H.264 bit rate, quality

Is it possible to adjust the max bit rate / quality for a custom screen size
(e.g. 480 x 270) using the Adobe Media Encoder? The default sizes seem set
the bit rate, but I want to use a custom size and select a bit rate. Not
quite sure how to dial in the file size and video quality.
Best,
Christopher

> Broad? Use Flash or Quicktime. I prefer Windows Media but we have to take
> care of our poor unfortunate Mac brethren who can't play anything Steve
> Jobs disapproves of.
On my system (Windows XP Pro SP2, Premiere CS3) any attempt to use flash
(either On6 or Sorenson) immediately crashes Premiere.
Quicktime colors are washed out and lacks contrast.
Using video from a Canon XL H1 and Aspect HD, Windows Media looks great.
Excellent colors, contrast, and detail.
Any suggestions on how to get Flash to work and how to improve the colors in
Quicktime?
Best,
Christopher

Similar Messages

When is the h.264 bit rate issue going to be fixed?

If you export a project in After Effects using the H.264 codec the file you export does not have the correct bitrate. Meaning if you export a video at 1mbps compression rate you will not get a video that has 1mbps bitrate. This has been an issue since day one along with header issues in the .mp4 file. Please do not tell me not to use AE to create H.264, this is what we used and works fine in CS4. The same issues arrises when you use Adobe Media Encoder CS5.
Does anyone have a solution or anyone from Adobe have any suggestions?

Thanks but that didn't help.
I believe I have found out the actual issue. CS5 will not render a project above the lowest bitrate of the source video for H.264. So if you have a video file at 300kbps it cannot be rendered above that point. This is a problem when you understand how bitrates\codecs work. Not all codecs need an extremely high bitrate in order for the quality of the content to look good. We use the TechSmith screen capture codec a lot. This codec is create for screen capturing, it provides a low bitrate file which is small in size and easy to handle. We have been using this combination with the CS package since before it was CS. The videos we procude look great in CS4 but awful in CS5. When using mediainfo to check out a video file compressed in CS5 it gives us a Bit Rate and a Normal Bit Rate. Normal bit rate is what is requested, say 1mbps and the actual Bit Rate is what the source material was.
In any case the video files look like crap because a 250kbps .mp4 looks awful compaired to a 250kbps video using the TSCC codec. So yeah, not using CS5 and most likely won't be doing any more upgrades in a while. I'm responsible for purchasing over 10 licenses. Just wanted to let Adobe know they won't be getting that money again for a while until they figure out there compression issues.

What are the Bit Rates of the Music Store and Podcasts?

What is the bit rate quality and format of a song downloaded in the Music Store? And podcasts? Are they perfect, Apple Lossless quality or what...?

This might be true, but you won't experience any improvement in sound quality. Here's some info on bit rates:
This was originally posted by the incredible Sparky the wUnderdog
"As a general principle, you can fit more CDs on your iPod if you encode at lower bitrates (making smaller files), but at the cost of audio quality. Lossless promises to capture all the data on the original CD (thus preserving quality) but coded so the file takes half the space. MP3 and AAC (an implementation of variable bit rate MP4) both eliminate some of the information on the CD in order to compress the digital recording into ever smaller files--the lower the bitrate, the smaller the file, but smaller files mean more information lost and consequent poorer sound quality.
iTunes's MP3 encoder is so-so; the LAME encoder is better at preserving sound fidelity to the original. AAC files ripped in iTunes certainly sound better than its MP3s, with audio quality close to the best LAME MP3s at higher bitrates. With the type of music I listen to most often, sound quality declines substantially as bitrates fall below 256kbps, but LAME or AAC @ 256kbps sounds pretty darned good, and at 320kbps LAME alt-preset-insane is amazingly faithful to the original. However many users claim that with the music they listen to they can't hear the difference between 192 or even 128 kbps files and the original CD source, so they naturally choose higher compression rates to fit more "songs" on their iPods.
CDs take approximately 10MB per minute of music; Apple lossless takes 5MB/minute; LAME insane takes 2.5MB/min; AAC or MP3 at 256kbps take 2MB/min; and iTunes Store files (AAC@128kbps) take 1MB/min. At these rates, a 20GB iPod (really 18.6GB) can hold anywhere from 30 hours to over 300 hours of music. (iPod marketers express this potential playback capacity as "songs," figuring 4 minutes per song--thus 300 hours at 128kbps = 4500 "songs.") You will need to listen to samples ripped with different bitrates and codecs to determine the optimum tradeoff point for you between quality & quantity. It's worth taking some time to do this at the start as it sure beats reripping everything in your collection 2 or 3 times to get it right later.
So far as convenience goes, nothing beats iTunes's one-step process. To change bitrate as you import from CD, go to the iTunes menu > Edit > Preferences, select the Importing tab, choose AAC or MP3 encoder in the "import using" selection box, then choose "Custom" in the "setting" box, and the window permitting bitrate selection will pop up. If you choose iTunes MP3 encoder, at least use VBR (variable bit rate) to maximize the sound quality. (VBR increases sample size as data complexity increases.)
If you would prefer LAME MP3s, fear not, for the easy-to-use CDex ripping software is a free download and requires only one simple extra step to get the files into iTunes for transfer to your iPod. Now if AAC sound quality is comparable to LAME MP3, you might wonder why you should even consider LAME: Because of portability to other devices. At present, hardly anything but iPods can read AACs or Apple Lossless, but almost everything reads MP3s. So if you plan to burn CDs of your compressed files for playback on your home or car CD player (for instance), it would be wise to choose MP3.
One other consideration specific to the iPod: It has a 32MB cache. If you choose a compression rate that results in large files (i.e. lossless), then the cache won't hold very much 'music' and the hard drive will have to spin up frequently to fill it, and that will shorten your battery life somewhat."
JC

H.264 .m2t high bit rate playback problem ...

I'm still coming up to speed on some of basic video concepts so bare with me.   I have a 9 minute 1280x720 video; 59.94; source came from a Contour+ bike helmet type camera that stores .mov/H.264; separate audio track from MP3 files.   I exported an .m2t file file using the H.264 Blu-ray format/preset.   Besides checking TS multiplexing, the only other items I changed from the default were Maximum Render Quality and VBR, 2 pass.   This file plays fine on my PC with Windows Media Player.
Next I went down the layman's road of thinking higher bit rate = more information per second = higher quality and slid the target bit rate all the way to the right to 35, which in turn adjusted the max bit rate to 35 as well.   VBR 2-pass, max render, etc. still applied.   When I go to play this .m2t file under WMP it chokes and jerks.
I just wanted to ensure this result is expected and not some issue with my hardware or software configuration or other underlying systemic issue. I was expecting this file to play just like the other one above.   Feedback?
I have a new PC that followed the VideoGuys DIY9 spec closely: i7 3930, 32GB, GTX670, WD Caviar Black RAID0, etc.
Thanks

WMP overall is a pretty unreliable media player IMO. The media players I tend to stick with are VLC,Splash Lite and KMplayer. In my experince sometimes with interlaced footage VLC doesn't play it back very well if it's a scene that has a lot of movement regardless of how you tweak it's deinterlace filters/options etc. So in those cases I use one of my other media players.
Basically what I'm saying is that no media player is perfect for every scenario although WMP is certainly my least favorite.

Higher Bit Rate for h.264

The people at FiOS say my h.264 QT file needs to be 6 MB Bit Rate, but I can't seem to get higher than 3 MB. They have to sample it up which makes my graphics slightly soft.
Can I get a higher rate using Compressor and h.264? I'm past deadline and don't have time to try other formats today, but will listen. Thanks.

Increasing the bitrate alone should not have any effect on the image (i.e., a sharp image is not going to become soft because of an increase in bitrate. Decrease yes, increase no.)
It seems that there is something else going on. Most likely it is the resolution. If the resolution you are using is lower then what they need, then they are scaling up the image which causes the graphics to become soft.
The bad news is that there is no way to "fix" this. You will need to start all over again at the proper resolution.

How can in improve the quality or bit rate of my iTunes library.

I need to improve the quality of my original iTunes library. How do I increase the bit rate in iTunes for the library I have downloaded or can I improve what I have or will download.

iTunes purchases are at 256k in AAC format. If you want better than that you'll need to purchase elsewhere. You can rerip your CDs at your preferred bitrate. If you have some older itunes purchases these could be in 128k protected AAC format. Every now and again the iTunes Store offers links to upgrade such tracks to the current format for a smaller fee than purchasing new copies.
tt2

Sound quality: If you want to hear the difference between higher and lower bit rates

Have you ever wondered about the difference in the sound quality of music at different bit-rates? Can you hear the difference?
If you listen to 64kbps and 28kbps (either wma or mp3), you'll hear the great difference. However, if you listen to 28kbps and 92kbps (either wma or mp3), you'll find that there is little or no difference (to me, that is).
collegeboy wrote:
We all know that wma 28kbps sounds just as good as wma 320kb
ps.
the reason i and you go higher than 28 is because where able to. you can deny all you want.
If you want to experience better sound quality at higher bit-rates, the best thing to do is to listen to the music at a quiet place. This may sound like lame advise, but it really works. Try 320kbps for the best results. You'll be able to hear minor details you never had before.

SSR wrote:
Wayyyyyy back when I first started encoding MP3s I was using 28 with an inferior encoder. At the time I couldn't spot the difference, but now the difference is stark. Particular types of music (and more specifically instruments and combinations) do emphasise it though.
Actually, you cannot hear the difference when the background noise is loud, or example, public transport. I suggest that one uses a noise cancellation headset. $$$

Bit rates, file type, MP3 encoders, quality settings etc.

Can someone provide me with or point me to a good explanation of various sound file types and settings and how it relates to sound quality and disk space? I've been importing tunes, recording some streams etc. and I realize I need a definitive source to explain to me how I can get the best sound quality, with all the variables involved: bit rate (64, 96, 128kbps etc.), file type (AIFF, WAV, MPs etc.), MP3 encoder (Apple lossless, AIFF, AAC etc.) Thanks in advance.....

OK. The following is my opinion.
iTunes supports 5 formats. WAV and AIFF are uncompressed and lossless. Apple Lossless Encoding (ALE) is compressed and lossless. MP3 and AAC are compressed and lossy.
WAV, AIFF, and ALE give the same quality as a CD but are too bulky for use in an iPod. The practical choices are MP3 and AAC.
AAC gives better quality for a given bit rate. However, it is not as widely supported as MP3. Many non-Apple players cannot handle AAC. So choose between MP3 and AAC accordingly.
Both AAC and MP3 allow you to select an encoding bit rate, usually in the range of 32 to 320 kb/s. That number affects the audio fidelity of the compressed file as compared with the CD quality original. Given that you will be using a good stereo at least part of the time, I suggest go no lower than 192.
You can do a web search and find listening tests, etc. You can also take a couple of tracks, rip them at 192, 256, and 320, and see if you notice anything better with the higher numbers.
Enjoy the music!

Video Bit Rate Too High-how to reduce quality

I have a Creative Zen Vision M Version .40.02. The problem is a few of my videos have a high bit rate, which from what I have read is the problem. These videos are from the free digital copy that comes with the movie. I would like to know how I can either change this, if there is a firmware that would let a higher bit rate play(from what I have looked into it doesn't appear so), or if I can't play them on my player. Thanks for any help.

I don't know exactly what the total length of the video is in minutes, but I do know that it is 6.8GB for a dual layer. Probably at least 3 hours. I don't know what the target bit rate is? Is what you are referring is to what the compression I used in compressor?
I am using the setting DVD Best Quality 150 minutes 3.7mbps for video and the AC3 for the audio.
I am recompressing all the videos again just in case there was a problem with one of the compressions. I don't understand why it isn't working this time when none of the settings or compression had changed.
Thanks!!

H.264 vs H.264 Blu-ray VBR 2-pass bit rate presets ...

If I select H.264 1080i, 29.97fps VBR 2-pass PP CS6 is recommending a target bit rate of 30 mbps and a max of 40 mbps. However, if I switch to H.264 Blu-ray I get 25/30. I was curious if there are logical reasons here for the difference.
In case it matters ... home movie (birthday parties, spring break trip, etc.), target output is playback on PC and PS3, and then Blu-ray disc. I've given up on the one file concept and was leaning towards an .mp4 and then separate .m4v/.wav files to feed to Encore. Curious what you would set for bit rates, if you would go VBR 2-pass, etc. (encoding time is not an issue).
Thanks

Blu-ray has bitrate limitations that computer files don't. (That's my guess on why the difference.)
Anyway, a preset is nothing more than a starting point, not the final authority on what you can export.

Does improving bit rate improve quality when importing from a lossy file?

Okay, if that question made no sense, here's an example:
I have a 5 Megabyte file encoded as an MP3 at 192 kbps.
I like to keep all my files in one format though, and currently my preferred format is AAC.
Would it make sense to convert it to 320 kbps AAC?
I get the feeling that since the data for that bitrate is gone (since MP3 is lossy)
it wouldn't make any sense trying to improve the bitrate. All I would get is a large file
that sounds the same as 192 kbps AAC.
Is that right?

Yes and No.
You are right that converting to 320kpbs AAC will not increase the quality since the data is already gone.
However for the next but you are slightly wrong.
What you will get is a large file that sounds the same as 192kbps MP3, which is not as good as 192kbps AAC (AAC is better quality than MP3 at the same bitrate).
Also, there is always a loss in quality when going from one lossy format to another.
If it's possible to go and re-encode the original source material at a higher bit-rate AAC I would definately do that, but if all you have is the 192kpbs MP3, then just leave them as they are and don't worry about having different formats.

Boosting Bit Rate for Higher Quality

In Two Pass VBR Best DVD (bit rate defaults to 6.2mbps), if I pump up the bit rate to 9mpbs or higher, will my DVD quality increase? File size is not an issue -- it's a 15-20 minute video.
David A.

In theory, yes.
However - +and this is key+ - increasing the bit rate past a certain point will reduce compatibility with many set-top players. For the most part, so long as you're using Dolby Digital audio, you can make due with increasing the average to, say, 6.5 mbps. I personally would not advise going higher than 6.5 mbps unless you're only using the DVD for playback on systems you know you can control (your home or you mac).
Also, there is a certain point of diminishing returns with encoding. The 90 preset (6.2 & 7.7) is already at the high end of things.

Burning iTunes Plus and other 256 bit rate material to get best quality?

I understand that iTunes Plus and most songs on Amazon are provided at a higher bit rate than non-Plus iTunes songs in order to provide higher audio quality on playback. But, does this quality differential come through when burning a song to disc from within iTunes?
I ask because of an experiment I just conducted. I downloaded the same song from iTunes (not a Plus version) and from Amazon. The Amazon version takes up twice as much file space as the iTunes version. (The ACC file at 128kbps was 5MB while the MPEG file at 256 kbps was 11.6MB.) However, when I burned both songs to a CD, those files where identical in size. Further, when played on a near-audiophile stereo system, I could hear no discernible difference between the two.
So the question: Does whatever extra information and hence sound quality contained in the Plus or other 256 kbps material get lost in the conversion to audio CD format? Are there settings in iTunes I'm missing? Are there alternative software or file formats available that would burn audio CDs without this loss?
(I realize that whatever difference there is in sound quality would not be detectable on most equipment. What I'm looking for is to preserve quality differences that can be heard on high-end equipment. As it is, I'm able to tell the difference between well-recorded and produced commercial CDs and the same material bought through iTunes.)

The quality of compressed audio is not always linked to file size. I believe it is possible for a 128 kbps AAC file to sound as good as a 256 kbps MP3 file. MP3 is not the best audio compression format but it is by far the most commonplace. A 128 kbps AAC file isn't as good as a 192 kbps AAC file, however.
When your audio files were uncompressed for burning to audio CD they naturally became the same size because there no longer was any compression.
If your objective is to have audio CDs that sound best on high-end equipment then you should continue buying audio CDs rather than purchasing on-line music. That way there is no loss in audio quality from compression. I'm not aware of a source that is selling lossless on-line music downloads.

Bit rates : "good" in mp3 is "high" quality in ACC ?

When I got my Mac in late March, and commenced w/ the importing, I knew nothing of bit rates. Don't know much more now.,.,...but a friend recently pointed out the rate of 128 being lossy.
Checking preferences, we see that in mp3, 128 is indeed the lowest of 3 choices_yet in ACC encoding, it's listed as "high".
I'm sick to the bone at the thought that the nearly 10,0o0 items I've imported into iTunes are now ALL in need of a re-do !!
Is 128 in ACC actually inferior ?
I'd imagine that converting the entire library to mp3's doesn't do more then slightly "expand" tracks that were encoded lossy to begin with !
==oY!==
TIA,
~~~=Dave

Is 128 in ACC actually inferior ?
Not if you play back using a 'standard' audio system. On high end systems you may notice lack of 'depth' compared to playback of an original (store bought) CD. AAC 128 kbps is good quality for general purpose.
Importing your CDs is always a choice between the available space on your HD (and/or iPod) and the audio quality.
The best audio quality is achieved by importing your CDs in AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless.
The first two are uncompressed formats, having all audio information, but they result in huge files (about 10 MB per minute).
Apple Lossless is a compressed file format, still has all audio information (it's lossless as the name implies), but results in smaller file sizes (about 5 MB per minute).
MP3 and AAC are lossy compressed file formats, resulting in small file sizes (about 1 MB per minute at 128 kbps). Both compressing methods 'throw away' certain, less important parts of the audio.
AAC is considered to have a better algorithm (calculation method).
As a result AAC at 128 kbps is as good as 160 kbps mp3.
If you're happy with the audio quality of AAC 128 kbps (same format as songs sold in the iTunes Store) there's no need to redo them.
Converting these songs to 160 (or 192) kbps mp3 will not improve sound quality, but worsen it.
Omitted parts of the audio cannot be recovered (only calculated).
As AAC and mp3 use different calculation methods, some of the audio information will be omitted again and worsen the quality.
If you are unhappy with the audio quality, import a few tracks in losless formats (AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless) or AAC and/or mp3 at higher bit rates.
Listen to them on your system and determine which quality sounds good for your ears.
Remember though, importing at high bit rates or uncompressed formats requires lots of disk space.
Hope this helps.
M
17' iMac 800 MHz, 768 MB RAM, 200 GB HD, DL burner Mac OS X (10.4.8) iTunes 7.0.2

What is the highest quality bit rate transfer?

What is the highest quality bit rate transfer iTunes offers?

Transfer from what to what?
Do you mean encoding? If so, which format? For mp3 and similar lossy codecs 320k,

H.264 bit rate, quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for