Is QT conversion better than Compressor 120min high quality?

The reason I ask is because, I have a music video that I edited in FCP 4.5. I then exported it using compressor using the 120 min high qlty setting. I then tried to make a DVD using DVDSP3 and got a "Video bit rate is too high" error. I took the audio stream from the video and put it through A.Pack to create an AC3 file. I also re-exported the video using QT conversion the MPEG2 setting. The DVD was created successfully this time. My question is: is this standard operation? is the quality of the QT conversion the same as the compressor MPEG2 setting? I suspect that the audio was the only reason for the DVDSP to give me that error. Is the A.Pack AC3 audio of high quality?
thanks in advance.
Jim

Same encoding engine.
The key is using Dolby 2 to create an ac3 audio file.

Similar Messages

More than 1h with high quality!possible?

hey my dear creativity-friends,this my first post here and it's about the sweet iDVD.
is it possible to have more than one hour high quality DVD (burned by iDVD),HOW!?
i'v already done tow DVD projects with iMovie and iDVD,the first one was about 40 min , the results was outstanding,sharp and colorful
the other project was about 90 min the results was very pixely,blur and has alot of saml dots when the screen show dark pictures.
i used the same Cam on both projects and the same Mac on the same iLife06 and my PB G4 running the holy Tiger 10.4.6.
thank you guys
Ali
powerook 17 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

If your PowerBook has a DL SuperDrive, you could encode a disk image as DL and burn that to a SL DVD-R. I did that and noticed a positive difference.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2339008&#2339008
G4 DP 1.25 GHz 2GB RAM 4 Drives 770GB Mac OS X (10.4.6) 2 SuperDrives (SL 8X & DL 16X)

Open Beta: New toolkit for high-quality plots

I'd like to let everyone know that's we're running an open beta for a brand-new LabVIEW toolkit, aimed at making publication-quality plots directly from the block diagram. In addition to regular line, scatter, and bar plots, this toolkit also supports advanced features like 2D contours, vector fields, streamlines, alpha transparency, and inline math using LaTeX. You can save plots directly to disk in half a dozen formats, including PDF and PNG.
We call it the "Advanced Plotting Toolkit", and it's available at http://www.advancedplotting.com along with example VIs and documentation. The beta is free and distributed as a standard .vip package with no dependencies. If you have the time, we'd love to hear your feedback. That doesn't just mean bug reports... this is an amazing community and we'd love feature suggestions as well. Comments are welcome here or by email ([email protected]).
I've included some screenshots of our example VIs below to give you an idea of what the output looks like. Btw, there is also a stand-alone demo app (built using Application Builder) that you can use to test-drive the toolkit without installing anything in LabVIEW.

Intaris wrote:
All depends on performance, will report back as soon as I have numbers.
Performance does not seem very high but I also don't think that is the main purpose. You don't use this to update a graph millions of times per second. Instead, it is mostly used to show a finalized result for puplication quality output or for a report.
The toolkit looks well put together, and contains extensive help. The installation does not add examples to the example finder, so I recommend to immediately download the examples from their web site.
Some features need a more detailed explanation, e.g. the definition of "symlog" for the axis mapping.
My understanding (wild guess!) is that this is a LabVIEW interface to an existing open source graphing package (matplotlib?) and as such is pretty polished. Nothing wrong wit this. The generation of publication quality advanced plots is a weak point in LabVIEW and it is a pain to make your own from scratch (example).
Overall, I like it. Still need to play a little more.
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

5530 software performance is better than 5800?

Guys,
I'm a 5800XM user and and i found recently some of the feature of new released 5530XM is even better than 5800.
1. no kinetic scrolling in 5800. Really unhappy with this, Scrololing in 5800 is quite inconvenient, the V11 firmware is worst. Why there is no kinetic scrolling in 5800?
2. camera image quality. 3.2MP camera with carl zeis len, dual flash. Image quality i not comparable with 5530. 5800 image quality is really bad for me. The image capture is like a bit blue'ish. I wash an video on youtube, the image capture by 5530 camera is really much more better than 5800, it's quality is very good.
OMG, i'm sad with this. Can anyone tell me what is the reason of this? Nokia's developer, any problem with the firmware or it is a hardware problem. 5800XM cost higher than 5530XM.

Gary Scotland wrote:
or Bean freeware also
With the following limitations (for Word Users)

Is the 70D significantly better than the 7D at handling high ISO situations?

I have a 6D and it has really spoiled me with it's low noise high ISO capabilities. I'm wondering if the 70D is significantly better than my 7D when it comes to handling high ISOs. It has the same sensor as the 6D and I really like that view screen on the 70D.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

The 6D has a "full frame" sensor - physical dimensions are close to the 36mm x 24mm size of a 35mm film negative frame.
Both the 7D and 70D have APS-C sensors - physical dimensions are close to 22mm x 15mm and close to the same size of a negative frame from "Advanced Photo System - Class" size film.
While the 7D and 70D have sensors which are roughly the same size, the sensors themselves are very different because the 70D has the new dual-pixel AF technology.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Just how much better is nattres than compressor in converting pal - NTSC?

I am on the verge of buying the Nattres plugin but before i do i would like to know how much better it is than compressor. I did some test with compressor and the results are unacceptable. I have to send some stock footage to America from here in South Africa. The footage im trying to convert is half Betacam half DVCPROHD.
Thanks
Andre
I have posted this thread in the compressor forum but didnt quite get the answer i was looking for, although it was helpful

I don't think Natress is over $75.
Natress is the only plug-in or software that has given us consistent results.
It also does PAL to NTSC or NTSC to PAL.
Rendering can take a while depending on the length of your sequence.
Edit in PAL and when you are done duplicate your sequence and make an NTSC version. You can then avoid having to convert footage that doesn't end up in your final sequence.

Adobe's AME better than Apple's Compressor

If you're coming over from Final Cut Pro 7 and Compressor, you'll be happy to know that Adobe Media Encoder is much easier to use than Compressor, encodes faster, and produces much higher quality output.
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/News/Feature/Tutorial-Encoding-H.264-Video-in-Adobe-Media- Encoder-CS5.5-and-Apple-Compressor-4-80446.htm

Nice article, Jim. Thanks!
-Jeff

Whch produces higher quality m2v- Quicktime or Compressor

I use Final Cut Express HD and export mpeg 2 videos for use in DVD Studio Pro. I have exported both - NTSC high quality, 2 pass vbr, 7 mps bitrate with both Compressor and Quicktime. Both files look good when previewed, yet my finished DVD video is not a clear. Is there a better way or different codec to use to get cleaner DVD end product?
Thanks

We get the qt movies out of Compressor, the look great in DVDSP, but DVDSP won't even recognize them when they make the DVD.
Please clarify that statement. If you're using Compressor to encode MPEG2 files from your animations, you should end up with files that DVDSP will import. What presets are you using, if any?
We are using standard compressor settings for "MPEG2 60mintes" coming out Compressor.
I realize that DVDSP should support them, its that it won't that is causing the problems... :-\
And, if we allow the DVDSP to do the conversion to DVD itself, the results look VERY bad.
What are your encoding settings from within DVDSP?
Settings? We are going to DVD... thought that needed no settings to be set? (I could be wrong, I'm only the wingman on this one...)
and it seems to have something to do with the resolution of the files, going from 720x486 to 720x480... maybe...
Compressor handles that properly (crops 6 pixels rather than scaling). Not sure about encoding from within DVDSP.
Ah... that makes a little sense... if there is a difference between Compressor and DVDSP handle compression. Does it take 4 from the top, 2 from the bottom to allow the fields to be handled correctly?
We are making an animated 3d video, so there are no frames or codecs (DV) on the video... The workflow is then into After Effects, FCP and then DVDSP
Are you exporting Targa frames from Lightwave and then importing the sequence into AE? Once you export from AE you're certainly attaching a codec. Are you using Animation? Then, when working in FCP, what codec are you using? And are you working in 720x486?
Actually, we are exporting RPF (Rich Pixel Format) files from Lightwave3D, going into AFX, taking an animation codec QT into FCP, outputting both to MPEG2 and QT Animation format to DVDSP... then to cr*p DVD or nothing...
LW_Will

DVD looks different/better than imovie

I did a quick search in this forum to see if this has been discussed before. I'm sorry if it has; I'm new in this forum. Anyways...
I'm trying to edit video that I dumped from a video camera and DVD onto my powerbook g4 1.33ghz w/1.25ghz ram. I'm not having any real issues with the editing process itself. My problem is that, when I burn a DVD of the movie (using iDVD) it looks entirely different than on the laptop. I've even tried using a secondary screen to do the editing on (regular computer monitor). The secondary computer monitor looks the same as the laptop. But, again the burned DVD looks totally different. On the computer, it looks kinda like it's in dropframe but I'm using 29 (or whatever that higher setting is). But when I burn the DVD and play it in a regular DVD player, it looks much crisper, smoother and less pixelated. Will it help if I max out my laptop RAM to 2ghz or is this just a problem inherent in the preinstalled 64MB video card? If it's the video card, I'm thinking about upgrading to a macbook. Will a macbook video card be powerful enough not to have this problem? Any help/suggestions would greatly be appreciated.

bobwex123 wrote:
I use DV tape (not HD), import to iMovie 09 and burn to DVD with iDVD....
... If I upgrade in FCE and spend some time with the interface, will the final DVD quality be better than iMovie 09?
definitively YES.
as widely known, iM08/09 has this little *skip-field problem* with interlaced sources (miniDV imports are always i, independently, what camcorder marketing says), plus a gamma-prob.
details on our website:
http://sites.google.com/site/theimovieoutputproject/
you avoid these probs by using a 'real' dv-editor, as iMHD6 or FCE ..
sidenote: settings in the editor, on transfer and iDVD have to be correct for best quality. as: sequence settings 'fit' to camcorder, NO 'Export using QT conversion', iDVD is set to same standard as camcorder (PAL vs NTSC); project length <60min (=for highest bitrate in iDVD).
+disclaimer: I may profit from linking to my site.+

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

Re: On 105 mbps plan but never get better than 22 mbps

I am living in this SAME nightmare! Help. I spent ALL day yesterday 8 hours on the phone with many many different people, some who were just plain RUDE and others who all contradicted each other. Sent me to get a new modem and we did that, speed still like the above.Called today, got a decent guy he tried helping for a while then phone cut out. No call back.UMMM really? Then yesterday during Chat, they guy just shut me off.I have 105 per my preferred bundle. Really want to get that. SOOOO Angry, if they did NOT have MONOPOLY on my community I would switch. I however have NO one to switch to. SO unamerican. Poor service, HIGH prices. I left service center in tears as I watched elderly couple hobble out on their canes wondering how they can pay the increase to their bill. That is just NOT right.

X1DESMO wrote:
I just got the same svc hooked up today and I too am only gettign mid 20's ?!?!? Using my own modem Motoroal SB6121 ( certifed on the Comcast site to work with even the 150 speed tier.. And a Neggear N300 router ( capable of over 300MBs) and only mid 20's Seriously?... I get 25 upload??? Go to my parent s place they have the Comcast provided Modem router combo unit ( also wireless N) and the 50 MB svc, I get a solid 62 over there witht the same laptop and ipad. WHAT GIVES? The technition made a comment that has me very concerned.. " I have NEVER seen anyone with the Extreem 105 pkg get better than 50 over Wi Fi, even with the COmcat modem in the same roon." This I will be looking into ove the next several days, as that is a totally unaccepable answer, we pay for 105 ALL of our equipment is rated to levels ABOVE 105 and we cant get HALF of that... Soory Comcast this wont fly, if that is in fact "just how it is" I see a class action suit coming there way for sure as its blantant fals advertising. If/and/or when I get it solved i will be sure to post up here..Try this: http://forums.comcast.com/t5/Basic-Internet-Connectivity-And/Connection-Troubleshooting-Tips/td-p/1253575

Is Intel better than Power PC?

Hi
Is Intel better than Power PC?
The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1G Ram

Daimon,
I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
Good Luck,
-j

Better than DVD-quality on .mac - but which size?

Hi, that was what Steve Jobs said that there is the possibility to have better than DVD-quality movies on .mac Is this only with HD-cameras and material because they can´t be burnt at that resolution onto a DVD? Or is it also true with standard cameras? And which file sizes are we are going to expect while up- and downloading such movies? Are they even playable for the average internet user?
Thanks in advance for clarifying - Christoph

Steve may have left out the word "current" when he mentioned better quality than a DVD.
DVD's (currently) use MPEG-2 format and only the newest players can handle high definition.
Your Web based files can use high definition formats. Just like those HD trailers at http://apple.com/trailers
You can also publish larger dimension SD video.
Obviously the file size of these larger dimensions would require a fast Internet connection and a very patient viewer.

Why does my clip have a higher quality in the viewer than the canvas?

When I am editing, I have noticed that sometimes my images and clips have a drastically higher quality in the viewer than the canvas/timeline, what is causing this, and how do I edit and export my films with the highest quality possible?

>Why does my clip have a higher quality in the viewer than the canvas?
The answer is very simple; the Viewer shows the media at its native resolution while the Canvas shows the media at the Sequence resolution. I'd bet that in your case, the original media is of higher resolution that the Sequence in the Timeline.
-DH

RSSI... can i get better than -80 dBm ???

i would like to know if i should be able to get better than RSSI = -80 dBm (signal strength)... i have four bars (usb ec168 modem) whenever verizon is running at it's best here in northeast oklahoma... a former alltel region... my understanding is that RSSI = -80 dBm is the level that is described as "good enough for Rev A / evdo"...
in my research of this subject googling all over... i find that some people will get RSSI in the 70s and 60s... lower being better / stronger signal... can someone tell me why i cannot get these kinds of levels since i often have four bars showing 90-100% ???
when my RSSI drops to less than -80 dBm... higher values such as -85, etc... this is when my evdo drops to 1xrtt and even DO...
appreciate any enlightenment on this subject... thx!
*obviously, verizon (if you are listening...), since i am paying for 3g broadband... i would like to have 3g broadband, rather than the 1xrtt and DO that happens so very often, evenings, during the week!

Understood. Actually, if you mean the towers are neither VZ or Alltel because the carrier name is not listed, it won't be. Your service may not be from a tower per se either. If there are antennas in the area, that may be where your signal is from.
The towers are listed by the owner and the carriers lease space on them along with the antennas. The sure way to tell is to use your cell phone if you have a VZ phone and do a field test with it since you have a desktop and cannot move it about. The closer you get to the "site" of your signal source, the stronger your signal. evdoforums.com can assist with a list of codes for each brand of cell or smartphone to help you determine this. I also have this if you may need.
Actually, -80dbm is not a bad signal and from my experience, a small percentage get better than that. The best possible is -50.
I wonder why this is even an issue since you have not reported any problem with speeds, connection or any problems that may be associated with the signal strength. If there truly are only 3 towers and no antennas in your area then the reason is more than likely due to congestion.
I have also discovered that the signals, connections, etc. are all improving and doing an update for your PRL if that is possible through your software may just be the fix.
However, if you are insistant on spending money on antennas and/or amps, etc. when the signa isn't anywhere near abnormal, that is your choice. Keep this in mind if you do, you may not have a gain in more than 10 dbm if you have any at all.
So have a great day and good luck.

Is QT conversion better than Compressor 120min high quality?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for