Maximum quality

Hi there,
I have a 17 minute DV project that I'm exporting from FCP to QT, then importing to DVD SP.
The DVDs I've made are fine for the most part, but I'd like to absolutely maximize the quality. For whatever reason, no matter what settings I use to export and regardless of the size of the resulting file (3.8 gb to 31 gb), when I import to DVD SP it comes in at 907 mgb. Which is no big deal, but there's about 3.5 gb of space there that could be used for a higher quality image, right?
I'm using DVD SP 3...encode settings are 2-pass VBR, 6.0 bit rate, max 7.8, motion estimation best. My latest ploy was to export the file totally uncompressed from FCP - which produced the 32 gb file - but upon import, sure enough it was 907 mgb.
So how can I use all of the resources on the DVD? And is it worth it or am I being anal?
Thanks so much for any help you can give...I have learned a lot on these forums already.
ANdrew

If you are compressing the same FCP Quicktime export material, the mpeg file will be about the same: even if you got the Max data rate you specified (7.8), the file would always be the same size.
DVDs have a maximum data rate of about 9.0 or so; many suggest that you never exceed 8.0 or some DVD players will barf. You can try raising the both the min and max rates to near 8, but you'll get pretty much the same quality your are seeing now.
DV source quality will almost never equal what you see in Hollywood film DVDs: they start with film, scan it at high resolution at 24fps, use the full color space (4:4:4: each sample gets all the color and luma information), and they use very expensive cameras and lenses and exquisite lighting.
DV has s 4:1:1 sample (so you get vertical smearing of pure colors), less native resolution than film, and you probably aren't using a $100,000 camera with a $25K lens.
So whether you are anal or not (and many of us here are), you are probably getting as much "quality" out of your 17 minutes DV video as you are going to get even if you step up the bit rate a tad.
Ed

Similar Messages

'Maximum' Quality Setting for Previews

Dear Adobe,
Aside from 'Low', 'Medium', and 'High' settings for standard-size previews, please add a 'Maximum' quality setting (equivalent to 10-12 quality setting for JPEGs in Photoshop).
As standard previews are generated for imported images or for new edits on images already in Lightroom, sometimes low quality JPEG previews are generated. These previews exhibit color banding & macroblocking artifacts typical of JPEG files (especially in dark areas). Since these previews are used in the Library, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules, it's pretty darn annoying & distracting to stare at low-quality renditions of our images. Switch to Develop module, and a fresh new image is rendered on screen; therefore, these JPEG preview artifacts are not visible in the 'Develop' module.
Two fixes to this problem:
1.) Add a 'Maximum' quality setting for previews that Lightroom generates
2.) Fix it the Aperture, Bridge, iPhoto, 'every-other-software', and your own 'Develop' module way: display the precached preview first, while rending a fresh view of the image in the background... display that when it's ready.
Here's a forum where I've discussed this previously:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc33a73
Here are examples of the low-quality previews generated by Lightroom (when 1680 'High' setting is used for previews):
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Macroblocking.jpg
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Library.jpg
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Library_vs_Develop.jpg
And if you are using a well calibrated monitor, then look at the macroblocking in the black wool coat in this image (please use a color managed viewer, else the coat will just look black and you won't see the blocking):
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Lightroom_JPEGblocking.jpg
We photographers have discerning eyes. It's painful to see this terrible renditions of our precious images... and to have to switch over to the 'Develop' module *just* to get a high-quality rendition of our image? And meanwhile watch slideshows with low-quality versions (previews) of our images?
Sounds pretty unacceptable to me.

So, I'm pretty much convinced now that the problem with low-quality LR previews seems to be mostly isolated to the previews that LR generates after you make edits in the 'Develop' module.
Upon first import, this image looked fine in the 'Library' & 'Slideshow' modules. After making some edits (color, tone, etc.) in the 'Develop' module, I ended up getting this hideous preview in the 'Library' & 'Slideshow' modules:
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/Lightroom/07-0310_BandingBlocking.jpg
You people with LCDs will be able to see the JPEG artifacts better than those with CRTs, since LCDs tend to be sharper.
So, the obvious question is this:
Does LR, when *re-generating* previews for edited images, ignore the quality-setting for JPEG previews (which I have set to 'high')??

Elements "save for web" use "Maximum" quality as default?

It drives me nuts that I always have to select maximum when saving for web with photoshop elements, is there a way to set this preference so that it is always saving at maximum quality when I use save for web?

Micah,
You missed this admonishment on the same page you added this topic:
Note: please do not post Photoshop
Elements questions here. Thanks!
No one uses Elements here. :/

Photoshop unable to load maximum quality 3D LUT files.

Hey all, revently I have been experimenting with exporting "looks" as 3D Lookup tables, however, have been running into an error where photoshop is unable to open 3D LUTs exported at maximum quality (256 grid points). When I export at 128 it works just fine but as I close in on that maximum quality (which I'd ideally want to use) I get the following error when trying to load the LUT back into photoshop after export:
I have tried both exporting and importing with multiple different computers to confirm that it wasn't something local to just one machine. All machines were Macs running the latest version of OSX and the latest version of Photoshop CC 2014.
Is this just a case where Photoshop is unable to load complex LUT files? Or could there be something wrong with how I am exporting my LUTs? Here is a screenshot of my export settings:
Any help would be great and I'd love to gain a greater understanding of what is happening, thanks!!

Ah ok, thanks, ya I find things seems to look fine at 64 or 128 but the perfectionist in me always wants to maximize quality as much as possible.

Preparing maximum quality Blu-ray disk

I have a 65 Mts HD Music Programme.,I want to prepare maximum Best Quality Blu-ray disk from this project. I am on premiere CS6. Should I export to H-264 Blu-ray or Mpeg2 Blu-Ray and at what maximum Bitrate, so that I get Best quality Blu-ray Disk. Also I shall be glad if someone from forum please let me know which is good format H-264 Blu-ray or Mpeg-2 Blu-ray. So far I am preparing Blu-ray with H-264 Blu-ray

From the Wikipedia's Blu-ray specs: "BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbit/s."

Minimum size/maximum quality MP3 sound file balance

My first objective when creating MP3 files is to compress the sound file as much as possible, and I don't want any file to exceed 1MB, if possible. (One exception was compressing a 30 minute poetry recitation into a 1.8 MB file.) That turned out okay, but music is another story. So, I'd like to know more about how to strike a satisfactory balance between size and quality. For the iTunes MP3 import settings,this means choosing between (1) STEREO BIT RATES (16kbps to 320 kbps), (2) QUALITY (Low to Highest), and (3) CHANNEL (mono or stereo)
In the past, I have always chosen mono, but it now occurs to me that the quality enhancement of stereo might justify the larger files caused by slightly higher kbps settings. That's just one example. Anyway, I'd like to read an article on the trade-offs between the variables that iTunes provides. Any
suggestions?

Stereo Bit Rate is what people are talking about when they say that a song is XXX kbps. (kbps is a measure of bit-rate, a measure of kilobytes per second).
Stereo v. Mono really depends on what type of song you are sampling, and what you are listening to it on. For virtually all music recorded after 1970, though, you'd probably want to use Stereo.
Also, you might get some mileage by making sure that you are importing the music at 41.100 kHz rather than using Auto or 48.000. (This is basically the "speed" at which the music is sampled. The faster its sampled, the more information it contains. It makes it higher quality, but also higher file size. You probably won't notice too much difference between 41.1 and 48.)
Finally, you should also check the Variable Bit Rate box. This will help reduce the file size, as the bit rate will be reduced during silences and other times where the song doesn't need more information.
As for the overall Bit Rate, its really subjective. Your best bet is to just try it at a few different levels and decide which is best for you.

Creating Pdf in Photoshop CS6 - blurry at maximum quality setting

Hi,
I just tried to create Pdf.
I used high quality jpegs and chose a 100% quality setting and at 300 dpi.
I also chose the same pixel dimensions as the original documents.
But the outcome is blurry - as if the original had been highly compressed. The sum of the sizes of all files is about 40% larger than the final pdf file.
How can I get rid of this compression and create a pdf document whose pages are as sharp and high quality as the original?

> pdf inflated the orginal file size by the factor 10
I should have warned you about that, Uncheck "Preserve Photoshop editing capabilities"
this extra step should look pretty good and make the doc even smaller:
Do not Downsample
Compression: JPG
Image Quality: High or Max

Exporting edited ('current') photos at maximum quality?

I currently use iPhoto 9.5.1 (on OSX 10.9.1) to organize my photos and I use an external editor (Photoshop) to edit them.
When I get an image that I want to then use for something I take it out from the iPhoto library. Previously I did this with a simple drag and drop, but that functionality mysteriously and suddenly ceased. Now I use export current. (I don't want the orignal verison that has none of the photoshop work)
From what I understand, exporting the current photo exports the version from the preview folder.
Is this a full quality version that is exactly what I created in photoshop and saved? Compared to the file in the masters folder would it be the same quality?
In other words is there any loss in quality along this path and if so where does it occur (or is this not the path)?
Camera-> masters folder-> iphoto library -> external editor -> previews folder -> iphoto library -> export of current
I don't care so much about metadata and primarily care about the quality of the exported edited image. I use them for other purposes where metadata is irrelevant (like parts of a design or printing).

Thank you,
The question I have is in that tip you specifically mention that selecting 'current' as kind of export would export "the iPhoto Preview, a medium quality jpeg, it won't have all the metadata."
I did some tests with a tiff, png and jpeg file and found that this was not the case. The tif exported a tif, the png export a png and the jpeg export something closer to the original jpeg size (not anywhere near medium quality). Here are the results of the jpeg test:
The one discrepancy I notice is that there is a 200 byte difference between the version saved from the external editor and the version exported as current. That is minor, but I'm wondering where that may come from. Is it a result of saving the file with photoshop or is it something iPhoto does to the file?
The discrepancy seems to be greater (up to 29kb) with the png test:
And I think the discrepacny is likely from what the external editor does in saving the file and not what iPhoto does. Here are the results from my tiff test:
The inclusion of the color profile in the save from the external editor brings it closer to the size of modifed version.
So I find my concern that exporting 'current' would severely reduce the quality by always making a "medium quality jpeg" is not the case, and that it does export something very similar to the work I did in the external editor.
(I like using iPhoto for how it organizes with metadata. I just don't need the metadata for files/images that I export from iPhoto. They move on to a different purpose where such data is irrelevant. Also I'm curious if iPhoto is not meant to be used for organizing media what is it's primary purpose?)

Getting maximum quality export for InDesign images or graphics

I'm extracting the images from an InDesign file for an ePub. I'm doing the ePub creating independant of InDesign, however with images I'm trying to preserve some of the work done by people in the past in formatting the images.
What I'm finding is that the image is exported the same size as in the InDesign document, the problem with this is that if I zoom into the image it looks pixelated, whereas if I zoom into the original document it's not pixelated at all. Any suggestions on how to modify the following code to get a higher resolution export? While I appreciate that the image size is preserved, I'm wondering at what point in the export the image resolution is scaled down.
function getImages(){ for(var i = 0; i<app.activeDocument.pages.length; i++){ for(var j = 0; j<app.activeDocument.pages[i].allPageItems.length; j++){ var pageItem = app.activeDocument.pages[i].allPageItems[j]; if(pageItem.constructor.name.match(/pdf|image/i)){ pageItem.exportFile(ExportFormat.PNG_FORMAT,File("~\\desktop\\epub2\\"+app.activeDocument.name.replace(".indd","")+"\\oebps\\images\\"+pageItem.itemLink.name.substring(0,pageItem.itemLink.name.indexOf("."))+".png"),false); } } } }

PNG export is done at screen resolution. In CS6, you can try setting the PNG export resolution (that property doesn't seem available in lower versions). If your version is lower than CS6, you could try up-scaling the original before exporting.
Exporting *an*y page item to PNG converts it to a bitmap, even if the original is pure vector; so you'll *never* get an 'infinitely scaleable' graphic. All you get is a huge bitmap -- and its size increases squarely with an increasing resolution. (Approximately; PNG compression helps a bit, but it won't magically make a larger image a smaller file size than the original.)

"Maximum Render Quality" Better to turn it OFF when using CUDA MPE?

http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/201...port-settings/
"IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT RENDERING TIME: Make sure you do not select “Use Maximum Render Quality” if you are utilizing the accelerated GPU graphics (Mercury Playback Engine). This will not improve your video and will only slow down the rendering speed by as much as 4 times!"
http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotr...e-pro-cs5.html
"For export, scaling with CUDA is always at maximum quality, regardless of quality settings. (This only applies to scaling done on the GPU.) Maximum Render Quality can still make a difference with CUDA-accelerated exports for any parts of the render that are processed on the CPU...
When rendering is done on the CPU with Maximum Render Quality enabled, processing is done in a linear color space (i.e., gamma = 1.0) at 32 bits per channel (bpc), which results in more realistic results, finer gradations in color, and better results for midtones. CUDA-accelerated processing is always performed in a 32-bpc linear color space. To have results match between CPU rendering and GPU rendering, enable Maximum Render Quality."
Here is what I got out of after reading those two sites:
I should turn it off for it's always ON (when CUDA MPE is used) regardless I check or uncheck it.Turning it ON only offloads the calculation to CPU (instead of GPU) hence slowing down the previewing and encoding performance.
So I guess I should have Maximum Render Quality setting turned OFF in both of squence settings and export settings.
However, David Knarr of Studio 1 Productions suggest otherwise:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm
"When you startup Adobe Premiere CS5 and you don't have a certified video card (or one that is unlocked) the Mercury Playback Engine is in software rendering mode and by default the Maximum Render Quality mode (or MRQ) is to OFF.
(Maximum Render Quality mode will maximize the quality of motion in rendered clips and sequences. So when you select this option, the video will often render moving objects more sharply. Maximum Render Quality also maintains sharp detail when scaling from large formats to smaller formats, or from high-definition to standard-definition formats. For the highest quality exports you should always use the Maximum Render Quality mode.)
When you unlock Adobe Premiere CS5 so the Mercury Playback Engine can use almost any newer NVidia card (or if you are using a "certified" NVidia graphics card), the Mercury Playback Engine will be in the hardware rendering mode and the Maximum Render Quality mode will be turned ON.
Since the software mode is not set to maximum render quality, it can sometime render faster than the hardware render, but a a loss in qualitly. If you set the software to maximum render quality you will see that it is very, very slow compared to the hardware render.
Here is how to set the Maximum Render Quality.
1) Open up Premiere CS5
2) Click on Sequence at the top of the screen
3) Then select Sequence Settings
4) At the bottom of the window select Maximum Render Quality and click Okay
It is always best to be using the Maximum Render Quality mode,"
Now, I'm lost.

Okay, I am loosing it..... You are correct.
I am not sure what I was remembering, I could have sworn that when I loaded Premiere CS5 for the first time before I unlocked the video card, the Maximum Render Quality mode was NOT checked. Then when I unlocked the video card, the Maximum Render Quality mode was check to ON and I didn't set it to be On.
I just when back and uninstalled Premiere and re-installed it, to see what was going on and I was totally wrong.
Sorry for the mistake and I will be updating the article on my website in the next 15 min.
Also, I have written a small program to do the unlock automatically. The program is free and it works with the cards listed under the Automatic Mode.
If your video card isn't listen, just let me know what your card is and what you typed into the cuda cards file and I will add it to the program.
David Knarr
Studio 1 Productions

Maximum Bit Depth /Maximum Render Quality Questions

Maximum Bit Depth
If my project contains high-bit-depth assets generated by high-definition camcorders, I was told to select Maximum Bit Depth because Adobe Premiere Pro uses all the color information in these assets when processing effects or generating preview files. I'm capturing HDV using the Matrox RTX-2 Hardware in Matrox AVI format.
When I finally export my project using Adobe Media Encoder CS4, will selecting Maximum Bit Depth provide better color resolution once I post to Blu-ray format?
Maximum Render Quality
I was told that by using Maximum Render Quality, I maintain sharp detail when scaling from large formats to smaller formats, or from high-definition to standard-definition formats as well as maximizes the quality of motion in rendered clips and sequences. It also renders moving assets more sharply. It's my understanding that at maximum quality, rendering takes more time, and uses more RAM than at the default normal quality. I'm running Vista 64 Bit with 8 GIGs of RAM so I'm hoping to take advantage of this feature.
Will this also help to improve better resolution when I finally export my project using Adobe Media Encoder CS4 and post to Blu-ray format?
Does it look like I have the specs to handle Maximum Bit Depth and Maximum Render Quality when creating a new HDV project with the support of the Matrox RTX 2 Hardware capturing in Matrox AVI format? See Below Specs.
System Specs
Case: Coolmaster-830
Op System: Vista Ultima 64 Bit
Edit Suite: Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium Line Upgrade
Adobe Premiere Pro CS 4.0.1 update before installing RT.X2 Card and 4.0 tools
Performed updates on all Adobe Production Premium Products as of 03/01/2009
Matrox RTX2 4.0 Tools
Main Display: Dell 3007 30"
DVI Monitor: Dell 2408WFP 24"
MB: ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi-AP LGA 775 Intel X38
Display Card: SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 Toxic ver.
PS: Corsair|CMPSU-1000HX 1000W
CPU: INTEL Quad Core Q9650 3G
MEM: 2Gx4|Corsair TW3X4G1333C9DHXR DDR3 (8 Gigs Total)
1 Sys Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB
Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
2 Raid 0: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Using Intel's integrared Raid Controller on MB

Just some details that i find useful on maximum render depth
You really need it even with 8bit source files, when using heavy grading/multiple curves/vignettes. If after grading you see banding, go to sequence > sequence settings from the top menu and check "maximum bit depth (ignore the performance popup), then check again your preview (it will change in a second) to see if banding is still present in 32bit mode. If no banding, you must check it when exporting, if banding is still there, change your grading, then uncheck it to continue with editing.
Unfortunately Maximum bit depth exporting is extremely time-consuming, but can really SAVE YOUR DAY when facing artifacts after heavy grading, by completely or almost completely eliminating banding and other unwanted color distortions.
Use it only for either small previews or the really final output.
Best Regards.

YouTube Video: Do you recommend use maximum render quality?

YouTube Video: Do you recommend use maximum render quality?
Is it worth the wait?
Do you use it for YouTube videos?
How much longer does it take to render / export?
Twice as long or ?
Just looking for a general comparison in time based on with and without.
I know it depends on variables.
I'm already in the process at 21%. (15 mins.)
Just curious for the future.
Thanks.

Hi,
You can use the "Maximum Render Quality" whenever you are scaling down the resolution from larger frame size to smaller frame size while exporting.
It requires more RAM during export & should be used whenever maximum quality output is required. However the export process may be slower than the normal export.
Thanks.

Obsessed with "Use Maximum Render Quality"...

I have to check this. Every time. I can't help it. My brain forces me to do it.
However, I have not quite grasped what it does. Why would I not want maximum quality, and why is it separate from the "target bitrate" and all the other quality-related controls? Why a "checkbox"?

MRQ is most effective when scaling from HD to SD. Todd Kopriva has a really good blog post about it here:
October | 2010 | Premiere Pro work area
It's in the first post about scaling in CS5, CS5.5 and CS6.
Jeff

Maximum bit depth-maximum render quality when dynamic linking

Hi
A bit confused by the use of Maximum bit depth and Maximum render quality as used both in Sequence Settings and also as options when rendering in AME.
1 Do you need to explicitly enable these switches in the sequence for best quality or, do you simply need to switch them on in AME when you render in Media Encoder?
2 When dynamic linking to After Effects, when should you use an 8 bit vs 16 or 32 bit working space, and, how does this bit depth interact with the maximum bit depth, maximum render quality in PPro?

Hi jbach2,
I understand your confusion. I'm like that most of the time I'm working. *chuckle* The two settings you mentioned are two completely different parameters affecting (or is it effecting) your video. You do not need to enable them within the sequence itself unless you want to preview video on you program monitor at the highest quality. I personally don't recommend it, as it's a tremendous resource hog, (the program even warns you when you try to click them) and unessecary for improving final output. Again, do not enable these options in your sequence settings if you are only wanting a high quality export. Doing so will greatly reduce your editing performance unless you have a high-end system. ...and even then I don't think its worth it unless you're editing on a huge screen with a Director who wants to see everything at a maximum quality during the edit process.
Keeping it simple...
Resizing your final output video? Use Maximum bit depth.
Starting or working with high bitdepth sources? Use Max Bit Depth.
When/where do I enable these? In the AME only. ^_^
Why?:
Enabling the Max bit and Max render only needs to be done when you are exporting. They both serve different functions.
Max Render aids in the scaling/conversion process only. My understanding is that you never need to enable the Max Render Quality (MRQ) unless you are exporting in a format/pixel ratio different from your original video. For example, when rendering a 1080p timeline out to a 480p file format, you'll want to use MRQ to ensure the best scaling with the least amount of artifacts and aliasing. If you're exporting at the same size you're working with, DON'T enable MRQ. It will just cost you time and CPU. Its only function is to do a high quality resizing of your work.
Maximum bit depth increases the color depth that your video is working with and rendering to. If you're working with video that has low color depth, then I don't believe it will matter. However, if you're working with 32 bit color on your timeline in PPro and/or After Effects, using lots of graphics, high contrast values, or color gradients, you may want to enable this option. It ultimately depends on the color depth of your source material.
The same applies to After Effects.
Create something in AE like a nice color gradient. Now switch the same project between 8,16,32 bit depth, and you will see a noticable difference in how the bit depth effects your colors and the smoothness of the gradient.
Bit depth effects how different plugins/effects change your overall image. Higher depth means more colors to work with (and incidentally, more cpu you need)
Just remember that "DEPTH" determines how many colors you can "fill your bucket with" and "QUALITY" is just that, the quality of your "resize".
http://blogs.adobe.com/VideoRoad/2010/06/understanding_color_processing.html
Check out this adobe blog for more info on color depth ^_^ Hope that helps!
----a lil excerpt from the blog i linked to above---
Now, 8-bit, 10-bit, and 12-bit color are the industry standards for recording color in a device. The vast majority of cameras use 8-bits for color. If your camera doesn’t mention the color bit depth, it’s using 8-bits per channel. Higher-end cameras use 10-bit, and they make a big deal about using “10-bit precision” in their literature. Only a select few cameras use 12-bits, like the digital cinema camera, the RED ONE.
Software like After Effects and Premiere Pro processes color images using color precision of 8-bits, 16-bits, and a special color bit depth called 32-bit floating point. You’ve probably seen these color modes in After Effects, and you’ve seen the new “32″ icons on some of the effects in Premiere Pro CS5.
jbach2 wrote:
Hi
A bit confused by the use of Maximum bit depth and Maximum render quality as used both in Sequence Settings and also as options when rendering in AME.
1 Do you need to explicitly enable these switches in the sequence for best quality or, do you simply need to switch them on in AME when you render in Media Encoder?
2 When dynamic linking to After Effects, when should you use an 8 bit vs 16 or 32 bit working space, and, how does this bit depth interact with the maximum bit depth, maximum render quality in PPro?
Message was edited by: SnJK

FCP Novice needs help with video quality and FCP 5!!

Hi,
I have a real problme that I cannot seem to fix. I think its because I am doing something really wrong!
I have a Sony HC42E MiniDV Camcorder which by default records video in full widescreen. I recorded several tapes this way and have now begun trying to edit them in FCP 5.04 (Tiger 10.4.6). Whenever I log and capture my clips they appear to be fuzzzy and unclear on the Mac monitor whilst being totally crisp and sharp on the camcorder viewfinder. I tried capturing using the DV PAL 48Khz Anamorphic Preset which keeps everything the right size (the final output needs to be true widescreen and not with black bars added) but the resulting video on screen is blurry and bitty. I then tried capturing using the DV PAL 720 x 576 normal preset and the video is a little clearer on the screen (for both presets I have chosen lower field dominance) but when I play back it plays back in widescreen on the mac canvas window but at 4:3 on the camera's viewfinder.
I then assumed that maybe this is just becuase the mac screen (CRT by the way) doesn't use fields. So I exported the sequence as a QT movie using DV PAL 16:9 and used quicktime (OS9 Classic - my compressor has never worked because of the dreaded "unable to connect to baackground process" problem which I've never managed to correct) to convert it to MPEG2. When I import this as an asset into DVD Studio pro 4 and set the track size to 16:9 it comes through at the right aspect ratio. However it looks blurry on screen. Thinking that this will be fine on a TV I burned the disc - inserted it into my DVD player (a good one!) and watched it on my new 32" widescreen TV (a good one!) and the picture qualitty is poor. Its so much blurrier and bittier than the original footage looks when played through the camcorder's viewfinder!
The final footaage looks like an old VHS recording that's a year or two old!
Does anyone know how I can capture my footage in FCP with the maximum quality, edit it without quality loss and the export it for DVD again without such significant quality loss whilst all the time keeping it at proper 16:9 widescreen?
Is there some presets I should be working to?
I'm tearing my hair out! Help!

Hi Guys,
thanx for your replies.
here's the latest:
Brian, I followed your instructions and the DVD burned successfully. However the video quality of the dvd when viewed on my TV ('ve tried on all 3 of my tvs now) is still a lot poorer than the quicktime movie that was imported into DVDSP4. When I play the original QT Movie on my Mac CRT monitor it looks a little blurry and grainy because I guess its non interlaced however when viewed on an external Video monitor it looks great - very sharp.
When I view the burned DVD on my television the picture quality looks like the non interlaced version of the original QT Movie that appeared on my Mac CRT and not the sharp interlaced (lower field) version that appeared on my external video monitor.
Its almost like taking a sharp jpeg into Photoshop and applying a gaussian blur of about 0.3 followed by jepg compression compressing it down to 5% quality!
I'm totally mystified. Can the conversion to Mpeg2 be removing all interlacing so that you get the less sharp computer monitor look? I just want the video on my final DVDs to be as good as the original source footage! I appreciate that along the way there might be loss of some quality but surely not that much?
Does this make sense to you guys or am I still doing something very wrong?
Robert: I have tried setting all manner of drives including a fresh external firewire HD with nothing on it (clean out of the box) but it doesn't seem to help.
Brian: I tried the no network suggestion a few months back but I'm not sure if I got it right. At the moment I have broadband through an external speedtouch usb modem and am also connected (occasionally although not for the last 3 months) via a crossover cable to my PCs ethernet card. When I last tried the No Network solution I had immense trouble getting my internet to work again! Can you please help me by directing me to the best ay to do this while protecting my internet settings?
any more help guys would be greatfully appreciated.

Maximum quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for