Is Exporting "None" Compression better than "Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2"?

i am trying to finish my first HD project on FCP. it's a stop-motion film which uses sequences of large jpgs (image size3504 x 2336). I have used the scaling feature in FCP to scale the image to fit into a 1920 x 1080 framing.
when my sequence settings are "Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2", and i export a quicktime with "Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2" compression, i get slight blockiness around some of my edges (near pinks, reds, oranges) that do not appear in the original jpegs. I thought "Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 meant i was going to get the best image possible, thats what a professional post facility told me to use.
In experimenting, When i Choose "None" Compression for my sequence settings, and i exported the quicktime as "None" Compression, the image is much better and does not have the above blockiness.
Does this make sense?
Is there an aliasing problem with Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2?
Why does it say "Quality:Medium" when exporting Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 but not give me the option to change that?
If i have to supply a master quicktime for an HD screening, can it be in "None" compression?
answers to any of these questions would be much appreciated.
thanks again,
aj

I'm sure someone who has more experience with codecs will be along soon, but I'll take a crack at it for now.
Using the None option, you're outputting 4:4:4 video, which means there's no color downsampling. When using Uncompressed 4:2:2 the codec is only capable of producing half the color samples of 4:4:4.
Depending on what your source files were originally sampled it, this could explain why you're seeing the degredation. Only very high end videos cameras capture 4:4:4, however. I'm assuming you used a still camera, and I really couldn't tell you what the color sampling is likely to be.
But in most regards, Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2 should be extremely high quality. There's an excellent site for comparing codecs here:
http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ which does report some slight anti-aliasing issues.
Hopefully someone else can offer a solution.
Mac Pro 2.66Ghz - 3GBs RAM - X1900XT Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Similar Messages

Exported dvpal 720by576 file to uncompressed 10 bit

help help help please
i have a client that i edited a 26minute film for,i captured the footage as dv pal 720by576 edited as the same and exported as a quicktime ,current settings .
now the client needs the file sent to the states and has asked for it to be uncompressed ,
can i import the dv pal file and then export that as a uncompressed 10 bit file ,which i have done and there is a noticable difference in quality on my computer monitor.10 bit looks great but the playback is prone to stop&pause
is that because of memory or is there a problem in the process of exporting a dvpal to uncompressed file.
as they want to broadcast this ,which should i do send the dv pal file or the uncompressed 10bit.
any help is appreciated.
cheers
simon

I wouldn't have thought the camera footage would look any different. If you have stills, text or other graphics they will certainly look cleaner if you put them onto an uncompressed timeline. If this is the case then there may be a case for sending an uncompressed file.
As stated by lots of people in lots of posts, the computer monitor is only an approximation of the final output. For a start it is non-interlaced. For critical assessment of image quality you need to be looking at a good quality PAL (in your case) monitor. If you don't have an analogue capture card you aren't going to be able to do a valid comparison between your DV timeline and your Uncompressed timeline. The only way you are going to be able to get an output to your monitor without an analogue capture card is through your firewire, which will take you back to DV anyway.

Trouble exporting with QuickTime 7 to UNCOMPRESSED 10-bit 4:2:2

I have succeeded with shorter videos, but my 90 minute video returns "error -2125".
Somehow I managed to do this before, I'm not sure what has changed on my system. Does anyone else have trouble exporting to Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2 ? I'm now exporting to ProRes instead, but would prefer uncompressed video for the sake of quality.

You don't say what's the source of your clips.
If standard DV (..though I doubt that an agency would accept standard def video any more..) NTSC DV is compressed in the camera as 4:1:1, and PAL DV is compressed as 4:2:0 ..so you won't get true 4:2:2 from normal DV, unless you're using a broadcast camera (..probably feeding into the capture device via SDI inputs).
If the source was tape-based HDV or any other hi-def source, then iMovie converts that, during import, into Apple Intermediate Codec, and wouldn't be able to output proper Uncompressed 4:2:2 material.
For Uncompressed 4:2:2, I think you'll need to be using a dedicated capture card - and massive-capacity hard discs! - to be able to import the material in the first place.
iMovie certainly isn't the program to handle pro video of this nature.
Ask in the Final Cut Pro Discussions..
"..I've also tried doing this on my Macbook with Intel processor.." ..but maybe that's just not fast enough (older Mac portables have "shared graphics memory" ..meaning their graphics processor may have to compete with the main processor to temporarily grab free RAM)!

Digi-beta capture - uncompressed 10-bit or prores hq

starting a project that was shot on digi-beta many moons ago. editing on fcp 7. i'm asumming given the difference in the data rate between uncompressed 10-bit & prores hq that there "must" be some compression loss, but is it enough to make it worthwhile capturing in uncompressed 10-bit. obviously prores hq file sizes are much smaller so that shoud make editing easier. i do want to maintain highest quality possible. final product is dvd & digital download. thanks for any advice.

The ProRes envelope is 10-bit, so you're covered on the biggest difference between digi-beta and all the pedestrian standard def formats. "Normal" ProRes 422 is 42 Mbit/s for SD at 29.97, HQ is 63 Mbit/s. Either should serve well.

Quicktime 7 pro export h.264 better than iMovie quicktime setting?

Hi, wondering if anybody knows if Quicktime 7 pro will export h.264 files (mp4) with better quality than going thru iMovie 11 and using the Quicktime plugin? The results are ok with iMovie but wondering if Quicktime 7 Pro would export better as a standalone unit? Looking to make super small files from chopped up dvd's that will play on all mobile devices..Been using baseline profile setting in iMovie Quicktime plugin so it plays on iPhone 3g as well.. Thanks everyone!

I am trying to create very small files from a DVD , just simple chopping the DVD up into sections...when I use Handbrake to rip the DVD to a small h.264 (mp4) file the quality is surprisingly good...if I rip a higher quality mp4 to use in iMovie the export to smaller h.264 files don't look nearly as good when trying to get files sizes equivalent to Handbrake...I have tried ripping the highest quality video from DVD to use in iMovie '11 but when trying to export using QuickTime plugin to get h.264 (mp4) files they don't look that good...basically if Handbrake had editing capabilities the chopped up files would look better from there...
You are experiencing a process of diminishing returns by continuously re-compressing the video from less efficient codecs to more efficient/same efficiency codecs at the same or lower data rates which tends to degrade quality with each re-compression. My recommendation would be to purchase the Apple QT MPEG-2 Playback component ($20) and use it with MPEG Streamclip for your work flow. (Note: If you are using Lion, the component installer won't work correctly and you will either have the use the Squared-5 beta utility to install the package or install the codec manually.)
A better work flow would be to load the DVD titles (VOB file data) to MPEG Streamclip and edit the content there in its native MPEG-2/AC3 or MPEG-2/PCM compression format. You can set in/out points the same as using QT 7 Pro and save the segments as separate files using an alpha-numeric filename convention denoting the order in which you later want to merge the segments. Once all segments are saved, just drop all of them simultaneously back to the MPEG Streamclip work window and they will be merged in the proper alpha-numeric order. You can then fix "timecode breaks" and export the final product to your targeted compression format. Since you only re-compress the project once, depending on the codec/settings you use, your final file should approach the quality achieved in HandBrake. I.e., this is the main benefit of editing in the original "native" codec used in the DVD content.

Is the MP4 export in Premiere CS6 better than in CS3 ?

I am thinking of upgrading from CS3 to CS6 Premiere Pro.
The CS3 exporting MP4 is not that good, and I actually find Sony Vegas does a better job. Is the Premiere Pro export in CS6 better than in CS3?
Also, are there any issues importing CS3 projects into CS6 ?

I upgraded from CS3 to CS6.
The H.264 (MP4) exports are so much better it is amazing. There used to be tutorials on how to get good YouTube videos. Now we just export to a YouTube (or Vimeo) preset in HD and it shows up darn near perfect.
I can import CS3 projects into CS6 without a problem.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

Uncompressed 8-bit Field Order?

Hello!
In FCP, I'm working with an Uncompressed 8-bit sequence with the field dominance set to "None." After having done a bit of research, I realize that choosing "none" was fruitless since Uncompressed 8-bit is an interlaced format (right?). Anyway, when I export my sequence to a QT file for compression, Compressor sets field dominance to "Upper First." Does that sound right? First of all I've got my sequence set to "none" for field dominance. But if I'm right that Uncompressed 8-bit can't really be set to "none," shouldn't Compressor at least recognize it as "Lower" aka "Bottom First?"
I've read several posts about this but nothing to do with Uncompressed 8-bit specifically, so sorry if this seems like a repeat post.
Thanks for any help!
Cameron

I was looking for some posts concerning interlaced source material and came across this thread. I have to say I don't think it's accurate to say that almost everything other than DV is upper (odd) field dominant. For example, the uncompressed codec AJA uses is lower field first, as well as the Avid codec.
The most important thing is to tell your encoding software what field dominance the SOURCE material is. It can then interpolate and output correctly.
Also, don't judge anything interlacing-related on a computer monitor - look at it on a tv monitor. You won't notice some interlacing problems until you see them output NTSC.
I have had MAJOR problems when importing interlaced source material into Compressor. Number one, it almost always guesses the wrong filed order on import. Number two, at least when bringing in D1 resolution material from Final Cut and cropping in Compressor, the resulting files flicker when played on tv. I actually haven't used compressor - but a great alternative called BitVice by Innobits. It handles interlacing with ease - like it should.
I bring this up because I have never heard anything official from Apple that addresses problems with interlaced source material, and after thinking for a long time that I was missing something, I now realize it's not me - it's them. Try BitVice. It lacks the user interface of Compressor but it's a great (and dependable) encoder.
If anyone can point out posts that address these issues that I've missed, please let me know!
Dual 2 GHz G5 Mac OS X (10.3.7)

Best workflow for Uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2?

I need to submit Uncompressed 10-bit or 8-bit video to a stock agency. I shoot HDV 1080i.
*Current workflow:*
When I import my clips, I use the HDV Apple intermediate codec 1080i50, as it is the only HDV codec that I see in te list of "easy setup" that suits my camera. But I can see that it produces a framesize of 1440 x 1080. Afterwards I export to quicktime, using the Uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2 setting in Quicktime, sizing my video to 1920 x 1080 as requested by the stock agency.
Is this the correct workflow? I feel as if I'm blowing up/interpolating my original material which can not result in the optimum quality... Or am I wrong about this? Your tips on the right importing settings or workflow are highly appreciated!
+(I posted in the Quicktime forum that I can't export to Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2 without FCE crashing - but this is a different issue.)+

Hi(Bonjour)!
Sony FX1000 shoot in HDV and miniDV. You already know that HDV is a compressed format.
3CMOS and a quality lens will make a huge difference in term of quality but, the material will be compressed to HDV. May be you can think about renting a professionnal model. As Tom said, FCP is the way to go if you want better control over the compression shem and worklow toward professionnal output.
If you think about any color correction, HDV is not a good choice. FCP allows to capture and edit in ProRes422, thus the color corection and compisiting give better results. ProRes is only available with Final Cut Studio 2 package.
Think to upgrade your RAM, and buy an dedicated hard drive for video storage if you go this way. You did mention how you will distribute the material to tha agence, but uncompressed material can represent an issue on DVD data storage.
Michel Boissonneault

Is uncompressed 8-bit PAL 48 KHz the most compatible format for a HDV dvd

I have shot a project in HDV, edited in HDV sequence. I now want to produce a dvd, that is compatible on both widescreen and 4:3 tv's.
A friend suggested exporting a quicktime movie in uncompressed 8-bit PAL 48 KHz to ensure maximum compatibility.
Would people agree with using this setting?

Mark
There are a boatload of posts on exactly this topic, they come in waves ... nobody will ask this question for a week or two, then it'll be the same question 2 or 3 times a day
Nobody has asked for a week or two so I guess yours signals the start of the next wave! If you use the search function and you'll find the hundreds of answers that have gone before ...
... or just use one of the many tutorials freely available on the subject: for example, http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/hdv_to_sddvd.html
Have fun
Andy

"Uncompressed 10-bit" vs. "None" Compression settings

Hello,
I work at a FX/finishing/color grading facility that provides the final masters for commercials seen on television.
I am trying to gain some insight on the difference between some compression settings, so that I can educate a client on the proper file to provide us.
We have been provided Quicktime files with an "Uncompressed 10-bit NTSC" tag attached to it, though they always come with an FCP wrapper that requires a special codec for us to access the files. They are usually relatively smaller files, which also has us suspecting that they are actually compressed.
We would prefer files with a universal Quicktime codec, such as exporting it with "None" as done in the Quicktime conversion in FCP. Problem being, these files get so huge and unmanageable even when derived from low-end acquisition formats.
A 5 second clip exported with "Uncompressed 10 bit" comes to are 115megs, while "None" is at 457 megs.
Can someone explain to me the differences between these codecs and what causes the vast difference in file sizes?

La diferencia en clara, tú tienes un file uncompressed y otro sin none compresion, paresen igula pero no es así, ambos te dicen sin compresion, pero el none comprsesion es puro, es el file en crudo por esa razon pesa mucho mas, tú tiens que ver que deseas porque ambos se ven bien el resultado en ambos en optimo, ecepto cuando los tienes en FCP y los exportas como DV, ahí se ven la diferencia pues la compresion a DV siempre baja un poco la calidad del producto final.
El file "none" pesa más del doble que el "uncompressed-8bits"
mi recomendacion es depende de lo qué quieres y que capacidad de tu HD estas dispusto a ocupar y par qué trabajo usarlo? será el formato que escojas pero ambos son muy buenos..
pd:puedes contestar en ingles si deseas.. thanks

Export choice for non-compressed clip backup

I'm ripping some of my movie DVDs with songs in them and editing out all the content other than the songs and creating a new "song-only DVD".
If I want to dispose of the original movie DV Streams (to save storage space) and just keep the song clips for a future "greatest hits" song DVD to re-edit in FCP, should I export the individual song clips in "Quicktime Movie" or DV Stream format? Test exports seem to show they are about the same size, would one be better than the other to keep the original quality?
Thanks,
Dave

That's what I originally assumed, but someone I know with a long history in FCP thought DV stream was the way to go. I agree with your take though, that the QT "Conversion" must be adding some additional compression.
The strange thing is that I do essential the same parameters for the export, the display size in QT Pro is 640 x 480 for DV stream and the display size for QuickTime Movie is 720 x 480 and is displayed slightly freakish wide (both say have the same FORMAT info though in the QT Movie Inspector). They both seem to Import back into FCP ok.
Thanks again,
Dave

Exported file via FCE better than from iMovie directly

Have imported in iMovie a video 1080x1920i and exported in two different ways as follows:
A) Directly by iMovie HD 1280x720
B) Transferred to FCE and exported HD 1280x720
The video exported from FCE (via iMovie) is slightly better than from iMovie directly even though the resolution and settings of the formats are the same. I would like to stress that the quality difference is very s m a l l, it just seems a tiny bit clearer.
Does anybody know why this is and what I could do to get the same quality as exported from FCE???
Thanks

Open both files using QuickTime Player and then open the Movie Inspector window.
Compare the information for each files and note the differences.

EXPORTING- DV NTSC vs Uncompressed 8-bit

I've been routinely exporting final sequences using the DV NTSC setting (same as my sequence setting). However, I noticed some graphics were coming up flat.
After asking around, someone suggested outputting to Uncompressed 8-Bit and it totally worked.
This leaves me utterly confused though:
- Should I always output to Uncompressed 8-bit ?
- Should I change my sequence and capture settings to Uncompressed 8-Bit?
- Is everything I've done prior not as high a resolution as it could be?
Help- Please!

It depends on how you are exporting to uncompressed.
If you are exporting straight from a DV sequence in FCP, it will most likely use your existing rendered material to create the frames in the uncompressed file. These renders will have had DV compression applied, and possibly compounded if you have filters, motion tab changes, etc.
However, if you export using Compressor (from your sequence in fCP), it will use an uncompressed image buffer for any rendered material, which can avoid compounding the DV compression. This ccan also be a good way to get better results out oof still or clips that have motion applied - By nesting the animated clips into an uncompressed sequence, I can sometimes get better results than by animating the clip right in the DV sequence.
To capture Uncompressed, you'll most likely need a capture card or box such as an AJA Io, Kona, etc. I don't believe that the mac can transcode FW DV to uncompressed on the fly during capture. I use my Io to capture DV material as uncompressed, but there is a digital-analog-digital conversion that happens, as well as a significant shift in color and luma (blacks get pretty crushed).
You also need spacious and fast enough storage to work exclusively with Uncompressed. Uncompressed 8-bit takes up about 90GB per hour, compared to about 13GB per hour of DV.
DV is a compressed format, and a bit lossy, but since DV is generally captured and output digitally, there is no generation loss as such. The only time there is additional loss is when DV material in re-compressed, such as when material is re-rendered. This is the only case in which working in an Uncompressed sequence can offer better results. If you plan to work exclusively in Uncompressed, then caapturing or converting your media will be necessary to make your clips native to your sequence settings and avoid all that rendering.
Keep in mind also that if you are exporting mpeg for DVD with compressor, there should be no difference in exporting a DV sequence directly, or exporting an uncompressed sequence with DV clips in it.
Hope this helps -
Max Average

Capture HD 720p25 non compressed through KONA 3

HI EVERYONE, it's the first time I write here. I've reached to capture hd 720p25 uncompressed material from my JVC HD-111e through KONA 3. To do this you need an XRAID, a KONA 3 and an AJA HD10AVA converter hd component/hd sdi. Ok, a lot of money. Results? No results. No apreciable difference between HDV 720p25 and HD 720p25 (a part from the weight of the files more than 5 times higher). Even in chroma key scene, no appreciable difference on edges of subjects.
Two possibilities:
FIRST- HDV compression is so efficient that you have no reasons to capture non compressed 720p25.
SECOND- I'm doing something wrong.
If someone had passed through something similar, I will accept every suggestions.
By now, my suggest is: don't spend money for capturing HDV in the native uncompressed format!
I hope that someone could deny me!

Welcome to the forum steu!
The gain is in render times... that's the big reason to do this. You can't improve video per se by just upconverting it. The damage was done in camera when you shot the format. But any graphics you add, CGI's, stills will all be of better quality. But the REAL reason to upconvert to another format is to save time. FWIW, if you have an intel Mac, a better format to upres to is ProRes 4:2:2... that said, your chroma keys won't improve because the color information needed to make them clean wasn't recorded in the first place.
I'll give you an example... on my old trusty dual G5, compressing native HDV to SD MPEG took 10 TIMES longer than compressing from DVCPROHD. ProRes is even a larger file than DVCPROHD, so ya have to keep that in mind, however graphics, CGI stuff, and stills look much better to my old eyes.
Jerry

Is Exporting "None" Compression better than "Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2"?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for