H.264 and other compression

apple makes H.264 sound like its loss-less. Is it? is there any compression codec out there thats loss-less besides Animation?

I wanna be able to compress the video files I have, and then be able to uncompress them without losing any info
Can't be done. The best you can do is archive them as ZIP files, but that won't save you much room. If you compress the footage into another format, it tosses information away...revert back to the original form and you are missing a lot of information.
No...can't compress and then decompress with any real savings in space. That isn't how video works.
Shane

Similar Messages

  • EdAdding compression (and other effects) to regions only) want different ty

    Hello Everyone,
    I'm new to Logic and I'm trying to find out how to add compression to specific regions in a track. I recorded a live band and I recorded and I want different types of compression (and other effects like eq and even panning) for different parts of the song. For example. I have a guitar track that I recorded , I split the track up from one region into several regions corresponding to the sections of the song. Now I want to add different effects to these different regions. Can I do this in one track or do I need to split all these regions up into their own tracks. I can only see how to add effects at the track level. I can only edit certain things (like Normalization) in the sample editor.
    Thanks in advance.
    --Mike

    Different ways of doing this:
    *If you want to add effects for the different regions on the same track you will have to automize the compressor/Eq/panning settings
    *You can setup different tracks with different Fx settings and move the regions to those new tracks - this way you don't have to automize the different parameters
    *If you want to destructively edit the regions you can either do that in Soundtrack Pro (select the region and hit shift+w to open it in SP - add you fx in there - save the file and it will be updated in Logic)
    or
    *rerecord the regions with the fx through a Bus directly into Logic - route the region track to a Bus and select that Bus as an Input for a new Audio track
    or
    *bounce/reimport the region+fx

  • Need advice about H.264 and Apple ProRes 422.

    When exporting a "master file" I can encode the video as H.264 or Apple ProRes 422 (etc). The H.264 is more compressed but still in 1080p? Does this mean that I do not have to compress the file with "Compressor"? What is the advantage of using ProRes and what is the advantage of using H.264? I want of course the files to be as small as possible but still at the best quality. Any advice?
    Thanks.

    ProRes is an editing format. If you are archiving a finished project, you can create an extremely high quality "print" with H.264. ProRes 422 will use approximately three times as much memory. ProRes 422(HQ) roughly four times and ProRes 4444 up to 10 times (compared to the size of the file FCPX will export as H.264). 
    FCPX exports (shares) H.264 in highest quality (over 45Mbits/sec [if needed] for 1080p), you have no options to adjust for smaller files (or lesser quality from FCPX.)
    To get "as small as possible," you'll need to learn more about compressing video. As a comparison (to FCPX), YouTube limits a maximum bandwidth of 8Mbps (used to be 5Mbps -- I *still* compress to 5Mbps before uploading.) Even compressed this highly, H.264 provides excellent results. [Compressing in ProRes is going from 4444 down to 422 Proxy (not to be confused with proxy media used in FCPX which is 1/4 resolution, i.e. 960x540 for 1080, ProRes 422.) You cannot compress each of the different ProRes flavors individually.]
    You'll need other software to compress further than FCPX.  I use Quicktime 7 Pro. Compressor is another way to go (Compressor will let you set "compression markers" so you can vary the bitrates through various sections of your work).  The way to figure out your compression level is to find a section (less than a minute) with the highest motion high contrast (and/or changing gradients) and export at different bitrates. Watch for "jpeg artifacts" (blocking) and once you've gotten past that, that's the bitrate you should compress to. (I've had some clips that required at least 20Mbps.) It just takes a little practice to get a feel for it.

  • Encore CS5, BluRay H.264 and Profiles

    I find in the manual that Encore is only allowing Main profile H.264 files to be used untranscoded.  Yet, everywhere I have read and learned about H.264, the ideal way to get the best compression is to use the high profile and a level of 4.1.  In fact, this is the most common preset in most encoders for BluRay preset H.264 encoding.
    So, what gives?   Is Adobe really going to force me to transcode my H.264 high profile footage?   This is odd since one of the transcode templates in AME as instanced from Encode (1920x1080i hihg quality) is preset to high profile, level = 4.1
    I guess it is OK for AME to transcode it when triggered from Encore... but not anywhere else.  For example, use this same AME preset from PPro, import the resulting H.264 file into Encore, it wants to transcode it...   very frustrating.
    I have an encoder that I feel is superior to the one in AME and it has the same template settings as the BluRay presets in AME.  Encore won't take them...
    Am I missing something here?

    4tKingAV wrote:
    I agree with your comments.  Any experience with BDR media and 25m rates on players? 
    As much of my material is mid-band, or darker...   I am worried about banding that I see in X.264.  Also a lot of footage I shoot is interlaced due to the high motion of the event.  So, I am in a bad place.  I have a lot of mid-band footage that has a lot of motion in it.  I could go to 30p, but I don't alway like how it looks when some of the events are fast moving.
    I am open to investing in a solid H.264 encoder if it gives me what I want...
    Every burn I've done to TDK BD-R50B or Sony BD-RE50 has played fine in my PS3, with rates as high as 40mbit/s (burst for a minute or so, not the entire project).  So I can't comment on lower-quality media, because it's all worked for me thus far.
    Like I said, I've done interlaced with x264 just fine, but the x264 developers claimed (as of three months ago, anyway) that interlaced encoding was "broken" so you author with such output at your own risk. 1080i @ 29.97 works for me on powerdvd9 and a real PS3, all 60 fields present, using the following batch file:
    x264 --crf %3 --preset veryslow --weightp 1 --bframes 3 --nal-hrd vbr --vbv-maxrate 40000 --vbv-bufsize 30000 --level 4.1 --keyint 30 --b-pyramid strict --slices 4 --tff --aud --colorprim "bt709" --transfer "bt709" --colormatrix "bt709" --sar 1:1 %1 -o %2
    Called like this:  batchfile.bat infile.avi outfile.m4v NUM
    ...where NUM is the crf number I want to use (I use 16 unless the files get too large).  If you're trying to keep maximum bitrate down then this is not what you want to use, use the one with bitrate contols on the website URL in my last post.  My input footage was upper-field-first, hence the "--tff" in the above example.
    One note on large files and dual-layer media:  Don't create a file larger than about 24G.  Otherwise Encore and other programs will blow a gasket (in my experience) when it comes time to try to place the layer break, which it can't do because the file goes over the layer size.
    There are good commercial programs that can produce H.264 content, but they range from $700 to $8000.  I've used some of them, and they do have significant advantages if you want to re-encode certain sections with different bitrate targets, but generally most of my work can be serviced just fine using AME or x264.

  • 2048x1536 videos and best compression strategy

    Hi,
    I can't quite figure out if DPS on the iPad3 supports palyback of videos in 2048*1536 resolution. Should I stick to 1024*768 even for the 2048 rendition?
    The cover of our magazine includes a full-screen video that features animated text. I'd like it to stay as crisp as possible, but had an error message pop up when tried to play a 2048*1536 video. Playback of a 104*768 video works just fine, but I find the text somewhat pixelated, especially after compressing it to mp4 (I exported from AE in Quicktime format using the Photo - JPEG codec, and then compressed to h.264 in media encoder)
    The second part of my question, which I realize may not really belong in this forum but rather in the After Effects or Media Encoder forrums, is what would be the best rendering and compression strategy to keep the type as crisp as possible, especially if 2048*1536 is indeed not supported?
    Thanks

    1536x2048 will not render on a iPad3 this is something programed in to the video play back on iOS basicly it only supports up to 1080 which is 1920x1080 and it really is just the 1920 we have to worry about anything over that does not play. So this is what I do with my full screen videos on the iPad3 I scale them to 90% of 1536x2048 which is 1382x1843 which plays just fine with no noticable loss in quailty.
    Here are the sizes I use for full screen videos on iOS devices.
    iPad3 - 1382x1843
    iPad1&2 - 691x922
    iPhone4 - 576x864
    iPhone2&3 - 288x432
    The second part of your question I can help answer but I am no expert on video encoding I will just sure the settings I use.
    Video
    Format: H.264
    Frame Rate: 30
    Field Order: Progressive
    Aspect: Square Pixels (1.0)
    TV Standard: NTSC
    Bitrate Encoding: VBR, 2 Pass
    Target Bitrate [Mbps]: 8
    Maximum Bitrate [Mbps]: 8
    Key Frame Distance: 72
    Audio
    Audio Codec: AAC
    Sample Rate: 48000 Hz
    Channels: Stereo
    Audio Quality: High
    Bitrate [kbps]: 320
    Precedence: Bitrate
    Multiplexer
    Multiplexer: MP4
    Stream Compatibility: Standard
    Hope that helps.

  • Another vote for restoring H.264 and WMV rendering support

    Hello!
    I love the new features which have been added to Adobe CC 2014.
    However, removing the ability to render H.264 (MP4) or WMV essentially makes the program useless for me.
    Adding AME to the workflow process is a considerable time-waster.
    If anything, I'd think new program versions would add support for more render formats, not remove them?
    If you could add H.264 and WMV support back in, I'd really appreciate it?
    Thanks.

    XDude.com! wrote:
    Hello!
    I love the new features which have been added to Adobe CC 2014.
    However, removing the ability to render H.264 (MP4) or WMV essentially makes the program useless for me.
    Adding AME to the workflow process is a considerable time-waster.
    If anything, I'd think new program versions would add support for more render formats, not remove them?
    If you could add H.264 and WMV support back in, I'd really appreciate it? Thanks.
    I think if you run side-by-side tests using AME and transcoding while the render is taking place you'd see the AME route is actually slightly faster.
    But there is a far more compelling reason for the functions to have been separated and that has to do with how After Effects is used by most, not all, of its intended audience. Comps and effects sequences are expected to be pieces of larger projects and not necessarily to be self-contained clips. From a production workflow, having the full rez version of an AE project on a drive and then using it in a transcoder like AME or Compressor to export many different codecs at once is far more efficient. But only for one reason: I have the master AE clip and can do anything with it. If I export directly out of AE to, say H.264, I cannot use that clip directly in most of the other applications my AE clips go through on their way to release.
    The perceived convenience of being able to go directly to H.264 from AE is not really rendering, it's a process of transcoding. And that's complicated by the number of adjustments available to any codec's processor, adjustments that will dramatically affect the compressed file's appearance and size.

  • Solution to AVC/H.264 MPEG4 video compression Audio Sync Issue

    Been trying to find an solution to this problem for a year now - one would think Adobe would have addressed themselves but....
    I have the Xacti E1 camera and it utilizes the AVC/H.264 MPEG4 video compression that both Premier Elements 4 & 7 plus Pro CS4 have sync issues with.
    What I did was use Quicktime Pro to convert the Audio ONLY to wave – very fast actually. So basically in Premier I added the original MPEG4 video to the timeline, removed its messed up audio, replaced it with the Quicktime Pro wav file then regroup the wav audio and video to keep it clean.

    Sure!
    Would be nice if Adobe addressed the problem as this std is used by most flash based video cameras

  • Why does my quicktime player verson 10.2 somtimes read avi files and other times it wont recognize them?

      Why does my quicktime player version 10.2 sometimes read AVI video and other times it will not recognize that same file. I have a video card that sometimes it will read then the next time it recognizes the card but will not open the video. Message says "quicktime does not recognize this file.
    Whats up with that ??? Any help will be most appreciated!

    AVI is a container just like MKV, WMV, MOV, and MPEG. It is possible to use many different compression formats aka. codecs in an AVI container.
    Think of the container - AVI as being an envelope, and the compressed video in it as a letter. The letter may be in a language you cannot read even though you know how to open the envelope.
    Historically QuickTime did have some built-in ability to use AVI files and some formats in those files, this used to be further improved by installing the free Perian (for Mac only). However with Mavericks Apple have removed the ability for QuickTime X aka. QuickTime Player 10 to use AVI files, it now really only accepts MPEG4 or H.264.
    It is still possible to install QuickTime 7.6.6 in Mavericks and if you use it and Perian rather than QuickTime X you can still use various AVI files.
    Note: Mavericks also now no longer shows previews or thumbnails for AVI files for the same reason.

  • My complaints and Questions MP4 M4V video files and other complaints

    My complaints and Questions MP4 M4V video files and other complaints
    I have been scratching my head as to how to fix my problem and I found some answers and some questions along the way. First of all, I have a video that should be correctly formatted for my iPod. Its specs are:
    Kind: MPEG-4 video file
    Size: 19.4 MB
    Bit Rate: 125 kbps
    Date Modified: 8/18/2009 2:15 PM
    Play Count: 1
    Last played: 8/21/2009 12:25 PM
    Profile: Low Complexity
    Channels: Stereo
    Total Bit Rate: 360 kbps
    Video Dimensions: 352x264
    Video Codec: H.264
    F:\File\AnotherFile\A3rdFile\TheMovieFileInQuestion.mp4
    Wow that was a chore. Apple! Let us drag copy and paste our info tabs information so we don’t have to type all this stuff when we are having trouble. **another problem and suggestion** right there.
    Ok, back to the problem of the forum.
    From what I can see from http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html this file falls in line of everything required in order to be able to play on my iPod. It plays in iTunes fine but will NOT sync with my iPod. I get an annoying message that states, “Some of the Songs and videos in your iTunes library, including “BlaBlaBlaiPondFixYourJunkBlaBlaBla”, were not copied to the iPod “My iPod” because they cannot be played on this iPod.” Why oh why can iTunes play this video file but my iPod cant. Especially when the specs on Apple’s website say it can.
    So that was bugging me for a LONG time until I found my “Create iPod or iPhone version” option in the “Advanced” heading. Thank goodness this made my files playable on my iPod. Extremely LONG wait though. I know that other programs convert it in ½ the time. But times not to important as long as it gets done, (would be very convenient if it was faster though **Problem and suggestion**)
    Ok, now that I have used the “Create iPod or iPhone version” option it has slowly but surly converted my video. Ok, here is my main problem, the new file which is the result of the conversions information is as follows:
    Kind: MPEG-4 video file
    Size: 35.4 MB
    Bit Rate: 125 kbps
    Date Modified: 8/18/2009 2:15 PM
    Play Count: 1
    Last played: 8/21/2009 1:28 PM
    Profile: Low Complexity
    Channels: Stereo
    Total Bit Rate: 658 kbps
    Video Dimensions: 352x264
    Video Codec: H.264
    C:\File\WhyIsThisNewFileInMyMusicFolder\TheMovieFileInQuestion.m4v
    So basically it has made my file bigger *not a bonus in my book* greatly increased my Bit Rate *another interesting feature*, and I think the biggest change it has changed it from an .mp4 to an m4v.
    Why does it need to be an .m4v I could have sworn some of my videos were or are in mp4 which shouldn’t matter anyway because I was under the impression that iPods could play mp4 files. So that’s my biggest complaint and question. Why can my 80GB classic iPod not play my MP4 files and why am I forced to convert them??
    This conversion also creates 2 files in iTunes when I am done which is annoying because I have to go into my files info and look to see what file is the mp3 in order to remove it. Very annoying I can open my iPod options and see the files and some are faded (the ones it can not play) why can’t I remove them from that area.Suggestion Apple please make files that cannot be played on my iPod stand out some how for easier cleaning Suggestion. Thank you.
    Speaking of cleaning iPods, when I moved my entire library to an external drive I was faced with a terrible problem. “This file could not be found, would you like to locate file”, I was faced with this annoying message at least 600 times. Now I am glad that iTunes has a little “!” mark to show dead links so that you do some minor cleaning, Good Job iTunes No compliant there. However iTunes has no way of selecting all the broken files for major cleaning (like in my case). Going through and deleting over 600 files 1 by 1 is extremely time consuming and annoying. **Suggestion Apple please add more cleaning features for organizing iTunes**.
    Ok, speaking of organization now, another problem that appeared when converting my video files was that it put my new videos into the location where I have all my songs (my external hard drive) why can’t it put the new files in the locations of the original file? I have my computer highly organized and my original files were in that drive in that folder for a reason. If I could open my original file and skip the conversion, my iTunes would go to that specific folder to access the file which is fine. But now these new conversion files are elsewhere taking up space and disorganizing my computer. True I can go into the new location and move the files to where I want them (original location) but I don’t think I should have to hunt them down, copy, move, delete ect etc for all these files over and over. Very annoying, time consuming and should be unnecessary. **Suggestion Make file creation and location more customizable, and user friendly, your customers will love you for it**.
    Well since I have gotten into Apples iTunes and iPod problems that I have had to face I might as well bring up one or two more problems and suggestions. About a month after purchasing my iPod a sibling bought one as well. His however is way more convenient then mine. I suppose he has a 5th gen. so here is my question: why does he have a search option and I don’t!!!! Why does he get more features every so often and I don’t?! Why can’t Apple write some software for us classic guys which got the iPods going! It’s very annoying when I have to spend more time looking for the song then I spend actually listening to it, when he can pull his up in like 3-6 seconds? I highly doubt the hardware between our iPods is that dissimilar and even if they are why cant software be written for us. **Suggestion treat all your customers good not just the newer ones, and make some more features for the classics like me and my iPod.” We will be grateful for it I promise.
    Ok, I am almost done. Let me just recap my questions, I know my post is kind of lengthy.
    #1. Why can’t my iPod play MP3 video files? And why do I have to convert to almost all the same settings except changing it from an mp4 to an m4v. according to Apples own site I should be able to play .m4v .mp4 and .mov files!! Note: remember iTunes plays them fine but my iPod will not.
    #2. Would be much more convenient to be able to copy the information from the windows in iTunes so that problems and trouble shooting would be much easier. A little check on off options in iTunes advanced settings would be terrific.
    #3. Why is the conversion so slow? Please speed it, you have the power. Convenience is the thing that sells products.
    #4. Files that cannot be played on the current iPod need to be easier recognized for simpler cleaning.
    #5. Also make an easier way to select all dead link files for faster cleaning, deleting, etc. This one is important.
    #6. Make a user friendly way to change where my files are going to end up once I convert them for iPod more options and better customizable settings are need.
    #7. One of the most important is ADD A SEARCH OPTION. I and we classics will LOVE Apple for it.
    For you readers, I apologize for the long post, and any grammatical errors you might find throughout it. These are problems that I have faced with these programs and hardware and I wanted to make sure they got acknowledged and hopefully addressed. Any information about why I cannot play MP4 Video files on my iPod would be the best. If anything in my post gets answered that’s the one I want most. Will save me a lot of hassle.
    Thank you all and I look forward to your suggestions and comments. All are welcome and appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Bond, James

    Was playing with iTunes and thought of another suggestion! Let us play files in iTunes from an iPod! A friend or sibling should be able to plug his iPod into my computer open iTunes and play any of the files there. Many times I have wanted to show a movie clip or video to a friend, and I have the dock so I can do it on my T.V. but play it on their computer in their iTunes forget it. That would be a very nice feature as well so we can watch our movies at maximum size or listen to music on a better sound system, just another suggestion that would be nice. Thanks

  • LARGE GPU vs. CPU Export quality differences in MPEG2 (and others?)

    I noticed that encoding to MPEG2 (for DVD's) using the CPU (through Media Encoder) produces much better results than does the MPEG2 codec the uses the GPU.  Just finished a documentary and was preparing it for DVD.  During fades to black, I would get grey macroblock errors on the first full-black frame.  Also the encode quality was very poor (mosquito noise, lots of pixelation, and the macroblock errors).  Rather than exporting directly from the timeline, I decided to queue to Media Encoder (which on CS6, only uses the CPU).  While this increased the render time from 20 minutes up to 55 minutes (for a 57-minute show), the resultant file was of much higher quality (less mosquito noise, no macroblock errors, MUCH less pixelation).  Both of these encodes had the exact same parameters.  Exact. With the Media Encoder render, the CPU was maxed properly at 99% and the GPU was only handling the RT Effects from the timeline and such, varying in the low percentages of its utilization.  With the GPU direct timeline render, the CPU was working around 40%-50% and the GPU was utilizing about 50%-88% of its potential.
    I also tried test renders changing from single-pass to two-pass encoding.  Absolutely no difference.  Results were visually identical with same issues in GPU encode.  Also tried the usual tests with switching on and off various features (maximum render quality, maximum depth, etc.)
    I'm assuming, as with many other compression programs, there are different codecs because of the different processor architectures (cpu vs. gpu).
    Has anyone else seen whether this has been resolved in later versions (CC+)?  Because while I LOVE the low render times, the quality difference is HUGE (with MPEG2 for DVD).
    Thanks!
    Intel 3930K
    16GB RAM
    GTX680 2GB
    CS6
    Win7/64 SP1

    Give us your screenshots to better understand

  • Adding a RAID card to help speed up export (and other drive question) in Premiere Pro CC

    First of all, I have read Tweakers Page exporting section because that is where my primary concern is. First my questions, then background and my current and proposed configurations:
    Question 1: Will adding a hardware RAID controller, such as an LSI MegaRAID remove enough burden from the CPU managing parity on my software RAID 5 that the CPU will jump for joy and export faster?
    Question 2: If true to above, then compare thoughts on adding more smaller SSDs for either a one volume RAID 0 or smaller two volume RAID 0 to complement existing HDD RAID 5. That is, I'm thinking of buying four Samsung 850 Pro 128 GB SSDs to put in a four disk volume to handle everything (media/projects, media cache, previews, exports), or split it up into two volumes of two disks each and split the duties, or keep the four disk volume idea and put the previews & exports on my HDD RAID 5 array.
    The 850's are rated at SEQ read/write: 550/470 MB/s thus I could get around 2000/1500 MB/s read write in a four disk RAID 0 or 1/2 that if I split into two volumes to minimize volumes from reading/writing at the same time, if that really matters with these SSDs?
    The Tweaker's page made a few comments. One is splitting duties among different disks, rather than a large efficient RAID may actually slow things down. Since the SSDs are much faster than a single HDD, I'm thinking that is no longer accurate, thus I'm leaning toward the Four disk configuration putting OS & Programs on C drive, Media & Projects on D (HDD RAID 5), Pagefile & Media Cache on SSD (2-disk RAID 0) and Previews &Exports on 2nd SSD RAID 0 (or combine the two RAID 0's and their duties).
    Just trying to get a perspective here, since I haven't purchased anything yet. Any experience/stories, I would appreciate.
    My current drive configuration:
    My D drive is software RAID 5 consisting of four 1 TB Western Digital RE4 (RED) 7200 RPM HDDs with a CrystalDiskMark SEQ Read/Write of 339/252 MB/s.
    The C drive is SSD 500 GB (Samsung 840 (not Pro) and does 531/330 MB/s. My OS, Program Files and Page File are on C, and data/media files/project, etc all are on the RAID drive.
    Problem:
    Current setup allows for smooth editing, only the exporting seems slow, often taking between two and two and a half times the video length to export. Thus a 10 minute video takes 20-30 minutes to export. 15 minute video can take 30-40 minutes to export. The first 10% of the two-pass export takes under a minute (seems fast), but it gets slower where the final 10 or 20% can hang for many minutes like my system is running out of steam. So where is the waste?
    I have enabled hardware acceleration (did the GPU hack since my GPU isn't listed) and it may spike at 25% usage a few times and eat up 600 MB of VRAM (I have 2 GB of VRAM), otherwise it is idle the whole export. The CPU may spike at 50% but it doesn't seem overly busy either.
    Our timeline is simple with two video streams and two audio streams (a little music and mostly voice) with simple transitions (jump cuts or cross dissolves). We sometimes fast color correct, so that might use the GPU? Also, since we film in 1080 60P and export 1080 29.97 frames/sec, I think that is scaling and uses the GPU. I know without the GPU, it does take a lot longer. I have ruled out buying a faster GPU since it doesn't appear to be breaking a sweat. I just need to know if my system is bottlenecked at the hard drive level because I'm using software RAID and my disks are slow and will hardware RAID significantly reduce the CPU load so it can export faster.
    Our files are not huge in nature. Most our clips are several MBs each. Total project files are between 5 GBs and 10 GBs for each video with Windows Media File export being 500 MB to 1.2 GB on average. We shoot using Panasonic camcorders so the original files are AVCHD, I believe (.MTS files?).
    Considerations:
    1. I'm thinking of buying (and future proofing) an LSI Logic MegaRAID 9361-8i that is 12Gb/s SAS and SATA (because some current SSDs can exceed the 6Gb/s standard).
    2. I'm not replacing my current RAID 5 HDDs because not in my budget to upgrade to 6 or more large SSDs. These drives are more important to me for temporary storage because I remove the files once backed up. I don't mind a few inexpensive smaller SSDs if they can make a significant difference for editing and exporting.
    I can only guess my HDD RAID is slow but the CPU is burdened with parity. I would imagine running RAID 10 would not help much.
    My setup:
    my setup:
    CPU - i7-3930K CPU @4.5 GHz
    RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3 2133 @2000
    Motherboard - ASUS P9X79 WS LGA 2011
    GPU - Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 OC 2GB (performed the compatibility list hack to enable hardware acceleration).
    C drive - 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD (Windows 7 Pro 64 bit and programs).
    D drive - four 1 TB WD RE4 Enterprise HDDs 7200 RPMs in software RAID 5
    Case - Cooler Master HAF X
    CPU Fan - Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO with 120 mm fan
    Power Supply - Corsair Pro Series AX 850 Watt 80 Plus Gold
    Optical Drive - Pioneer BDR - 208DBK
    thanks in advance,
    Eric

    ........software RAID 5 off the motherboard ??????......NOT a good idea, from what I have read here on this forum from experts like Harm Millard and others. They have mentioned a LARGE overhead on the CPU doing this....causing sub-par performance. RAID 0 off the motherboard will NOT do this, however.....RAID 0 would provide optimum speed, but, with the risk of total data loss if ANY drive fails. You may wish to reconfigure your RAID to be RAID 0...BUT...you would need to DILIGENTLY back up its entire volume onto perhaps a quality 4TB drive very frequently.
         A lot depends on the nature of your current and FUTURE codecs you plan to edit. You may not want to sink a lot of money into an older setup that may have trouble with more demanding future codecs. For now, in the 1080p realm, your rig should be OK....the read/write performance on your CURRENT RAID 5 setup is not great, and a definite drag on the performance. The rest of your components appear to be fine.....the Samsung SSD, though not ideal, is OK.....it's write speed is WAY lower than the Pro model,but, the drive is used mainly for reading operations. Since you have Windows 7 Pro, and NOT Windows 8.......you CAN put the entire windows page file onto the RAID 0 you might create.....this will take that frequent read/write load OFF the SSD. Read the "tweakers Page" to see how to best TUNE your machine. To use your current setup most efficiently, without investing much money, you would :a. create the RAID 0 off the motherboard, ( putting all media and project files on it )  b. install a quality 7200rpm 4TB HDD to serve as a BACKUP of the RAID array. Then, install a Crucial M550 256GB or larger SSD, ( close in performance to Samsung 850 Pro...much cheaper), to put all previews, cache , and media cache files on....AND to use as " global performance cache" for After Effects...if you use that program. Exporting can be done to ANOTHER Crucial M550 for best speed...or, just to the either the FIRST Crucial or, the 4TB drive. Your current GPU will accelerate exports on any video containing scaling and any GPU accelerated effects. Your CPU is STILL important in SERVING the data to and from the GPU AND for decoding and encoding non-GPU handled video....your high CPU clock speed helps performance there ! You may want to check out possibly overclocking your video card, using MSI Afterburner.or, similar free program. Increasing the "memory clock speed" can RAISE performance and cut export times on GPU effects loaded timelines,or, scaling operations. On my laptop, I export 25% faster doing this. With my NEW  i7 4700 HQ laptop, I export in the range of your CURRENT machine....about 2 to 3 times the length of the original video. PROPERLY SET UP...your desktop machine should BLOW THIS AWAY !!
        Visit the PPBM7 website and test your current setup to possibly identify current bottlenecks,or, performance issues. THEN, RE-TEST it again, after making improvements to your machine to see how it does. Be aware that new codecs are coming (H.265 and HEVC,etc.) which may demand more computer horsepower to edit, as they are even MORE compressed and engineered for "streaming" high quality at a lower bandwidth on the internet. The new Haswell E...with its quad-channel memory, 8 core option, large number of PCI gen. 3 lanes, goes farther in being prepared for 4K and more. Testing by Eric Bowen has shown the newer PPro versions provide MUCH better processing of 4K than older versions.

  • I uploaded a video from a flashdrive to my Mac and it compressed the video to lower quality and shrunk it in size. How do I get it to the original size?

    I uploaded a video from a flashdrive to my Mac and it compressed the video to lower quality and shrunk it in size. How do I get it to the original size?

    It changed the Aspect ratio of the video, as if it had been shot on a phone instead of a camera. When first looking at the footage it was in landscape aspect but when I transfered it to a memory unit to put on a different computer it uploaded it in a different ratio

  • H.264 and prores proxy question

    I've read through a ton of posts about proxy and h.264 workflows but didn't find any that answers my specific question.
    My raw video from my camera is mp4 (h.264). I understand that h.264 is not good to edit with, so I have a few options. I use a macbook pro for editing so I have been toying around with prores proxy for editing and it makes a difference on RT playback and rendering while editing, so that's good. When I get ready to output my movie after editing, I relink my project back to the original h.264 source files and that seems to work fine.
    I'm wondering if that's not the right workflow though. Should I transcode the h.264 into prores HQ or LT and then ALSO to proxy, edit with proxy and then relink my project back to the HQ or LT files to output? Or is linking back to my source h.264 files and outputing the right way to go?
    Since the original files must be in the best possible quality that I'm going to get (since they're my original clips), I assume that relinking to them right before output is the way to go but I really don't know much about codecs to know if I'm missing something.
    Thanks in advance for the advice.

    Thanks for your response. I'm shooting with a Sanyo FH1, mostly in 1080p, but I've scaled back to 720 since 1080 was overkill for what I'm doing to save some space.
    The thing I don't quite understand yet is the issue with pointing my project back to the source files after all the editing is finished with prores proxy and just before output. That way, FCP would only have to uncompress the source files to render for final output only one time (besides the initial transcoding), albeit, probably longer than it would be for prores. I'm sold on proxy because it was so much faster to edit with than h.264 and I didn't have to keep any video files after I was finished except my source files....trying to budget hard drive space. I transcoded one file a while back to prores but the file size was more than I wanted to deal with since I only edit on my macbook pro so I didn't try to edit with it. Like you said, maybe just converting to prores and dealing with the space juggling would be the best way to go, or try prores LT to see how the quality is.
    Does converting from h.264 to prores buy me any quality or a better final result, or just a cleaner workflow? Don't misread my questions, I'm not arguing, just trying to understand from you guys that know a lot more about this than I do. Making my living as a developer, it's just ingrained in me to understand this one
    Message was edited by: kenmoberg (updated macos version)

  • Re-use of .264 and .ac3 created by compressor or fcp-share

    Good Morning from Belgium
    Here is my question
    How do I reburn a blu-ray without having to reencode in compressor or using "share" in fcp. In other words, how to re-use the .264 and .ac3 files created in a previous burning session ? I have tried Toast 9 but get 2 files (one with audio, one with video) .
    Can I safely delete those huge files if it is not possible to use them later with any software ?
    Hope you can help
    Michel

    I can put a movie in Compressor, add the video and audio presets and then select "Create BD/AVCHD Disc" in the Job Action menu but that will only create one disc.
    My idea was to save the .264 and .ac3 files so that I could burn another disc at a later date.
    I can do this with Toast but there is no way I can use those files in Compressor again (that I know about).
    What exactly did you mean by burn it from a disk image?
    I can do that in Toast but I don't know how to do it with Compressor.

  • Pros and Cons of using REST over JMS (and other technologies)

    Hey all,
    I am working on a project where we were using JMS initially to send messages between servers. Our front end servers have a RESTful API and use JEE6, with EJB 3.1 entity beans connected to a mysql database and so forth. The back end servers are more like "agents" so to speak.. we send some work for them to do, they do it. They are deployed in GlassFish 3.1 as well, but initially I was using JMS to listen to messages. I learned that JMS onMessage() is not threaded, so in order to facilitate handling of potentially hundreds of messages at once, I had to implement my own threading framework. Basically I used the Executor class. I could have used MDBs, but they are a lot more heavyweight than I needed, as the code within the onMessage was not using any of the container services.
    We ran into other issues, such as deploying our app in a distributed architecture in the cloud like EC2 was painful at best. Currently the cloud services we found don't support multi-cast so the nice "discover" feature for clustering JMS and other applications wasn't going to work. For some odd reason there seems to be little info on building out a scalable JEE application in the cloud. Even the EC2 techs, and RackSpace and two others had nobody that understood how to do it.
    So in light of this, plus the data we were sending via JMS was a number of different types that had to all be together in a group to be processed.. I started looking at using REST. Java/Jersey (JAX-RS) is so easy to implement and has thus far had wide industry adoption. The fact that our API is already using it on the front end meant I could re-use some of the representations on the back end servers, while a few had to be modified as our public API was not quite needed in full on the back end. Replacing JMS took about a day or so to put the "onmessage" handler into a REST form on the back end servers. Being able to submit an object (via JAXB) from the front servers to the back servers was much nicer to work with than building up a MapMessage object full of Map objects to contain the variety of data elements we needed to send as a group to our back end servers. Since it goes as XML, I am looking at using gzip as well, which should compress it by about 90% or so, making it use much less bandwidth and thus be faster. I don't know how JMS handles large messages. We were using HornetQ server and client.
    So I am curious what anyone thinks.. especially anyone that is knowledgeable with JMS and may understand REST as well. What benefits do we lose out on via JMS. Mind you, we were using a single queue and not broadcasting messages.. we wanted to make sure that one and only one end server got the message and handled it.
    Thanks..look forward to anyone's thoughts on this.

    851827 wrote:
    Thank you for the reply. One of the main reasons to switch to REST was JMS is strongly tied to Java. While I believe it can work with other message brokers that other platforms/languages can also use, we didn't want to spend more time researching all those paths. REST is very simple, works very well and is easy to implement in almost any language and platform. Our architecture is basically a front end rest API consumed by clients, and the back end servers are more like worker threads. We apply a set of rules, validations, and such on the front end, then send the work to be done to the back end. We could do it all in one server tier, but we also want to allow other 3rd parties to implement the "worker" server pieces in their own domains with their own language/platform of choice. Now, with this model, they simply provide a URL to send some REST calls to, and send some REST calls back to our servers.well, this sounds like this would be one of those requirements which might make jms not a good fit. as ejp mentioned, message brokers usually have bindings in multiple languages, so jms does not necessarily restrict you from using other languages/platforms as the worker nodes. using a REST based api certainly makes that more simple, though.
    As for load balancing, I am not entirely sure how glassfish or JBoss does it. Last time I did anything with scaling, it involved load balancers in front of servers that were session/cookie aware for stateful needs, and could round robin or based on some load factor on each server send requests to appropriate servers in a cluster. If you're saying that JBoss and/or GlassFish no longer need that.. then how is it done? I read up on HornetQ where a request sent to one ip/hornetq server could "discover" other servers in a cluster and balance the load by sending requests to other hornetq servers. I assume this is how the JEE containers are now doing it? The problem with that to me is.. you have one server that is loaded with all incoming traffic and then has to resend it on to other servers in the cluster. With enough load, it seems that the glassfish or jboss server become a load balancer and not doing what they were designed to do.. be a JEE container. I don't recall now if load balancing is in the spec or not..I would think it would not be required to be part of a container though, including session replication and such? Is that part of the spec now?you are confusing many different types of scaling. different layers of the jee stack scale in different ways. you usually scale/load balance at the web layer by putting a load balancer in front of your servers. at the ejb layer, however, you don't necessarily need that. in jboss, the client-side stub for invoking remote ejbs in a cluster will actually include the addresses for all the boxes and do some sort of work distribution itself. so, no given ejb server would be receiving all the incoming load. for jms, again, there are various points of work to consider. you have the message broker itself which is scaled/load balanced in whatever fashion it supports (don't know many details on actual message broker impls). but, for the mdbs themselves, each jee server is pretty independent. each jee server in the cluster will start a pool of mdbs and setup a connection to the relevant queue. then, the incoming messages will be distributed to the various servers and mdbs accordingly. again, no single box will be more loaded than any other.
    load balancing/clustering is not part of the jee "spec", but it is one of the many features that a decent jee server will handle for you. the point of jee was to specify patterns for doing work which, if followed, allow the app server to do all the "hard" parts. some of those features are required (transactions, authentication, etc), and some of those features are not (clustering, load-balancing, other robustness features).
    I still would think dedicated load balancers, whether physical hardware or virtual software running in a cloud/VM setup would be a better solution for handling load to different tiers?like i said, that depends on the tier. makes sense in some situations, not others. (for one thing, load-balancers tend to be http based, so they don't work so well for non-http protocols.)

Maybe you are looking for