Poor encoding quality for HD

I recently bought a Panasonic Camcorder 3CMOS to get the best HD quality (MEPG2 1080x1920 50i/s progressive)
But I was frustrated by the Pr Encoder. I set the highest quality parameter with MPEG2 (bitrate up to 35 Mps, 2 passes) and H.264 (like wise) and did not get even the quality provided by the very simple editing application delivered by Panasonic with the camcorder (Coding H264).
Is there any way to replace the Pr encoder for the exportation of sequences.
Thank you for your help.
Phalch

I also have a Panasonic, the SD-707, and I noticed the same as you. Downscaling to DVD is good, not as best as it can be but I can live with that quality. But exporting HD is bad (MPEG2 and H264).
So, I've decided to export from Premiere to HUFFYUV and after that, I use ffmpeg to convert to x264. And that quality is soooo much better.
I've also tried Komisar VFW x264 build but the exported movie stutters so it's unusable. I would know if Premiere could export directly to x264 because it's a high quality codec and better than the build-in mainconcept H264.
I've converted some movies of my son for the web with ffmpeg and everyone who have seen those like the quality. I've tried to get the same quality with Premiere but the filesize is much bigger and the quality worse. With ffmpeg I scaling down to 1280x720 and use a bitrate of 1500k. A movie of 5 minutes is 59 MB.
So, maybe you can try ffmpeg and compare it with Premiere export.
You can download HUFFYUV here: http://www.videohelp.com/tools/HuffYUV
FFMPEG can you download from here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mplayer-win32/files/
You can download both for free.

Similar Messages

QT: Poor video quality for gradients when Motion JPEG A/B codec used.

Hello,
I have a problem using the Quicktime (7.6) and the Motion JPEG A/B codec.
My workflow is as follows:
1. Create animation with Quartz Composer. This animation should use gradients from dark red to white.
2. Export the animation as Quicktime film (MOV), set full HD (1920x1080), duration e.g. 2 minutes.
3. Open exported MOV with Quicktime(Pro)
4. Export again to Quicktime film, now choose Motion JPEG A for codec, set quality to best.
5. Check the exported film. The gradient is not smooth, I see bright and dark lines. The quality of the gradient is poor.
I checked the other codecs. When I use "Animation" then the gradient is smooth and beauty.
Unfortunately I have to use Motion JPEG codec due to customer requirements.
Does anybody have an idea, how I can improve the quality? Maybe internal QT settings? Other external Motion JPEG codec ?
Thanks in advance
LeKarmar

Hello QuickTimeKirk,
Thank you for your reply.
I need Motion JPEG A/B or PhotoJPEG This is my "final distribution format" required by the customer.
I have problems not only with the red color. Even using grey, blue or yellow gradients produces bad output.
You're right. Animation codec produces what I will accept and want, but the files are huge sized and my customer doesn't accept this format.
Please note, that I already set the high quality playback setting in Quicktime.
Regards
LeKarmar
Message was edited by: LeKarmar

Poor DVD Quality for slide shows from quicktime

I have generated a slide show in QT and the quality is great. When I try to generate a DVD the quality drops significantly (very disappointing). How do I generate highest quality DVDs especially for slideshows.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

You should take all your JPEGs and turn them into 720 x 480, then import them into a program like Final Cut Pro.
Put them all in the timeline.
Add sound or whatever, fades, etc.
Then export it out as a QT Movie, File>Quicktime Movie
Then add this to Compressor or DVD SP.
If you just add a .mov to DVD SP, your bitrates need to be set in the preferences.
DVD Studio Pro > Preferences > Encoding
Try 7.0 average, 7.4 high, 2 Pass VBR, Best
Sometimes fades on photos get messed up with lower bitrates.
7.0 is decent.
Set Compressor up with those settings as well if you are using Compressor.
If you just drag photos into DVD SP, you can do it that way as well, just be sure your preferences for your bitrate is higher.
What you had was pretty low.
Let us know how it goes.

Poor rendering quality for still images

I have opened a new project with PAL DSLR settings (1080p, 25fps).
I have added a full res (about 4000px x 3000px) still image to the timeline and added a pan effect to it. When I view the preview in PE it looks fine. However, when I render the clip the quality is very poor in the preview.
I have tried exporting the clip to a file and this plays fine, but the preview does not look good.
Any ideas why the rendering should have this effect?

pickera2
I have a few things for you to consider and tryout if interested.
First, you are taking a 4000 x 3000 4:3 still into a 1920 x 1080 16:9 project (you say project preset = PAL/DSLR/1080p/DSLR 1080p25).
Your problem is confined to the preview of the pan and zoom result using the Pan and Zoom Tool (I am assuming the you are using Premiere Elements 10 or 11 or 12...I do not recall that you said which one).
Edit Menu/Preferences/General includes the preference "Default Scale to Frame Size" and it does just that. It is typically found ON. So, when your 4000 x 3000 pixels still is imported, the program tries to fit it as best possible into the 1920 x 1080 16:9 space set up in the Edit Mode monitor (Magnification = Fit) by the project preset. In your case, you would expect to see the following with black borders:
Is that what you are taking into the Pan and Zoom workspace? Or are you scaling what is seen there so that the image just fills the 1920 x 1080 space? Does it look like the following after scaling, if you do scale to fit?
And important point to remember is that whatever the case, the Pan and Zoom workspace is not referencing what is seen on the Timeline, but is instead referencing back to the original at the hard drive save location.
An alternative to all of this includes
Bringing you image into the project with the Default Scale to Frame Size disabled in preference. Then the 4000 x 3000 will overflow the space in the 1920 x 1080 monitor. You would then ignore what you see in the Premiere Elements workspace, select the Pan and Zoom Tool to open the Pan and Zoom workspace, and do your pans and zooms on the image that you see there. Click Done when finished. Back in the Premiere Elements workspace render the Timeline and scale what you see in the Edit Mode monitor as needed.
You also might want to look at beforehand cropping your 4000 x 3000 4:3 to 2200 x 1238 pixels 16:9 and using that as your source media with or without the Default Scale to Frame Size enabled.
Please view to see if the previews look any better and/or there are improvements in the export.
Thanks.
ATR

Poor image quality for uncompressed .jpg files

Hello,
I am importing in uncompressed .jpg files that I have made
smaller in Photoshop, but didn't modify compression. This is the
original format at they are stock photos. My project preferences
for jpg files are set to 100. When I import them and publish my
project, the image quality is sub- standard where areas of the
picture are blurry and fadded.
Since the images started as jpg files, recompressing them or
saving them as bmp files which Captivate likes, is not an option.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Lisa Forman

Hi Rick,
I didn't notice the slide property dialog that is set to
default to Standard. This should help. thanks.
By the way, I am still having major problems with the issue I
emailed you directly last week with all the attachment files. I
know you are busy, but if you have time to revisit, I'd appreciate
it. I don' t have a solution and need to deliver next week.
Threads -
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=464&threadid=1277469
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=464&threadid=1276942
Thank for your time,
Lisa Forman

Poor print quality for black ink for Photosmart 6520e

Having a problem with black printing. Using all HP cartridges, but when I run a test page, I get white, horizontal bars across the black test bars. Some of them are 1/4 inch wide. Replaced the cartridge and did the automatic printhead cleaning, but no improvement. I know the printhead is not removeable, what is the next step?

Hi @Mikenstlouis,
Welcome to the HP Support Forums! I see you are running into some print quality issues with the black ink on your HP Photosmart 6520.
I would like you to continue here: Printer Does Not Print Black Ink or Color Ink, or Prints Blank Pages, I understand you may have done some of these steps already but I need you to complete all steps in order to resolve the missing black issue you are experiencing.
Please note: There are three printhead cleaning stages. Complete all three stages if necessary. If the printhead is badly clogged, it might require another cleaning cycle. If so, wait 30 minutes after the last (third) cleaning stage to start the first stage of the cleaning process over again.
If you are still unable to print in black ink, I suspect the issue may be the printer and not the cartridge. I highly recommend you call our technical support at 800-474-6836, I trust they will be able to assist you regardless of the warranty status. If you live outside the US/Canada Region, please click the link below to get the support number for your region. http://www.hp.com/cgi-bin/hpsupport/index.pl
Thanks,
HevnLgh
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to the left of the reply button to say “Thanks” for helping!

Poor Image Quality at Start Menu

Hi All
I use iDVD 08 for my movies and was creating a menu at the start of the program.
While the resolution looks good in iDVD (before burning to DVD), it is not so after. I would like to enquire on how can can improve on the image quality on my DVD.
FYI, I referring to the photos that I put in my start menu. I burn my DVD in NTSC format. Appreciate any help and advise.
Thanks.
Jojo

Here's what iDvd's Help Menu states about those 3 encoding settings you inquired about:
You can use the amount of video in your project as a rough determination of which method to choose. If your project has an hour or less of video (for a single-layer disc), choose Best Performance. If it has between 1 and 2 hours of video (for a single-layer disc), choose High Quality. If you want the best possible encoding quality for projects that are up to 2 hours (for a single-layer disc), choose Professional Quality. This option takes about twice as long as the High Quality option, so select it only if time is not an issue for you.
Use the Capacity meter in the Project Info window (choose Project > Project Info) to determine how many minutes of video your project contains.
Can we really tell the difference ?
Yes. I can see the difference. And so can bcd in the following thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8377592#8377592
Keep in mind Burned dvd's are low res devices by nature. Meaning all data is eventually compressed into mpeg 2 (normally). In general, Dvd's have not kept pace with today's higher res cameras and camcorders nor with apple's editing applications (ie, iMovie, FCE, and FCP) and there is very little you can do to improve upon this unfortunately since most macs do not yet support burning a Blu-ray disc. When and if they ever do, then we will see some significant improvements all the way around since Blu-ray dvd's hold at least 5 times the data of a standard dvd and with significantly higher clarity and resolution than the standard Dvd's most of us use today.
Am I missing something ?
No. You aren't missing anything from what you have described above. Your observations are actually rather astute.
Hope this reply helps but if not just come on back.
Message was edited by: SDMacuser

Poor image quality save for web

It doesn't matter whether i'm exporting from Ai or Ps or whether it's CS6 or CC. I have changed the raster settings in Ai and i've also tried all optimization options with all different export file types (jpg, png, gif) at all different quality settings. It doesn't matter if I start with an ai, eps, pdf, png... the export result is always poor quality.
I have tried exporting at 300ppi and that does fix the quality issue and bloats the file size, but this way (the export route) is so time consuming since you have to resize your artwork each time as well as the artboard so that it doesn't cut off pixels. Save for web never used to have these quality issues and it also never used to cut off pixels around the edges. These workarounds prove very time consuming and produce file sizes that are not ideal.
When i first noticed this issue I was using Mavericks with CS6 and since am using Yosemite and Creative Cloud.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create any bitmap or vector graphic in Ai or Ps, It doesn't matter whether you convert text to outlines or not
2. Save for web
3. View image in any application or browser to see poor quality and pixel trimming. Others running the same version and system are not having this issue, but I have checked many forums and found many others that do have this same issue but can't seem to find a solution.
Results:stair stepping, degradation, pixel trimming, general poor image quality
Expected results: Previously the save for web feature allowed for a decent quality image

First try the Cleaner. here's the link for CC but there exists one for Cs6 as well Use the CC Cleaner Tool to solve installation problems | CC, CS3-CS6
Everything I have read says that you kind of have to compromise file-size for quality. Could you post a screenshot of your settings?
also, if it helps: Creative Suite * Optimizing images

Poor image quality with save for web

It doesn't matter whether i'm exporting from Ai or Ps or whether it's CS6 or CC. I have changed the raster settings in Ai and i've also tried all optimization options with all different export file types (jpg, png, gif) at all different quality settings. It doesn't matter if I start with an ai, eps, pdf, png... the export result is always poor quality.
I have tried exporting at 300ppi and that does fix the quality issue and bloats the file size, but this way (the export route) is so time consuming since you have to resize your artwork each time as well as the artboard so that it doesn't cut off pixels. Save for web never used to have these quality issues and it also never used to cut off pixels around the edges. These workarounds prove very time consuming and produce file sizes that are not ideal.
When i first noticed this issue I was using Mavericks with CS6 and since am using Yosemite and Creative Cloud.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create any bitmap or vector graphic in Ai or Ps, It doesn't matter whether you convert text to outlines or not
2. Save for web
3. View image in any application or browser to see poor quality and pixel trimming. Others running the same version and system are not having this issue, but I have checked many forums and found many others that do have this same issue but can't seem to find a solution.
Results:stair stepping, degradation, pixel trimming, general poor image quality
Expected results: Previously the save for web feature allowed for a decent quality image

I thought of that too so I tested on another machine with retina display and the file i saved on my machine looked bad on my machine and on the other comparable machine/display. So I sent them the original vector ai file and watched while they saved it the exact same way on their machine and the file looked fine on both of our machines/displays.
All of the settings they used appeared the same as what I used but with different results. I don't recall changing anything but does anyone know if there is some setting that could have been changed that is causing this issue?

L7780 poor print quality after not using for 6 months

Poor print quality after not using my printer for about 6 months. Ran thru the tools (clean printhead, aligh, etc . . .) didn't help. Replaced all chartridges, still no help.
I'm fairly tech savy, been in IT for 27 years starting with hardware support.
Question, can I manually clean the printheads or should I just replace. I would rather try to clean them manually after just shelling out > $ 170 on new chartridges.
thanks
Brent

Hi @Brentl
Yes, you can clean the printhead and the inside of the printer. The following document will help; 'The Following Printheads are Missing or Damaged, Replace the Printhead' Message Displays on the All....
I hope this helps.
Please click the Thumbs up icon below to thank me for responding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please click “Accept as Solution” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Sunshyn2005 - I work on behalf of HP

Poor image quality on computer

I recently completed a short film in FCE and burned it to DVD using iDVD (7.0.4) set to Professional Quality. When the DVD is played back on my TV it looks fine. However when I play it on my iMac the image quality is rather poor (very grainy, pixelated), particularly when played full-screen. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for any replies.

Hi
Nothing wrong with that.
• There are NO HD version of iDVD up till NOW
• Your iMac screen has a at least 4 to 5 times Greater resolution
• On the DVD there is SD (old TV quality resolution) and that's what's playbacked
• One can do a few things to get as much possibly from iDVD and from FCE/P
I do - from FinalCut E/P
• Export out as a QuickTime .mov file
• Not Selfcontained - not important but saves time and space
• NO QUICKTIME CONVERSION - Important
• I use Verbatim DVD-R in iDVD
• I set down burn speed to x4 or x1
• I use Pro Encoding Quality
• I secure a minimum of 25Gb free space on internal boot/start-up hard disk
(iDVD can't use space on others - AT ALL)
Yours Bengt W

Encoding Quality concerns

Hi all..
Am running iDVD `09 and have noticed allot of posts regarding which encoding quality "better" than another.
Apple's help, goes by what this forum claims, Best Quality: up to 60 minutes, High Quality: 60 to 120 minutes (1 to 2 hours), or Professional Quality: anything over.
However, Apple also goes by (and again probably this forum does too), those encoding settings are specified for single layer... No one mentions what quality for dual layer.
And all these settings are only applicable if you play the resulting DVD on your Mac. They don't mention of sharing or viewing on a standard HD TV.
Having said that, this poses a few questions:
1. If I select a certain quality, why would it be different viewing on a TV screen (CRT or LCD) vs viewing on your Mac ? I would think the quality would be the same as you've burned it that way.
2. I always use High Quality whenever possible (regardless of length), this is because I don't want to wait 4 hours just for something you can get about the same for 2. Plus, the quality is acceptable.. for me
I guess thats just me, but the first one is more important.
For example, my source movies are from VHS tape, Their recorded into mpeg2 format with EyeTV software from Elgato.
I then use iDVD to encode them in High Quality... Why would this quality be any different if I were viewing either on my mac, or viewing on my 32" Samsung LCD TV.?
Just find it interesting to see quality matters depends what your going to be viewing the final product on. For some reason, I just can't see why it would.

Encoding quality has nothing to do with what you are viewing your movie on. I'm not sure where you got that idea. To compress video, software analyzes images and motion. Mpeg2 is highly compressed, so it takes a long time to do this. If you do it quickly, it may result in visual artifacts. If you take a long time to do it, the software may be able to compress more efficiently, avoiding artifacts. You said that you feel that you get the same results in two hours as opposed to four. If you are using a short video, then the bitrate is high enough that the differences may be minimal. Or you may not be able to see them yourself, but someone else could. So if you are comfortable trading off quality for time, then you can use the encoding setting you like. But it has nothing to do with how you play it back.
Dual layer discs double the capacity, so you can double times you listed.
You talked about viewing on an HD tv; you understand that DVDs are only SD by definition, right?
Now, it is possible that DVDs will appear worse depending on how you watch them. There are a few reasons why this might be:
1. People get used to high definition broadcasts and Blu-ray discs, and forget how DVDs look by comparison. Or they may not have stared hard at a DVD the way they do while making their own DVDs. Then they want to know why their homemade DVDs look worse than any other Hollywood discs (with its professional lighting, colorists, directing, cameras etc.) This is sort of like wondering why the wall you just painted doesn't look even after two days of painting; you just might not examine someone else's wall as carefully.
2. Flat screen TVs are progressive, but DVDs are interlaced, as is our broadcast system. So HDTVs have deinterlacing circuitry which may do a good or poor job. Amateur footage (lots of shaky movement and rapid pans) can make interlacing artifacts look worse.
3. Some people try to preview their DVD on their computer, a high-resolution progressive display. A DVD looks awful in comparison with all those nice menus, pictures, and fonts. Also, they are sitting about twenty inches away.
So it is possible for the perception of quality to be different depending on your viewing device. But the encoding settings are about how the video is compressed to mpeg2.

Encoding quality in DSP 4

Hello. I'm having trouble with the encoding quality in DSP. I exported a short film from FCP in DVC Pro HD format in quicktime. It looks great in the computer. However, when I import it into DSP and it encodes it, the final product looks very poor. For one, the titles look terrible and whenever there's movement the compression appears obvious to anyone. I've tried to get the best encoding and it looks the same. Is it a regular problem? Does this happen to all compressed footage? or am I doing something wrong? I even suspect that it looks better on iDVD.
thanx

Length is 28 minutes.
Bit rate 8.0 - Max Bit rate 8.6
Audio was mixed in FCP. Sample rate 48K 16 bit
Media is TDK DVD-R
the titles are generated from FCP
In both my computer screen (cinema display) and tv Sony Wega, the dvd version doesn't look professional-especially titles.
how do you do it to look great?
thanx

Poor sound quality on some iTunes songs

Downloaded some songs from iTunes and realized a really poor sound quality on some files.
The worst example is "Precious" from "Depeche Mode" (Album version). It seems to me that the AAC file is encoded at a much too high level, so its overdriven and distorted.
If i burn the song to CD and than analyze the track in WaveLab it is obvious that the song was encoded with a level more than 6dB over the usual level and i can see a lot of clippings.
Downloaded another song of another band that i allready have on CD, just to compare... and this song was much better. Even this was 3dB over the original CD level (and the song on CD had a peak level reserve of only 0.1dB), but while listening that song i heared no negative effects...
So from my point of view iTunes is not really an acceptable offer if i can't rely on a minimum sound quality of the songs that i pay for!
So, the question is:
Is this normal or is the "Depeche Mode" album only one rare bad example???

Yes, of cause, tried all.
EQ off, or EQ with all sliders a little below 0dB.
With my tests i saw no effect of the EQ to the CD burning quality.
Only if i change the CD burning options (in german "Lautstärke anpassen", something like "adapt volume" or so), than i get a CD that has the same bad quality, only at a lower volume.
The same distorted and overdriven sound with clippings at a lower level (peak -12dB).
What if it's really a bad file?
Do they fix such files?
Will i have a chance to download it again? (without paying another time?)
PC Windows XP Pro

ITunes 5 MP3 encoding quality

I publish a podcast, and I just switched to iTunes 5 last week. I'm having a bit of a problem ripping our podcast to mp3. I used to encode from AIFF to MP3 at 64kbps CBR 22.050khz, and it sounded okay for our show (mostly talk with some music breaks). But after upgrading to iTunes 5 using the same settings there are noticeable compression artifacts and it sound very "tinny." I've resorted to encoding at 96kbps to correct the issue, but the file sizes are larger than in the past.
Has anyone else noticed this? And, does anyone know if Apple has possibly switched to a different compression algorithm?
Thanks in advance,
Neil
Borderline podcast
www.bdline.net

The sound quality depends on the preferences you have set in your iTunes program. With the import preferences you determine wheter the songs are imported as mp3, wav, aac, aiff. So if your prefs are set to mp3 128 k for example you will of course import poor sound quality.
Message was edited by: Sampleconstruct

Poor encoding quality for HD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for