Export quality of CS6 compared to CS3

Having had Premiere Pro CS3 for about 5 years I recently upgraded to CS6 but immediately found problems achieving the same kind of export quality I had before. Initially I was testing with a project created in CS3 but then simplified the matter by creating a new project in CS3 and entering a single piece of text and exporting as a single tiff frame and doing exactly the same in CS6 and attached is the comparison. I can't of the life of me figure out what the problem is, hopefully someone can help.
Thanks,
Keith.

Okay, thanks for the further input, I've made progress with it, I've discovered it's to do with the field order setting. Basically my knowledge of video editing and video standards is rather limited and the kind of work I've done in the past has mostly been to produce animations from 3ds Max which are simply shown as demonstrations to people on a PC or laptop, and so when setting up a new project in Premiere I always selected "Desktop" editing mode, changed some settings and left others as default such as Fields: Lower Field First, mainly because I didn't know what it meant.
When exporting the finished video the default would be Progressive Scan and everything fine, so never touched it. With CS6 if I do everything the same way I get the problem described above, but if for new projects I select Progressive Scan in the setup then everything is fine. (Similarly with lower field in setup and export).
However I still have a problem with imported CS3 projects. In CS6 if I simply open the project and select Lower Field on export, or start a new project with Progressive Scan in setup and import the project, the fuzziness I had before is gone but now I get the effect in the following attached image (a print screen from a paused video, left one exactly as I expect):
I have found a work around though, which is to start a new CS6 project with progressive scan in setup, import the project, then create a new sequence and copy the contents of the imported sequence into it and that exports fine, although I suppose it could get complicated when there are sequences inside sequences. I'm sure there is still something simple I'm missing to do this in a more seamless manner, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Similar Messages

Why won't Acrobat X Pro honor the margin (art box) from PDF's exported from InDesign CS6?

Why won't Acrobat X Pro honor the margin (art box) from PDF's exported from InDesign CS6?
When I export a PDF from InDesign CS6 with specific margins, Acrobat does not recognize the Art box. (I have PitStop Pro 11 for page box view)

Thanks Steve,
We are exporting PDF's as you indicate. I see the same thing. The boxes are all the size of the original InDesign document. The PDF art box should be predicated by the margins in InDesign. When we had CS3, this worked great. Now, it seems that there is a disconnect between the two Adobe products honoring the page box size. I have contacted the Adobe techs via chat, and they had no clue what I was referring to. I find it mystifying that Acrobat can not interpret the art box set in InDesign as margins.

So what's the export quality like???

Hi, after the 'pain' of i-movie 8, what's the view on the export quality in 9?
Does it export high enough quality to look good when burnt to dvd and played back on tv?

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
It looks the same as iMovie 08.
I did a compare one day using the same clip burned to DVD from iMovie 06 and from iMovie '08.
The iMovie 06 clip looked like it came from the DV camera directly and the iMovie 08 clip looked much worse. The difference is the single field processing used by iMovie 08/09 and the fact that it throws out every other horizontal line.
Because the two softwares handle the imported video differently - single field processing is how iMovie 08 / 09 handles the video, meaning that one of every two lines of the image is ignored. iMovie 06 uses ALL of the image to form the video.
If your primary workflow is editing DV clips and making DVDs, iMovie '06 is better suited. Your movie will arrive at iDVD in DV format, which is an ideal match for making a DVD: same resolution, same pixels aspect ratio, and original quality. If you share your movie from iMovie '08 / 09, it gets re-rendered at 640x480 or less, and then iDVD upscales it back to 720x480. The end result is obviously not as good.

MP3 File Size in CS5.5 & CS6 Compared to AA3

Background.
I am the learning materials coordinator for a Barbershop Chorus and, during the qualifications process, members will email me a recording of their voice singing a song, while in the chorus, for which they have to note and word perfect for them to be qualified to perform that song with the chorus.
I use AA to convert the files they send me to the smallest high quality MP3 I can so they are easily listened to by the person receiving the file and the file size will be relatively small. Since this is a learning process ASCAP/BMI copyright issues do not apply (the Barbershop Harmony Society has verified this with them). With the advent of CS5.5 and, subsequently, CS6 the file sizes for a VBR, highest quality MP3, have grown to almost twice the size as before.
AA3, 2870k
CS6, 6034k
Obviously I'm still using AA3 for this conversion though I would like to standardize on the latest version of the software.
Any thoughts?

I performed a quick test comparing an 18 minute stereo file saved in CS6 and 3.0 as MP3, VBR, Highest Quality. The CS6-generated file was 28MB, while the 3.0 file was 22MB. However, Audition CS6 uses a newer compression kit that no longer supports Mp3PRO encoding. (Fraunhoefer no longer supports this scheme either, and I, personally, was never that impressed with the results.) Finally, the "Highest Quality" mode in CS6 encodes around 200Kbps while Audition 3.0 typically encoded around 163Kbps in Highest Quality mode.
I think you'll find a closer correlation between Au3 "Highest Quality" and CS6 "High Quality" VBR presets, when comparing the resulting file size. However, CS6 Highest Quality should sound better than Au3.

What upgrades were made to CS6 compared to cs5?

What upgrades were made to CS6 compared to cs5

shuchi shrivastava wrote:
There are various new features for Encore apart from the 64 bit support like -
Additional colors in button highlights : You can now export button highlights with 8 bit indexed colors for blu-ray and full color for webDVD
Chapter PlayList support for Blu-ray and web DVDs
DTS HD support for Blu-ray
Upper Field First support for DVDs
Additional slides in slideshow
Various performance improvement features like faster import of images,less time in saving and opening a project
Also, there are various enhancements done for webDVD as well
See the link below -
http://www.adobe.com/products/encore/features._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_ featuredisplaytypes_sl_all.html
i was in the pre-release program for encore, and all these updates are great.... but my beef for CS6 is still the blasted blu-ray format. adobe REALLY needs to set up a brand new app from the ground up just for blu-ray, or have a different version of encore just for blu-ray. (i would love to see cs7 with full Java capabilities!) kick the sonic author-core to the curb if that's the problem. i could come up with some pretty complex menus mentally, but it doesnt matter cause i could never actually pull them off when theres that 2 second track gap from asset to assett. its just maddening that i can't do a simple trasitional sequence with dup menus for blu-rays. works flawlessly for DVD though? but not for blu-ray. is that a BD Spec issue that hollywood bypasses by using java? or is it just how encore itself handles the BD table of contents?
other than that, the only features that really stood out to me were the chapter play-list, DTS-MA, and background processing for HUGE assetts for encore. (no more status bar locking up the app for an hour while you import a single 40gb Blu-Ray timeline. TRULY revolutionary!)
if only the 2 second track gap could be fixed. =(

Export quality grainy for TEXT / TITLE

Hello there,
Am kind of a newb, but am getting used to the basics and am happy with the video export quality. For some reason, the TITLE objects are coming out grainy, even when viewed at 100% size. I tried different output types, bitrates, changed fonts, font size, position, etc. Put black background behind, removed background, no matter what am still getting the fonts looking crappy once exported.
Some screenshots of what I see in the Premiere Pro output preview / workspace, and then a second shot showing the resulting output (same result in diff bitrates, just chose one as example)
In Pro:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue01.png
Exported:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue02.png
Any ideas?
Thanks for any suggestions,
Greg

DV is far from the best codec for text. But the real problem is that you're using FCP's built-in text generators. Instead, use the Boris Title 3D and Boris Title Crawl generators. They produce much cleaner vector-based text and have a ton of more options for creativity.
-DH

Poor export quality Aperture 3

I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to find any answers in regards to export quality in Aperture 3. When I finish editing an image and I export it in either TIFF, JPEG or PNG all of them look the same regardless of if I change DPI, File size etc and none of them look even close to as detailed as the original. I'm exporting "version" and changing the options in presets with no luck.
Can someone help me? I can't accept the poor quality of the exported images as they make my portraits look fuzzy and not sharp (when they're very sharp and vivid in Aperture!). Is it possible to get the same quality in an exported image as I see in Aperture. It seems like it should be a no brainer!
Thank you!

I had the same problem. While in a One-to One the Creative told me to do this. What ever you are planning to export the file/files to have pluged in (flash drive, hard drive) or loaded (DVD/CD) before you start the process.
Chose the file or files by highlighting them then choose File - Export - Version. In the center of the window that will pop up there is a "Export Preset"" tab. He told me to choose TIFF- Original Size (8-bit). He did say that any higher than 8 bit is pointless. I did this and it worked great. I had a large beautiful file that I was blowing up to 30 by 20 and it looked so bad printed before I learned this trick. I printed it again after exporting the new way and it really looked great!
I hope this solves your problem, it was VERY frustrating for me also.

Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX

I read this article today and considering I do all my rendering through Premiere or AME it made me a little concerned. What does Adobe think of this? and has any else experienced this problem?
Cheers,
Moja.
I took this article from: Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX & Premiere?
A rational person might assume that the program from which you export your media wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of the final image, especially if the export settings are identical in both programs. A recent test by filmmaker Noam Kroll might just teach us to think twice before making assumptions.
First, a little bit of background on Kroll's test. Having noticed that exporting from Adobe Media Encoder yielded quicker results than using the same settings and exporting from FCPX, he tended to use Media Encoder for the bulk of his exporting. When a recently exported project came out with some nasty compression artifacts, blocky rendering of certain areas, and a noticeable change in color quality, Kroll put on his detective's hat and tried exporting again from FCPX. To his, and soon to be your, surprise, the exported result from FCPX yielded significantly higher image quality with the EXACT same export and compression settings.
Don't believe it? Have a look for yourself. According to Kroll, "both FCP X and Premiere Pro were set to output a high quality H.264 file at 10,000 kbps." The image on top was exported from FCPX and the bottom was exported from Premiere Pro.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
In the shots above, you'll notice more blocky compression artifacts in the version exported from Premiere, especially on the lower part of the woman's face, and there's a fairly significant reddish hue that's been introduced into the midtones and shadows of the Premiere export. Here's a version of the same shot that is cropped in on the woman's face by 400%. This is where the difference between the two starts to become painfully obvious. Again, FCPX is on top, and Premiere on the bottom.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
Here's the conclusion that Kroll came to in his post.
After seeing this I can confidently say that I will not be compressing to H.264 using Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder any more. [sic] The image from Premiere is so much blockier, less detailed, and muddy looking, not to mention that the colors aren’t at all accurate. In fact I even did another output test later on with Premiere Pro set to 20,000 kbps and FCP X only set to 10,000 kbps and still the FCP X image was noticeably higher quality, so clearly something is up.
It's really difficult to speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes that's causing such a drastic difference in results between the two programs. However, what is clear is that you should take caution when exporting to h.264 from Premiere and Media Encoder. Regardless of the program that you're using, perform your own tests and make sure that the export process is leaving your media with a visual quality appropriate for the delivery medium.
The good news here is that Adobe is extremely receptive to feedback from their user base, and their Creative Cloud subscription model allows them to roll out updates with a much higher frequency than they could with the boxed version of the Creative Suite. If more people are experiencing these problems and reporting it to Adobe, chances are that we'll see an update with fixes sometime in the near future. With that said, I have no idea how Adobe handles the technical process of exporting, so it could very well take a complete overhaul of how the program encodes h.264 to fix the problem.

Well, I did my own little comparison with a shot from my A7s (XAVCS 50mbps) and seeing as I don't have FCP X I used FCP 7. The AME H264 looks nicer than the FCP one in this instance.
Dropbox - WALKING 444.jpg
Pro Res 444 from Premiere
Dropbox - WALKING AME.jpg
H264 from AME at these settings:
Dropbox - WALKING FCP.jpg
H264 from FCP 7 at these settings:

Setting default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0

Hi,
Anyone know if it is possible to set a default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0. Even if it remembered the last used setting that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Nick

OK, I have managed to get higher quality images from the PDF renderer. Here is what I have found:
1) The PDF renderer in Reporting Services 2005 will size all images that it is given at 96 DPI no matter what DPI the image is when you pass it to the renderer. That means that a 300 DPI image or even a 600 DPI image will be sized in the PDF as if it is only 96 DPI. That means your high DPI image will render much larger than you expect.
So you might expect a 300 DPI image that is 6.5 inches wide to render properly at 1950 pixels. Yet, the PDF renderer will size it as it were 96 DPI which would make the image 20.3 inches long!
2) There is good news though. Despite sizing the images as if they were 96 DPI, the PDF renderer appears to render higher DPI images at a higher quality than 96 DPI. So despite the sizing being wrong, the image actually is rendering at a higher quality.
This means that you should size the image to the proper number of inches based on 96 DPI calculations. Then you can use Bitmap.SetResolution to set your images to at least 300 DPI. That should give you a higher quality image that is the proper number of pixels to fit properly in your report.
I am able to do all of this sizing dynamically because I am using objects as my data sources, but I am sure there are VB functions you could use in the report itself to accomplish the same task.
It is late, and I've been at this project all day long, so forgive me if I have explained anything poorly or gotten any concepts long. Yet, at this late hour, I believe this is what the renderer is doing.
I hope this helps someone else in the future, or at least points them in the right direction.

Export quality in After Effects

I'm using After Effects CS4 and have exported as an MPEG-4. The quality of the final movie is very poor. It looks like a low quality JPEG. In After Effects preview, it looks fine.
I'm familiar with exporting quality videos out of Premiere. Is the usual workflow to open AE projects in Premiere and use the options there to export? Or am I missing something in AE?

That may be, but I'm just not a fan. I did some tests a few years ago and decided that Animation
wasn't worth it and that it was in fact creating artifacts in my renders.
Just to show my work, I am pulling some info from wikipedia as a reference:
"For complex 3D rendered scenes or digitized film of real-world footage, it barely compresses at all and also can add visible noise."
Now I know, wikipedia isn't highly reliable, anyone can edit it, blah blah blah, but this statement runs congruent to my own findings. Add to that the weighty file size, and then the fact that this codec is officially my ENEMY because my students, who are instructed to use Sorenson 3, often forget to change the codec for their .mov renders, and so sometimes I get these bloated files that I have to trash and they have to re-render, and I just don't really care for this codec at all.
I just don't render video any more. Haven't for a long time now. So many advantages to using img sequences, I haven't looked back to big bloated video files.

Youtube Export Quality

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09? Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
Thanks,
Shawn

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09?
iMovie has little to do with the end quality of files other than determining the size/duration/quality of the files sent to YouTube. All files sent to YouTube are converted to FLV by Youtube. This conversion by Youtube itself determines the final resolution/quality of your files. If quality is what you seek, then it is probably best to create your own website and post your video at the resolution and level of quality which you can manage yourself. YouTube and similar sites aim for compatibility of viewing -- not quality.
Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
I don't believe there are restrictions on resolution -- just duration (10 minutes) and file size (1 GB). Whatever you upload will be re-compressed to fit in the 1 GB file size limit. Higher quality means shorter times. Larger files usually mean more compression to fit it within the YouTube file size restriction. Your best bet is to review the Help resources area at Youtube.

CS4 running extremely slow compared to CS3

I installed Photoshop Extended CS4 64bit. I opened a 24mb PSD file, there is some text with some outer glow when I move it I get horrible redraw. CS4 just feels sluggish compared to CS3. My system is not that bad, e6600, 4GB, 8800GTS 640, Vista Home Premium x64.
Anybody have any ideas? I have updated to the latest drivers for my GPU. I am considering just a reformat and install.

The first thing I did was update video drivers.
To describe the behavior in a little more detail: when zoom-scrolling in several steps, the scrollbars redraw, as if they're receiving the zoom but the canvas isn't. If I continuously zoom in and out with the mouse, and never stop moving it for about 1/4 second or more, the scrollbars keep jittering around and the image never redraws at all; that only happens when I stop moving the wheel.
This feels like an optimization for slower systems: when a potentially repeating input happens (like the mousewheel), the display isn't updated until they stop happening for a while. That's useful on slow systems where redrawing the display may actually be slow enough to interfere with the interface, but it definitely should not be happening on a modern system that's more than capable of redrawing the canvas faster than the inputs are repeating.
Also, redrawing in general feels slow: changing images (via tabs, control-tab, or the window menu) has a visible delay, where CS3 is instantaneous. (Maybe Photoshop is detecting this slowness, and activating an optimization like the above as a side-effect.)

White line appears on jpeg export in indesign CS6? How to get rid of the same?

White line appears on jpeg export in indesign CS6? How to get rid of the same?

Please find attached actual jpeg and the screen shot of settings at which the jpeg is exported.

IMovie vs FCPX export quality

Afternoon/morning all.
Question I have is regarding the export quality of FCPX vs iMovie!!
I've been using iMovie for over a year now but only recently started to publish my work.
I get on with iMovie great but the one issue that let's it down is the export quality, it's been driving me crazy but after finally looking into it seems that iMovie is the problem and reduces the footage quality.
I'm just thinking about upgrading to FCPX the extra editing features and functions will be great too.
I just want to know that the exporting footage in FCPX won't reduce the quality of the footage!
Can anybody help!!
Thanks

'quality' is a very complex issue.
Most consumer IMPORTS do look nice, when the cam is connected straight to a telly.
… but those recordings contain tons of 'flaws'. (low bitrates, artefacts due to wrong exposure etc)
the difference, how iMovie and FCPX handle that:
• iM uses as intermediate AppleIntermediateCodec - which does marvel with all the diff. flavors of video, a consumer wants to edit ... but it is far from perfect.
• … and iMovie deinterlaces interlaced material = reducing vertical resolution by half
• FCPX transcodes to proRes or even handles codecs 'natively' - which reduces transcoding errors (dramatically)
on export, both apps use the same Quicktime-engine, I dare to say no difference.
using the wrong export settings, multiplies bad imports …
the 'hurt' is done on import, …
and most damage, in terms of quality, is done on recording ....

Best Export Quality HD-AVI to DVD

Hello,
I'm currently working on a project and have come up with some poor results in my final iDVD disk images, namely blockly looking video.
I am using FCx 4.0.1 on 10.7.1
My HD-AVI source video has the following properties:
When starting my FCx project I selected the DV-NTSC Easy Setup and proceeded to make subclips and a voiceover successfully. My sequence has the following properties:
In FCx I used the Export->Quicktime Movie to produce my file for iDVD. In iDVD I selected Professonal Quality encoding.
Are there any ideas in this circumstance as to how to maximize export quality to DVD?
Much appreciated!

You have 1440 clips going into and SD Sequence.
This is the key problem.
Also I'm not sure how the AVI DML Jpeg clips will go in FCE, you may have to transcode to Apple Intermediate Codec.
Al

Export quality of CS6 compared to CS3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for