC with Adobe CS5.5 so I am not too familiar with MACs, but from what I understand they would need to convert the files if I sent them straight out of the camera.
I found some related search results for this but they pertained to "Best quality" for export. I am not sure how the varying options work but I don't want to create files that are considerably larger, just not less quality.
If anyone has experience with this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Cole

Here's the workflow: I imported the video footage into iMovie '08 and did my edits. Then I exported it (share) to my desktop with compression set @ 740 X 480. Then I used QuickTime Pro to fix the audio track. The file plays perfectly with both audio tracks working. It's a QuickTime file (.mov).
I hope this jars any replies as to why the file when uploaded to my iWeb gallery drops the second audio track.
Hmm,
Jack

Nio ByteBuffer and memory-mapped file size limitation

I have a question/issue regarding ByteBuffer and memory-mapped file size limitations. I recently started using NIO FileChannels and ByteBuffers to store and process buffers of binary data. Until now, the maximum individual ByteBuffer/memory-mapped file size I have needed to process was around 80MB.
However, I need to now begin processing larger buffers of binary data from a new source. Initial testing with buffer sizes above 100MB result in IOExceptions (java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Map failed).
I am using 32bit Windows XP; 2GB of memory (typically 1.3 to 1.5GB free); Java version 1.6.0_03; with -Xmx set to 1280m. Decreasing the Java heap max size down 768m does result in the ability to memory map larger buffers to files, but never bigger than roughly 500MB. However, the application that uses this code contains other components that require the -xMx option to be set to 1280.
The following simple code segment executed by itself will produce the IOException for me when executed using -Xmx1280m. If I use -Xmx768m, I can increase the buffer size up to around 300MB, but never to a size that I would think I could map.
try
String mapFile = "C:/temp/" + UUID.randomUUID().toString() + ".tmp";
FileChannel rwChan = new RandomAccessFile( mapFile, "rw").getChannel();
ByteBuffer byteBuffer = rwChan.map( FileChannel.MapMode.READ_WRITE,
0, 100000000 );
rwChan.close();
catch( Exception e )
e.printStackTrace();
I am hoping that someone can shed some light on the factors that affect the amount of data that may be memory mapped to/in a file at one time. I have investigated this for some time now and based on my understanding of how memory mapped files are supposed to work, I would think that I could map ByteBuffers to files larger than 500MB. I believe that address space plays a role, but I admittedly am no OS address space expert.
Thanks in advance for any input.
Regards- KJ

See the workaround in http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4724038

Do i need acrobat pro to open a pdf i created in quark and reduce the file size?

do i need acrobat pro to open a pdf i created in quark and reduce the file size?

i'll try that! thank you.
Daniel Flavin <mailto:[email protected]>
June 24, 2014 at 3:23 PM
>
do i need acrobat pro to open a pdf i created in quark and
reduce the file size?
created by Daniel Flavin
<https://forums.adobe.com/people/Daniel+Flavin> in /Creating, Editing
& Exporting PDFs/ - View the full discussion
<https://forums.adobe.com/message/6493113#6493113>

Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

Go to Image>Resize>image size.
For purpose of web posting, go to File>save for web.

Exporting Lower Third from FCP for Media 100 use

I'm exporting out a lower third for someone else to use in Media 100. It is set to alpha+RGB. The exported QT file has a black background that I assumed would be keyed out once brought in to Media 100 and layered over an interview, but it's all black. Is it something I'm doing wrong in FCP or on the other end in Media 100?
Power Mac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.7) Dual 2.7 GHZ 4 GB SDRAM

You need to use the Animation Codec with colors set to Millions+ (the "+" is your alpha channel) also, you should make sure your lower third is not rendered.
Patrick

Poor interface with Adobe CS4 and setting the file size for emails

In frustrations over an unfixed bug in iPhoto (slide shows) in addition to too many limitations, I am trying out Aperture. So far it has been a big disappointment. I like Photoshop (CS4) with layers etc. as well as Adobe Camera Raw, both of which I intend to continue using. The workflow in Aperture appears disappointing (Photoshop) and totally absent (Adobe Camera Raw). It seems like Apple's attempt to capture some of Adobe's market share has has happened on the consumer's expense? Besides disappointing functionality, I have run into a surprising problem: No matter how I set the email photo export preset in preferences, the attachment shows up as a large file when exported to Entourage. The size does not change no matter how I set this preference.
My 21 years of loyalty and enthusiasm towards Apple has taken some heavy blows lately. With some 15000 photos and 35+ albums in iPhoto, I don't see too many alternatives. Can someone tell me if there is a way around these problems.

First of all I am not comparing Aperture to Photoshop by expecting the layers function. It is the interface between the two I am questioning. We obviously also have different expectations to Aperture. Mine are solely based on my experiences with iPhoto and what Apple tells me on their website:" Aperture 3 is a professional photography application that lets you refine images, showcase your photography, and manage massive photo libraries. Aperture 3 gives you all the easy-to-use tools you need to import, organize, compare, enhance, and share your photos." I do not find a single sentence stating that it is primarily a "Raw image editor processor" as you are defining it. I was not looking for a new raw editor. I was, however, based on Apple's claims above, expecting a combined advanced editing an photo library application. As such I also expected layers. That is not comparing it to Photoshop. Naturally our views are based on expectations and experiences, and ours are just different, that is all.

Adobe Media Encoder - File Size HUGE. HELP

I have a MPG that is 216mb. When I attempt to use Media Encoder 5 or 5.5 the estimated file size for a 640 x 480 f4v is 26456mb.
I have used the computer at my school with the same file and the file size is 2mb. What am I doing wrong at home? I can't image encoder can make a 216mb file become 2.6 gb.
Please help.
Howard

Please drop the source clip into MediaInfo and check what it says the duration is. (If you don't have MediaInfo, you can download it for free from the Internet.) If possible, please post a link to the clip so that we can download it and check it out for ourselves.
Two details catch my eye in the Source Summary. Both screenshots show that the field order is Unknown and that the clip has no audio. I doubt either of those details accounts for the incorrect duration, but the unknown field order, at least, makes me wonder whether AME is having trouble interpretting the footage correctly. I suggest going to the Interpret Footage dialog (right-click on the clip in AME's queue and select Interpret Footage), and setting the Field Order to the correct value [Upper Field First, Lower Field First, or No Fields (Progressive Scan)]. While you're there, check whether the frame rate is accurate--according to the screenshot, it's 30.000 fps. Is that accurate?

FILE and FTP Adapter file size limit

Hi,
Oracle SOA Suite ESB related:
I see that there is a file size limit of 7MB for transferring using File and FTP adapter and that debatching can be used to overcome this issue. Also see that debatching can be done only for strucutred files.
1) What can be done to transfer unstructured files larger than 7MB from one server to the other using FTP adapter?
2) For structured files, could someone help me in debatching a file with the following structure.
000|SEC-US-MF|1234|POPOC|679
100|PO_226312|1234|7130667
200|PO_226312|1234|Line_id_1
300|Line_id_1|1234|Location_ID_1
400|Location_ID_1|1234|Dist_ID_1
100|PO_226355|1234|7136890
200|PO_226355|1234|Line_id_2
300|Line_id_2|1234|Location_ID_2
400|Location_ID_2|1234|Dist_ID_2
100|PO_226355|1234|7136890
200|PO_226355|1234|Line_id_N
300|Line_id_N|1234|Location_ID_N
400|Location_ID_N|1234|Dist_ID_N
999|SSS|1234|88|158
I would need a the complete data in a single file at the destination for each file in the source. If there are as many number of files as the number of batches at the destination, I would need the file output file structure be as follows:
000|SEC-US-MF|1234|POPOC|679
100|PO_226312|1234|7130667
200|PO_226312|1234|Line_id_1
300|Line_id_1|1234|Location_ID_1
400|Location_ID_1|1234|Dist_ID_1
999|SSS|1234|88|158
Thanks in advance,
RV
Edited by: user10236075 on May 25, 2009 4:12 PM
Edited by: user10236075 on May 25, 2009 4:14 PM

Ok Here are the steps
1. Create an inbound file adapter as you normally would. The schema is opaque, set the polling as required.
2. Create an outbound file adapter as you normally would, it doesn't really matter what xsd you use as you will modify the wsdl manually.
3. Create a xsd that will read your file. This would typically be the xsd you would use for the inbound adapter. I call this address-csv.xsd.
4. Create a xsd that is the desired output. This would typically be the xsd you would use for the outbound adapter. I have called this address-fixed-length.xsd. So I want to map csv to fixed length format.
5. Create the xslt that will map between the 2 xsd. Do this in JDev, select the BPEL project, right-click -> New -> General -> XSL Map
6. Edit the outbound file partner link wsdl, the the jca operations as the doc specifies, this is my example.
<jca:binding />
        <operation name="MoveWithXlate">
      <jca:operation
          InteractionSpec="oracle.tip.adapter.file.outbound.FileIoInteractionSpec"
          SourcePhysicalDirectory="foo1"
          SourceFileName="bar1"
          TargetPhysicalDirectory="C:\JDevOOW\jdev\FileIoOperationApps\MoveHugeFileWithXlate\out"
          TargetFileName="purchase_fixed.txt"
          SourceSchema="address-csv.xsd"
          SourceSchemaRoot ="Root-Element"
          SourceType="native"
          TargetSchema="address-fixedLength.xsd"
          TargetSchemaRoot ="Root-Element"
          TargetType="native"
          Xsl="addr1Toaddr2.xsl"
          Type="MOVE">
      </jca:operation> 7. Edit the outbound header to look as follows
    <types>
        <schema attributeFormDefault="qualified" elementFormDefault="qualified"
                targetNamespace="http://xmlns.oracle.com/pcbpel/adapter/file/"
                xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
                xmlns:FILEAPP="http://xmlns.oracle.com/pcbpel/adapter/file/">
            <element name="OutboundFileHeaderType">
                <complexType>
                    <sequence>
                        <element name="fileName" type="string"/>
                        <element name="sourceDirectory" type="string"/>
                        <element name="sourceFileName" type="string"/>
                        <element name="targetDirectory" type="string"/>
                        <element name="targetFileName" type="string"/>
                    </sequence>
                </complexType>
            </element>
        </schema>
    </types>   8. the last trick is to have an assign between the inbound header to the outbound header partner link that copies the headers. You only need to copy the sourceDirectory and SourceGileName
    <assign name="Assign_Headers">
      <copy>
        <from variable="inboundHeader" part="inboundHeader"
              query="/ns2:InboundFileHeaderType/ns2:fileName"/>
        <to variable="outboundHeader" part="outboundHeader"
            query="/ns2:OutboundFileHeaderType/ns2:sourceFileName"/>
      </copy>
      <copy>
        <from variable="inboundHeader" part="inboundHeader"
              query="/ns2:InboundFileHeaderType/ns2:directory"/>
        <to variable="outboundHeader" part="outboundHeader"
            query="/ns2:OutboundFileHeaderType/ns2:sourceDirectory"/>
      </copy>
    </assign>you should be good to go. If you just want pass through then you don't need the native format set to opaque, with no XSLT
cheers
James

EA4500 router and media server file limit

I purchased an EA4500 router yesterday and it arrived today. Set it up, copiued my media library over to a new Seagate Expansion drive (2 TB) and it currently is filled with 320GB of files. Music folder, Pictures folder and Video folder. Thing is only some of the files are showing up. Looks very much like some stupid limitation on file numbers. I specifically purchased this router because of the media server and now it is useless.
Is there a fix for this sillyness? I can't seem to find a way to turn the file limit off. I truly hope I haven't purchased another rubbish router. The TP Link router I replaced had no such file size limit and was 2/3 of the price, easily.
Yours, not amused

Yes, I checked that before I bought myself a Seagate Expansion drive 2TB. The router list shows 1.5 and 3TB drives in that range and I would say that the 2TB is veyr likely to be supported also.
The files are bog standard file types! Some files show up but not all of them.
FLAC (you missed that filetype off the supported audio types btw) and MP3 show up but not all of them.
MPEG2 files show and play..but not all are visible.
None of my images in my photo library show up and they are all JPEG. No esoteric file formats.
It seems though that the media server just doesn't show anything after it reaches a file limit. It really isn't up to anything much if that is the case and for the money that router should be better. Furthermore, the folders with audio albums in doesn't display the contects in the correct alphanumeric order. I was playing an album by Cassandra Wilson and immediately noticed that the songs were in the wrong order. Something totall wrong there...the server has to be displaying them like that.
I have Marantz CR603 all-in-one hif fis in 3 different rooms in the house (living room and two bedrooms). Sometimes 2 can connect simultatenously but 3 won't as the server falls over. Even with two units connected it will suddenly disconnect for no reason. My connection isn't slow It is fast anbd yet accessing the media server is very very slow and especially simultatenous access.
It seems to me that the media server element is a stripped down token effort but all the sales garb for the router doesn't mention aything about its silly limitations.
I think the best thing for me to do now is return this to Amazon for a full refund and find another brand of router. It was bad enough 'adjusting' to the cloud managment - a firmware download initiated on install and installed that. Some of the config pages don't work properly (that needs an urgent fix as well...IP address fields with only 3 fields that won't allow you to enter last 3 octets of address and you can't apply setting) and the dumbned down way of presentating the options makes it a pain to setup if you are used to the usual way of setting up a router. If I setup a router manually it takes a fraction of the time that the hand holding setup nonsense takes. I get the idea, and it looks pretty and all big buttony how everyhting is going these days but there should be a seriously 'normal' advanced mode for people that don't require their hands held through the setup and configuration.
Very dissappointed. It's a fast router as well.

With Premiere elements 11, when Publish/Share (saving) a finished video, selecting H.264 .mov file type, what are the recommended Codec and Aspect settings for a crisp video and a small file size?

With Premiere Elements 11, when Publish/Share (saving) a finished video, selecting H.264 .mov file type, what are the recommended Aspect and Codec settings , for a crisp video with a small file size?

Gary Krouse
We will customize a very detailed reply, but
(a) What are the properties of your source media?
(b) What did you or the program set as the project preset to match the properties of the source media?
(c) What specific requirements do you have for this H.264.mov export file?
File size can be a compromise between bitrate, file size, and quality.
Thanks.
ATR

Media Encoder File Size Estimates Very Inaccurate (How to Reduce Blu-ray File Size)

Hello there!
I made several wedding videos last summer and exported my video and footage to HD .m2t files using a high profile h.264 codec and they always came out being plenty small to fit on my single layer Blu-ray disks. But this year I filmed a wedding (same camera) but my files seem way larger, so I'm doing something different, and I'm not sure what. Should I use MPEG2?
I'm attaching an image of my Encoder settings. I will say that the files it outputs are playing at the proper rate (in this case, the video rate hovers around 12mb/s like it should). Encoder estimates a file size of 2.7 gb, but the final file is 16.4 gb. That's not very close. This file is full HD, 23.976 fps, 8-bit and about 30 minutes long. I should be able to easily fit this, and the other videos I need on the same disk at these low data rates right? I have some of my Disney Blu-ray movies ripped on my computer and they play at 40 mb/s. That's twice my max rate and those files are 20 gb for an hour of video (including 3 5.1 audio streams, a 7.1 stream and several subtitle tracks, I just have stereo audio).
So should I switch all my files to MPEG2? What are your favorite settings for a putting Canon DSLR h.264 footage on Blu-ray? Thanks!
EDIT: I re-exported using MPEG2 and the file estimates were correct.

Encore, and I suspect most authoring programs, allows a maximum of 40 Mbps COMBINED video and audio. so anything over 35Mbps video only risks problems.
I don't know what all the specific differences are between Adobe Media Encoder/PR/EN's H.264 preset vs the H.264-Bluray, but bitrate going over 35 is one of them. And Encore clearly does not like that. Many encoders result in small (and for some larger) variations that result in spikes over the allowed level. Any of those issues can result in Encore "seeing" a file as not BD legal.
I think all Ann was saying was the she agreed with your using the H.264-BD present with multiplexing off. And she suggested (I thing with the H.264-BD preset) selecting the max bit depth. I'm not sure if she actually meant max bit depth, or max render quality.

BUG: "Save and compact" increases file size by 1KB each time?

Flash CS4
I noticed that when I do "save and compact" on a .fla file, it causes the file size to increase by 1KB each time--even when no changes were made. Can this be fixed?

Yup. It works perfectly in CS3. Now the problem you will have is that you don't have CS3 installed. Even if you will save your files as CS3 format, you cannot (as far as i know) "save and compact" it as CS3, it will prompt that it must be converted from older version CS3 to CS4 and you end up with the same problem. Perhaps there is a setting to force CS4 to save and compact in CS3 version but i doubt it. The only way i know to solve it is save the file as CS3 format (But you will lose some XMP file info metadata, i'm not sure if that is necessary though) then close CS4, and open CS3 then "save and compact" it there. This is definitely a bug where some information might have been duplicated in the file's info or history. If you are lucky an adobe employee might be able to give you a solution to this or just confirm this bug.

Comparing FCP and Media 100 file sizes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for