Mpeg2 blueray gives me better quality that H.264 blueray

When I use the set prests for H.264 - blueray that CS5 has in the media encoder the quality looks a little poor? But when I use the Mpeg2 -blueray option this gives me a quality identical to the orginal HDV footage. Everywhere I've read people say that H.264 is a better format. I made no changes to any settings in the media encoder. And that was my result. Does anyone see what I see?
When I created the Blueray in enocre I made one small clip in H.264 and one in Mpeg2. Mpeg2 was night and day better. The H.264 files looked bleary when motion was faster in the video. When the image was near static or stationary the image from h.264 was clear. When I watched the mpeg2 file on the blueray it stayed sharp and clear the entire time identicle to the orginal HDV footage. To give you an idea I have Dish Network HDTV and they use mpeg4 wich is I'm guessing from what I've read is H.264. I get the same thing on there. If the image is still not alot of motion clearity is very sharp and HDTV looking, but when a lot of motion is involved the quality is a little bleary, not blurry (bleary which in my definition is between clear and blurry.).
I've learned that the h.264 makes a smaller file than mpeg. But it appears if I change the bitrate setting on mpeg2, and take the bitrate down a hair from the defaults I should be able to get a 2 hour video or near 2hr video to fit on a blueray and at the quality I want.
Anyone with some advice or know what I'm talking about? I'm new to the HD world I've just upgraded to Production Premium CS5 from Pro 1.5 and Encore 1.5. So video formats and the settings for these and the way premiere exports is way, way different than I'm used to. Any help would be appriciated.
I would like to know which formats are best and what setting I should use to get the best picture, It appears that I've found it with mpeg2 blueray but would like input from someone.
-James

James,
I'm not sure about the format of the commercial Blu-Rays but I'm defenetely using MPEG-2 for mine as similar to your observations this gives me the closest image to the original files using the highest possible sampling PrP allows - 40mps.
My cat-polot's helmet is easy to make - use few limes for the helmet and the juce goes into your gin-tonnic.
I'm not sure if Ann Ben's cat is not wearing a helmet too. One never knows these days what cats really are

Similar Messages

IPhoto 5 has better quality that iPhoto 6 when emailing photos?

How can I set up iPhoto 6 to use the same image quality as iPhoto 5 when emailing photos?
I have two iMacs, side by side, one is G5 with iPhoto 5, and another is Intel with iPhoto 6. When I use iPhoto 5 to email a photo, medium quality 640x480, it looks beautiful. It looks like a perfect replica of a high-res photo, just smaller, but very clear. But when I do the same with iPhoto 6, again medium quality, the photo looks terrible, the image is very poor, it is jagged around people's faces with apparent artifacts of higher jpeg compression -- whereas none of these artifacts are present when emailing from iPhoto 5.
The problem with iPhoto6 seems to be that it uses a higher jpg compression thus lowering the photo quality.
To illustrate, here is the photo emailed from iPhoto5:
http://www.cinemaclock.com/iPhoto5.jpg (100kB)
and here is the SAME photo emailed the same way from iPhoto 6:
http://www.cinemaclock.com/iPhoto6.jpg (36kB)
Interesting is that when I click to email from iPhoto6 it estimates the photo size to 122kB, the same estimation as in iPhoto5, but then iPhoto6 compresses it down to 36kB.
Question: How can I set up iPhoto 6 to email the same photo quality as iPhoto 5?
iMac G5 + iMac Intel Mac OS X (10.4.10) iPhoto 5 vs. 6

I have the SAME problem!! Apple, please help how to correct the poor image quality?

MPEG-2 vs. mini DV - Which is better quality?

I want to transfer video from VHS tapes into iMovie. Which is going to give me better quality?:
A) Copy VHS to mini DV tape on my camcorder and then import into iMovie.
or
B) Copy VHS to DVD with my VHS/DVD recorder combo player and then transfer the DVD to iMovie using Apple MPEG-2 Player.
Thanks!
David

Hi Greg,
VERY good question! I think, we have three groups:
* the poor guys who have bought a "dvd camcorder"...- I don't have a clue, why I should record on a mini-dvd instead of a cheap tape...- the compression codec used on such machines is by definition! no editable format, so you allways need workarounds...
there should be a warning on that boxes "for playback only!"
(besides: the mpeg2-format allows to store video that way, you can edit it later, has to do with i-Frames etc... but that is not the way, Sony & Co goes...)
* using "older" homebrewn dvds...- ok, maybe somewhere are the old tapes... but where? and on that tape where do I find THAT scene? isn't it easier, to throw the DVD I made and copy that into iM?..... again: people see the fantastic pic quality of a DVD made with iDVD and think, "press play and record!".. THAT would be nice
* re-edit commercial DVDs... you made your personal version of StarWars, Episode XVII, and you are not that good in CGI as ILM... so, you want to copy a few frames from the disc on your shelf...- or, "forget all that plot, I want all Bruce Lee fighting scenes on ONE disc!" (<< ... "favorites", as we do in iTunes with playlist!)
you could make BIG Bucks with a 49$ tiny, shiny white box, analogue-in >> firewire out, which is recognized by iM....- ;-))

H.264 vs. MPEG-4 video, which is better quality?

Which is better quality? H.264 or MPEG-4? Is one more compressed than the other? I'm putting video on my iPod and also may want to output to television from the iPod, so I'd also like to know which is better for that as well in addition to which is better in general.

H.264 is significantly more compressed than typical MPEG-4. MPEG-4 naturally would be better quality to the discerning eye, and is not as dependent on the speed of your processor and the strength of your GPU as H.264 is. I managed to get a 320 x 240 video of H.264 compressed to be 200 Megabytes for a 2.5 hour video. On a G5 iMac 1.8 Ghz the playback was fine. Trying the same video on a slower Mac there was significant amount of stuttering of the video itself. Experiment with some one minute shorts and measure the file size and see which has better quality on what you are playing it back on. If you can tell the difference, then go with the higher quality format. Certainly keep a higher quality format burnt to DVD in case you need to recreate from the original.

Can apple put an update for ipod 6th generation so that it gives better quality sound?

I have an ipod 6th generation and i have heard a lot about apple's popular white earphones. The problem is that my ipod don't give enough volume to enjoy music from those white earphones. Can apple bring something new in their updates to fix this issue???
HELP !!!

You must realize that the quality of sound has been compromised by the very fact of compression and equipment. You are never likely to experience the nature of a live event by listening on an iPod. The best solution is to get a better quality of earbuds/ earphones/ headphones to improve the playback experience. The higher quality headphones such as Bose, Sennheiser, Sony have capabilities to counter ambient interference ( Bose noise-cancelling for example), and they have a better quality speaker than the Apple earbuds. This standard issue bit of kit is more of a courtesy to iPod buyers so that they will have something right out of the box in order to listen to their music but they are not the highest audio quality. The best audio quality will cost every bit as much as, or even more than, the cost of an iPod. As for turning up the volume, that is a foolish undertaking that can have long-term consequences on your hearing. Tinnitus cannot be cured! You will live with it unto your last days.

Exporting QT Conversion "Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2" Gives Better Quality?

A friend who does not believe that File>Export>QT Movie gives the best results has told me that she has experimented with "Uncompressed 8 and 10 bit", also H.264 and got better quality when viewed on her computer.
I don't think she has tried to view them on anything else as she is looking for ways to backup her material.
I can't believe it myself and feel that there may be something odd about the way she is viewing these on her computer.
Here is part of the email she sent me, so feel free to comment on any of the points:-
+While experimenting I've found that making uncompressed QT8 or QT10 bit files result in a much clearer image, fuller colour and better depth but also produce files that are 80Gb and100Gb respectively for an hour of film, much too large to store. Exporting a simple QTM file uses about 14Gb.+
+So I decided to export to tape and I'm happy with the quality on these. Then, for back-up, I thought I'd make QTM movies and also H264 (which is supposed to be the format with the longest life - viewed from this point in time) which are of course small files by comparison.+
+This I did and compared the quality using Quicktime playback. The H264 films were clearer and had better colour depth than the QTM films (not nearly as good at the 8 or 10bit ones though). But - the ratio is different! The H264 films appear narrower in the QuickTime Player window than the QTM files! A comparison of the file info shows the same dimensions - 720 x 576. (Original film is 720 x 576)+
I think her comment about the narrowness of the H.264 images will be connected with square and non-square pixels?

Your friend is talking about standard definition video. Yes, uncompressed will produce better results, but unless you have the hardware, like a very fast RAID, to support it, it pretty pointless, especially if you're going to recompress it.
H.264, while very good, will not produce better results. I have no idea where the view that this codec has the longest life has derived from. H.264 is a line of codecs that go back to H.262 and H.263. There is a successor to AVCHD called HEVC, which is H.265 I guess, and within a few years there may be an H.266.
H.264 may show better color for computer display, but the original format is DV PAL, which is designed, not for computer display at all, but specifically for television display.
Indeed the aperture needs to be adjusted on the images to make them match in aspect ratio.

Better quality render AE or Premiere?

I know this might not be a big deal to some of you but since I have some shorts and feature that are gonna be projected at film festivals I'd like to know if anyone has any ideas.
Since that new 'max render quality' checkmark popped up in the 4.0.1 I don't like rendering out of Premiere. I'd like to know exactly what it does. Obviously that means media we rendered in CS4.0.0 didn't look as good as is could have (and we weren't told) but the big question is WHAT DOES IT DO THAT WASN'T BEING DONE IN CS3 AND IS OR ISN'T BEING DONE IN AFTER EFFECTS? It is slow, slower than AE does that mean it renders better than AE?
Call me overly curious but if I'm rendering a movie or short that gonna be projected on a movie theater screen I want best quality period.
So which one gives the best quality?
Thanks

Go to Sequence > Sequence settings > check the the maximum render quality check box > SAVE (you have to do this before you send to Adobe Media Encoder)
Now render out an uncompressed TIFF still (first frame) or ten seconds of any video as an uncompressed AVI.
Now that the renders done go back and uncheck the 'max render quality' now SAVE (important) then render same way.
Bring the two new files into with your original composition. Zoom in 200-400% toggle between them. The one with 'max render' is different but the other is exactly the same as the original down to the exact pixel what is what we want with uncompressed.
I tried with FX without FX rendered in AE CS3 and 4 and anything uncompressed matches exactly.
Not saying 'max render' makes it look bad just wondering what it's doing. As far as I can tell it does help for resizing and when your compress your video or a lot. Just don't wanna use it for this workflow. Also nice to know your renders are gonna look the same as they did before without checking the button and having to wait 2-3 times as long.

Does retina give a better performance

So, this question maybe kind of silly, But does a retina give a better performance for movies, for example, the same movie file (say 1080 p Bluray) runs on a retina and a common, in this case, is retina really and obviously better? I'm thinking of purchasing a retina one, really appreciate your replies.

Yes, it is strikingly noticeable. On bluray level files, avi, Mp4 etc, its extremely noticeable.
Obviously older films that are available in bluray often dont look better for obvious reasons, they were filmed in a low quality to begin with, and not remastered.
However all the modern 1080p and higher, the difference is striking.
Its the why the Retina Ipad is such a hot seller, its the #1 consumption device for consuming movies etc, either thru Netflix, ....or wifi beaming from your Mac to your Ipad.
Macs dont play Bluray disks, but there are external Drives and software for same. The question is bluray QUALITY files, MP4
Aurora Software’s Blu-ray Player ($30 for a one-year license or $40 for lifetime usage) and Macgo’s Mac Blu-ray Player

Tiff or JPEG better quality in iMovie?

Which format gives better quality in iMovie...TIFFs or JPEGs or does it not make a difference?

Thanks for learning, Sue!
QuickTime Pro image format imports are a different Apple than images used in DV editor such as iMovie.
Did you know, assuming you have a very fast Mac or PC, that you can import nearly every major image file format via QuickTime? How about 60 fps screen grabs in .pdf or .png or video formats?
You could, in elementary theory, assemble an HD image sequence?
QuickTime Pro has so much power and it is the basis for such "i"Apps as iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, and the higher end "Pro" apps like Final Cut and Logic Pro.
Apps like Apple "Preview" (an image viewing application) are also built on the core foundation of QuickTime.
PC users still get "Picture Viewer" when they install QuickTime? It is Mac's Preview app now.
QuickTime.
It is so deep into the Mac OS it would be impossible to separate it from the OS.
QuickTime helped develop our Mac "eye candy" experience.
It also helped developers understand the rules. And game developers create such rich graphics.
Even HD TV owes a bit of gratitude to the software engineers behind it.

Which yields better quality images?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

That’s the same thing.
The problem is that iPhoto needs to make a movie of the slideshow to export. This inevitably involves compression. Then, when iDVD prepares the movie for burning, it also compresses. Many folks find the quality drop off too great when the material is doubly compressd.
One solution is to create the Slideshow in iDVD, though that has limitations too - no Ken Burns effect, fo instance. But there’s only one layer of compression.
Another way is to create the Movie in +as high a quality as possible+. Some ways to do this: Export the slideshow from iPhoto using the new high quality options. Alternatively, use another app that has more export options - PhotoToMovie, Final Cut Express, perhaps even iMovie HD - to get a high quality movie, and so minimise the impact of the compression.
Regards
TD

Which is better quality for watching a pre downloaded movie airplay or HMDI?

I have the new Retnia. I have an apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

How to i resize a larger 72ppi image to better quality smaller image but for correct size to paste into flyer

Hi, I am trying to resize a larger 16cm wide image saved at 72dpi to a smaller better quality 5cm wide image for invites for an art exhibition I am having. I figure there must be lots of information in the pic given that it is large, I just want to condense it into a smaller image. If I adjust the size to 5 cm wide it changes the dpi to 230 which would be better for printing (the 72 dpi is way too grainy). However when I paste it into the flyer I am making in photoshop it pastes as a massive picture. I then tried to drag the corners in to make it the right size and it became even grainier than a 5cm wide 72dpi image. I hope that makes sense to someone. So basically I need a 5cm wide document size that I can put in my small flyer that is the best quality I can make it! Thanks in advance!

Up-sampling from 72ppi to 300-600ppi can result in blurry images. It's always best to start with a good quality, high resolution image if you can. Go to Image > Image Size. When up-sampling, use Bicubic Smoother setting. When down-sampling, use Bicubic Sharper. See screenshot.
Nancy O.

Is m4v better quality than a remuxed MKV file via Subler?

I'm slowly building my home media server and putting my Blu-Ray's onto it. I normally do a Handbrake conversion for ATV3, so the MKV files end up being significantly smaller m4v's and the quality is outstanding. But I recently learned about the quick remux method using Subler, which quickly converts the MKV container into an m4v container without any quality loss and while keeping the same size file. But I noticed that, say, a 29GB MKV file is a much poorer softer picture on my plasma TV than the same movie that's only a 9GB MKV file (remuxed to m4v with subler for streaming over ATV3). I'm running a 300mbps cable modem so the streaming shouldn't be a problem over my home wifi. But I also noticed that the smaller m4v's (say a 3.5GB file that comes from a 9GB MKV file via Handbrake) seem to be slightly better quality than the 9GB file that was remuxed. So it seems like the larger file should be even higher quality -- but I'm getting better results with a smaller file that's Handbrake'd from MKV to m4v.
Is there some sort of streaming setting on the ATV3 that needs to be set or adjusted that will allow the full gorgeous pic quality of a 29GB file to stream right through to it, and look better than the Handbrake'd m4v file? It feels like there's a bottleneck somewhere that's not letting all of the complete picture information through, and an intact, perfect 29GB file should look light years better than that 29GB file Handbrake'd down to 4GB. Trying to figure this out before I continue down this home media server path cuz it's a lot of work to do these Blu's one at a time.
Kirby

I have no experience of the remuxing you describe, but interesting observations.
There is nothing you can adjust on AppleTV - it will either play the encoded movie or it won't.
AppleTv's generally playback the h264 codec (in an m4v container) - there are many many versions/levels of this codec and each generation of AppleTv has been able to play slightly more sophisticated versions.
I suspect but cannot prove that the issue you notice is due to AppleTV attempting to support advanced h264 features but making compromises which affect playback quality - in other words it is cutting corners to playback advanced h264 profile features rather than refusing. Handbrake on the other hand has time at its disposal - it has been refined over many years by dedicated enthusiasts so if a simple remux is all that's required i'd be surprised they have not implemented that. Instead I suspect it more accurately processes enhanced h264 features before transcoding into a new smaller m4v file. Equally there might be settings in HB which artificially sharpen or otherwise alter the video which you prefer. I'd compare the BluRay tothe remuxed or HB versions to attempt to decide which was more faithful to the original but even then it would be dependent on the BluRay player's settings in some cases.

What gets better quality for watching video.. airplay mirroring or HDMI cable

I have the new Retnia. I have a apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

Better quality, export specific settings via quicktime or in sequence setti

I am wondering, since I am recording video at 1080 HD on my canon hf10, would I get better quality if I IMPORTED the footage into final cut AT FULL HD QUALITY (1080) and edit in FCP at 1080 and then EXPORT to a 720p setting for youtube OR would I get better quality in changing the SEQUENCE PRESET to a 720p setting in FCP and work with it as 720?

I don't think that there would be any quality difference if you cut in 1080 versus the destination 720. Just cut it in 1080 and then convert to 720 when going to youtube. You'll have a higher res copy for any future use.
If there is any quality difference, which I doubt there would be, it would probably be so minute, especially since it is web video.

Mpeg2 blueray gives me better quality that H.264 blueray

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for