H.264 and QT 7.0.3 vs QT 7.0.4

This is an alert to all who have been frustrated with making H.264 movies for the 5th generation iPod video.
iTunes will play movies the iPod won't. The iPod is more picky in what it can play. In particular, the iPod requires an .mp4 encoded with H.264 to be encoded with "restrict Profile to Baseline."
Unfortunately, it appears that QT 7.0.4 breaks this! QT 7.0.3 works, QT 7.0.4 does not.
We encoded the same test file on machines running OS X 10.4.3 and QT 7.0.3, it worked. Encoding under OS X 10.4.5 and QT 7.0.4 does not.
Feedback has been sent to Apple.

Just a bit more information about this:
Updating to QT 7.0.4 has resulted in movies encoded with H.264 for the 5th generation iPod (video) no longer being able to load. These QT 7.0.4 encoded movies play in iTunes, but generate the error when trying to load onto the iPod.
QT 7.0.3 does not have this problem.
Something has been broken in the QT 7.0.4 upgrade.
My guess is that QT 7.0.4 is not correctly using the "Baseline" profile, required by the iPod.
That it no longer works has been confirmed using several machines and several iPods. When encoded in QT 7.0.3, it loads on the iPod just fine. When encoded in QT 7.0.4, it does not.
This is using the Movie to MPEG-4 settings (not the Movie to iPod (320x240)settings, which create huge files - not good for server space or download time).
We used the following settings in all our tests:
Export using QuickTime Conversion
Format: MPEG-4
Options:
File Format: MP4 (NOT ISMA)
Video Settings: Video Format: H.264, data rate 75
Image Size 320x240 QVGA, 15fps, Key frames automatic
Press the "Video Options" button and set Restrict file profile to "Baseline" (NOT anything else)
Encoding Mode: Best Quality (Multi-pass), hit "OK"
"Optimized for Download" is no longer grayed out
Audio: AAC-LC (Music), Data Rate 48
Channels: Mono, Output Sample Rate: 44.100 KHz, Encoding Quality best
When done in QT 7.0.3, it works fine.
When done in QT 7.0.4, it will not load onto the iPod.

Similar Messages

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.

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.

FCPX Project Render Settings - Can you edit in h.264 and Transcode/render only used clips on timeline to Prores during render?

I have a question on the PROJECT RENDER settings in FCP X. It’s seems to me that one could theoretically import and edit entirely with original h.264 video files without needing to Transcode to ProRes422. Once you’re done with your edit and want to get the added benefits of COLOR GRADING in ProRes422 color space, it seems that FCPX will automatically render your edit in ProRes422 according to these preferences. In that case, a color grade could be applied to the whole edit, and be automatically transcoded/rendered into ProRes 422 during the render process. After rendering, what would show up on the viewer and what would EXPORT would be the rendered Prores files and not the original h.264 files. This saves a lot of time and space of transcoding ALL your media, and in theory should enable you to edit NATIVE video formats like h.264, with automatic benefits of ProRes during render. I'm assuming the render may take longer because FCPX is having to convert h.264 video files to ProRes422 while rendering. This may be one drawback. But will you your color grade actually use the 4:2:0 color space of the h.264 native media, or will it utilize 4:2:2 color space, since the render files are set to render to ProRes422 ? Can anyone please confirm that this theory is correct and optimal for certain work flows?? Thanks!

Thanks Wild. That's what I thought - in that the render files would be converted to ProRes422 codec. So do you or anyone else think that there is an advantage to having the 4:2:0 original file be processed in a 4:2:2 color space?
Yes there is an advantage, any effects and grading will look better than in a 4:2:0 space.
Most professionals online seem to think so. Also - will rendering of heavy effects and color grading take longer using this method because it's having to convert h.264 media to ProRes during render?
Yes, it will definitely take longer.
Can anyone verify from a technical standpoint whether editing and color grading in this workflow will see the same benefits as having transcoded the h.264 media to ProRes in the first place?
Same benefits from a final product view point, you lose on rendering time though and if you have lots of effects things will seem slow as it will have render everytime from the h264 file rather than a Pro Res file for every change you make. This may be fine on a higher end mac but I'm sure just pummels an older lower end mac as to being almost useless.

Exporting h.264 and color managment

I'm wondering what everyone that owns the production suite does with color management.
If you open Adobe Bridge....what are you color management settings? The reason I'm asking is that I've got two 2408WFP monitors and I'm using CS3. Everything looks great in Premiere CS3, but when export to h.264 I get horrible contrast results. It really looks over exposed. I've checked my Adobe Media Encoder settings and I'm exporting at 100% with 20,000kbps and it still looks like garbage.
When I play the same footage on a iMac....it looks under exposed to the point I can barely see it.
If this is a monitor calibration issue, how do you recommend I calibrate? What do you use and what are your settings? Also, does anyone else here use a 2408WFP monitor?
Much thanks!

It has to do with default Gamma settings. Mac are 1.8,(until Snow Leopard, which is now 2.2) PC is 2.2
PC's look a little brighter, more washed out compared to MAC. You should get a monitor calibration image from the net, and adjust your monitor.
Here is a link that might help...
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/osx_22_gamma.html

Compressor H.264 and Android devices

I'm looking to make videos on our web site as mobile compatible as is practical and have run into a specific issue with compressor. When I tried to play one of our H.264 videos on an Android device I got the picture but no sound. I did some experimenting and found that any video made with the Format of Quicktime (regardless of codec) had the same problem. I have been able to make H.264 videos with other tools such as Handbrake and ffmpeg with similar settings as used in Compressor and those work fine on the Android. Anyone have an idea what my problem is and if there is a work-around? So far my only option seems to be using ffmpeg instead of compressor.

I've had luck with H.264/AAC from Quicktime Player 7 and Adobe Media Encoder. I've never been able to export to Android out of Compressor. The AAC flavours Compressor offers aren't to Android's taste.
Here's the spec sheet on what is/isn't accepted.
http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html
Also, for the record, Google supports and actively contributes to HTML5. The hang up is the video tag in HTML 5 does not specify a codec. Google is dropping support for H.264 video in Chrome when using the video tag because H.264 is proprietary, not open. This is the same reason H.264 video support has never been in Firefox. H.264 will be supported in Chrome through Flash, just as WebM will be supported almost everywhere else via Flash.
Message was edited by: soundman1024 - Changed from "AAC" to "H.264/AAC" in 1st sentence

Import quality issue with AVC/H.264 and workaround

When I import from my Sanyo Xacti HD700 using "Import from Camera..." the import quality has significant blocking / compression artifacts. However, if I copy the same file off the SD card from the camera and play it back in QTplayer it does not have this same blocking / compression artifacts.
The file is a .MP4 container using H.264 codec for video and AAC for audio. The resolution is 1280x720p and framerate 30fps.
After spending a significant portion of time messing around with iMovie 08 trying to get it to import without the quality loss I have discovered that "Import from Camera..." and "Import Movies..." have different behavior (in terms of video quality) on the SAME FILE.
*To reproduce*:
1) Record a video with Sanyo Xacti HD700 camera. (One with a nice color gradient is good because it will make the compression artifacts more obvious).
2) Import the video from the camera using "Import from Camera..." (Name the event "Import from Camera" so you can remember which is which)
3) Copy the .MP4 file from the mounted drive onto your local harddrive. (Not sure if this step is actually necessary, but haven't tried without)
4) Import the video from the .MP4 on your desktop using "Import Movies..." (Name the event "Import Movies") Notice that this completes much quicker than step 2.
5) Find the two imported movies in your "iMovie Events" folder. You will notice that both movies are different sizes when you would expect them to be identical. (In my case the movie from "Import from Camera" was 47.4MB while the movie from "import movies" was 33.1MB, and the file on the SD card was 33.1 MB)
6) At this point you will also notice that the movie imported from camera will have a custom name like clip-2007-12-26 14;41;44.mov while the movie from "import movies" will have the same filename as it did on the camera i.e SANY0025.MP4.
7) Now open both files in QTplayer and arrange them side by side showing the same frame. You will see that the quality is much worse in the file from "Import from Camera".
Hypothesis:
My guess is that when you select "Import from Camera" it does some transcoding on these files that it doesn't do when you select "Import Movies". (Maybe Import from Camera always transcodes, whereas Import Movies checks to see if it needs to transcode or not?) I believe this because it takes significantly longer using the "Import from Camera" during which time it would appear to be performing some type of transformation on the movie. Also, because the file name in the folder is different.
I believe that either this transcoding is flawed or of poor quality which leads to the poor quality video when importing.
*Work around*:
Use "Import Movies..." instead of "Import from Camera..."
Note that I have not yet taken this through the export process to know how this will impact the final output.
Finally, for the skeptics, here is a screengrab of the two movies side by side in QTplayer on the same frame. The one on the left was imported with "Import from Camera" and the one on the right with "Import Movies". Look at the right side of the yellow playset and also at the hair. In motion it looks quite bad.
Thoughts?

Really? You don't see the difference?
Ok, well here is it blown up to 2X to make it more obvious:
and here it is blown up to 2X and with the contrast increased to make it even more apparent:
I perhaps didn't pick the best frame as an example, but it is very obvious in motion. If necessary I suppose I could post a small movie clip to show.
Message was edited by: Richard_

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.

AVC/H.264 and FCE HD

Hi,
I just bought a consumer HD camera and have been shooting SD on Panasonic DVC-30, using FCE HD to edit. The new camera's specs say "Conforms to ISO Standard MPEG-4 AVC/H.264." Do I need to upgrade to FCE 4? Will be recording on an SD Card.

As far as I can tell this camera shoots in a non-AVCHD version of AVC/H.264 that no version of FCE will support directly. You can most likely use the free [MPEG Streamclip|http://www.squared5.com> to convert the files to the Apple Intermediate Codec, and if not you may be able to use VoltaicHD to achieve a similar function. You'll need FCE 4.0.1 to be able to edit full 1920x1080i60 material.

H.264 and Q7 Plugin Woes

I have posted in the Quicktime forum but have not gotten any response so I thought I would try here. I have several videos that I have compressed with H.264. They play perfectly via Q7 player, but when trying to play them via Firefox or IE, they crash the browser with a plugin error. The weird thing is that sometime they do play, but they crash the browser about 8 out of 10 times. Is anyone else seeing this? I have tried playing these on multiple computers, so I am pretty sure it is not a browser configuration problem as other videos play just fine. Only the ones encoded with H.264 seem to cause this crash. A final note, they didn't crash the browser when Q7 for Windows was in beta, only after the final release.
One of the videos in question: http://seanlperkins.com/movies/friends.mov
Again, sometimes it plays, try it several times, or other videos from my site....

thanks for the input. i understand the differences between various hardware setups/monitors/profiles causing variability in how images look, but the issue lies in that i am viewing the same video on the same compouter with the same monitor just with different software and it's being displayed differently. i have a hardware calibrated monitor (i am also a photographer) so i undestand color management with ICC profiles from a photographic perspective. unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a direct equivalency for video that i am aware of.
here is an example:
http://bold-creative.com/images/3.jpg
top left is youtube on chrome
top right is youtube on safari
bottom left is VLC
bottom right is quicktime X
see how desaturated safari and quicktime are vs chrome and VLC? chrome and VLC match FCP.
i thought it was maybe just how safari handled the video, but other youtube videos were identical when viewed next to each other on chrome and safari. this leads me to believe that it must be my file that is somewhow the culprit.

H.264 and Quicktime

hello everyone,
i'm currently under the process of converting all my videos from home movies to dvds, movies, through with h.264. I have recently found out through the Mpeg industry forum head Gary Sullivan that the "main" profile was a profile that was implemented on a semi-temporary basis until they came up with the "high" profile. now as many of you know, the high profile doesn't exist in QTPro or FCP. I also found out that at the same bitrates "high" has better algorithms than "main" and "main" better than "baseline" so perceived visual quality is better at the same bitrate. Obviously it would be advantageous if I could encode all my videos using the "high" profile. So on to my questions:
1. What is the best/most widespread application to convert your videos to the "high" profile for h.264?
2. If I have videos encoded in the high profile, will QT natively support them and play them back or not?
3. Is it worth going with "high" over "main"?
4. What is the difference when encoding in h.264 to using a .mp4 container or a .mov container?
Thanks everyone.
Nick

The "best" application for mass conversion of video would be either Apple's Compressor 3 or Telestream's Episode Pro since both have high quality codecs and feature batch encoding. There may be a problem with cost however since Compressor is only available as part of Final Cut Studio ($1300) and Episode Pro is $895. I use both (I'm in post-production) and they're pretty equal. The econo way to go is QT Pro.
None of what you had about Gary Sullivan, et al. made much sense to me although I've been working with H.264 since early 2005. What I can tell you is this:
Unless your library of movies, etc. are of spectacular quality, you needn't be concerned with "high" quality issues. H.264 has been touted as "half the filesize of MPEG or twice the quality" and I see that as true. In my experience that "medium quality" H.264 is quite presentable. It will usually compare favorably with 25Mbps DV-NTSC at a bitrate of less than 2Mbps.
H.264 is technically MPEG-4, layer 10. It is also called AVC (Advanced Video Codec) and AVC/HD. Which wrapper QT chooses to isn't important. In the mid-term future, you will see H.264 infiltrate pretty much all forms of video from 3G to 4K. The one place you won't find it is in conventional video DVD. You can write H.264 to DVD-ROM as data, but if you intend to produce conventional Video DVDs of your library, you'll be encoding as MPEG-2 or MPEG-1 since those are the only allowable formats by DVD standards.
Good luck.

HT3775 Video recorded with a digital video recorder with H.264 and Avi options. how do I manage to preview the video and burn it on a disc

I have a problem previewing data recorded on DVR machine H.264 trnsfered to the apple machine using a flash disk.
The data is in form of video footage.
The Mac player warns of missing codec to allow the preview.
How do I tell which codec and how will I achieve my goal?

Sorry, you need to convert if you want it on iPad.
iPad video formats:
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 1080p, 30 frames per second, High Profile level 4.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG‑4 video up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format

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

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.

Updated document about QuickTime errors with After Effects (re: H.264 and hyperthreading)

I just updated "troubleshooting QuickTime errors with After Effects CS5, CS5.5, and CS6" with information about hyperthreading and Apple's H.264 encoder.
The gist is that Apple's H.264 exporter component for QuickTime fails when the computer has a large number of CPUs.

No, this applies to any QuickTime H.264 export. You can export H.264 in a QuickTime .mov wrapper out of AME, too, and it will have this problem.
The various H.264 encoding presets (for YouTube, Blu-ray, Vimeo, iPad, etc.) don't use the H.264 QuickTime component, so this isn't relevant to them.
This problem is just relevant to choosing Apple's H.264 as the video codec when choosing QuickTime as a format. This applies to all software that uses QuickTime, by the way, not just Adobe software.

H.264 and QT 7.0.3 vs QT 7.0.4

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for