Why is export quality HORRIBLE? FCP 7.3

Why can't I export a .mov quicktime movie from FCP 7.3 that looks EXACTLY like the image I get when playing the footage in the timeline?
These are my 2 biggest quality issues that I can't find a way to surmount:
1. Interlacing. Yes, I shot interlaced - bad idea, never will do it again. But in FCP, viewed at full screen, the footage is beautiful - no interlacing artifact at all. Once exported, it looks horrible. Please no comments about "just choose 'deinterlace' when exporting." This seems to horribly degrade the quality (see below) and it doesn't deinterlace it anyway at the same resolution as I'm viewing it in FCP - you have to scale the quality down from 1080i to 720p before the interlace artifact in the exported file is gone. And even then, the quality is much worse than 720p should be (see below).
2. Saturation/bit depth/color quality: Once exported - no matter what quality I choose and no matter whether I check 'deinterlace' or not - the color goes down the drain once exported. It looks pathetic. Oversaturating the image before exporting in hopes of a correct saturation by the time it's exported does not work. The image is simply very, very washed out once exported.
Bottom line: If the footage looks beautiful IN final cut, viewed at full screen, we KNOW it can look beautiful OUT of final cut, viewed on the same screen. How is this accomplished?
A few technical details:
Footage specs:
Shot in 59.94i, 1080
AVCHD
.MTS
Imported RAW into FCP using Log and Transfer.
Once ingested into FCP (using default ingest settings):
29.97i
1920x1080
Upper (odd) field dominance
Square pixel aspect ratio
Apple prores 422
Export specs:
Compressor: H.264
Frame rate: Current
Keyframes: Automatic
Data Rate: Automatic
Frame recording: Unchecked
Quality: Best (multipass)
Encoding: Best quality
Export size settings:
I have tried all of the following settings, each with 'deinterlace' checked AND unchecked, respectively. And each with bad results:
1920x1080
1600x900
1280x720
and other sizes of 16:9
Any ideas on this is HUGELY appreciated.

Thanks for all the great input everyone.
To your questions:
Jason: I'm using QT 7.7.
Michael: Very helpful thoughts. I did export using quicktime instead of QT conversion and it looks identical - no problem....when viewing the exported file with FCP. When viewing it with QT 7.7, with the settings suggested by David, it's the same old crap I've been gettng all along. I"m new to Compressor and I'm using version 3.5. Can you advise a specific workflow for using Compressor here? As far as customizing QT for FCP color, I assume you mean the option in the Preferences 'Enable final cut studio color compatibility'. This is the only setting I see of relevance...
Russ - Final cut pro DOES accurately show image quality. At full screen view, my footage looks great in FCP. If it can look greatin FCP, it should be able to look great OUT of FCP. The question is just how to use the best compression setting to get the export file size down without sacrificing all that quality.... I'm judging by the monitor because I'm shooting for monitor end-viewership, not TV.
Bottom line - sounds like Compressor is the way to go. If someone could give me some pointers on Compressor workflow with this situation, that would bed awesome. I've never used the program before - 'export using QT conversion' in FCP has always been sufficient up until now.
Many, many thanks!

Similar Messages

Horrible export quality in FCP for web

We just exported our video in final cut pro for the web, on the highest settings and are very disappointed.
Is there anyway to get a better quality for youtube?
This is how it looks now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUbJvc7TuQ
we would like to keep the high quality how do we do this? We are using a sony hdv 1080i

Michael Trauffer wrote:
You still haven't answered David S.'s questions.
One can only assume capture/sequence settings are for sony hdv 1080i as mentioned in OP. Given that information...
piff aroni wrote:
I followed the directions at
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/you_tube_reduxgary.html
and this is what it produced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NdMzokWuhI
still horrible quality
piff,
You have "_watch in high quality_" link on your YouTube video page. There's a lot of sudden movement and color change in your video which could affect quality upon encode. YouTube is free and you get what you pay for. In all honesty it is not going to get any better than what you presently have uploaded on YouTube. If you want a high(er) quality video on the web encode respectively and host independently.
hth

Why is the quality of movies and pictures exported to the external hard drive lowered?

Why is the quality of movies and pictures exported to the external hard drive lowered?

Are you speaking of manually moving these files, or using an application to export?
When you use the the term "export", it usually entails an application performing some kind of file conversion, rather than a simple transfer. It is during conversion to another file format that information may be lost through lossy compression, or by settings of the export.
Anytime you convert a file to another format, there will usually be some loss or degradation. Tghis can't be helped, as one format may not support every information characteristic the original one did.

Export quality grainy for TEXT / TITLE

Hello there,
Am kind of a newb, but am getting used to the basics and am happy with the video export quality. For some reason, the TITLE objects are coming out grainy, even when viewed at 100% size. I tried different output types, bitrates, changed fonts, font size, position, etc. Put black background behind, removed background, no matter what am still getting the fonts looking crappy once exported.
Some screenshots of what I see in the Premiere Pro output preview / workspace, and then a second shot showing the resulting output (same result in diff bitrates, just chose one as example)
In Pro:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue01.png
Exported:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue02.png
Any ideas?
Thanks for any suggestions,
Greg

DV is far from the best codec for text. But the real problem is that you're using FCP's built-in text generators. Instead, use the Boris Title 3D and Boris Title Crawl generators. They produce much cleaner vector-based text and have a ton of more options for creativity.
-DH

Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX

I read this article today and considering I do all my rendering through Premiere or AME it made me a little concerned. What does Adobe think of this? and has any else experienced this problem?
Cheers,
Moja.
I took this article from: Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX & Premiere?
A rational person might assume that the program from which you export your media wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of the final image, especially if the export settings are identical in both programs. A recent test by filmmaker Noam Kroll might just teach us to think twice before making assumptions.
First, a little bit of background on Kroll's test. Having noticed that exporting from Adobe Media Encoder yielded quicker results than using the same settings and exporting from FCPX, he tended to use Media Encoder for the bulk of his exporting. When a recently exported project came out with some nasty compression artifacts, blocky rendering of certain areas, and a noticeable change in color quality, Kroll put on his detective's hat and tried exporting again from FCPX. To his, and soon to be your, surprise, the exported result from FCPX yielded significantly higher image quality with the EXACT same export and compression settings.
Don't believe it? Have a look for yourself. According to Kroll, "both FCP X and Premiere Pro were set to output a high quality H.264 file at 10,000 kbps." The image on top was exported from FCPX and the bottom was exported from Premiere Pro.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
In the shots above, you'll notice more blocky compression artifacts in the version exported from Premiere, especially on the lower part of the woman's face, and there's a fairly significant reddish hue that's been introduced into the midtones and shadows of the Premiere export. Here's a version of the same shot that is cropped in on the woman's face by 400%. This is where the difference between the two starts to become painfully obvious. Again, FCPX is on top, and Premiere on the bottom.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
Here's the conclusion that Kroll came to in his post.
After seeing this I can confidently say that I will not be compressing to H.264 using Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder any more. [sic] The image from Premiere is so much blockier, less detailed, and muddy looking, not to mention that the colors aren’t at all accurate. In fact I even did another output test later on with Premiere Pro set to 20,000 kbps and FCP X only set to 10,000 kbps and still the FCP X image was noticeably higher quality, so clearly something is up.
It's really difficult to speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes that's causing such a drastic difference in results between the two programs. However, what is clear is that you should take caution when exporting to h.264 from Premiere and Media Encoder. Regardless of the program that you're using, perform your own tests and make sure that the export process is leaving your media with a visual quality appropriate for the delivery medium.
The good news here is that Adobe is extremely receptive to feedback from their user base, and their Creative Cloud subscription model allows them to roll out updates with a much higher frequency than they could with the boxed version of the Creative Suite. If more people are experiencing these problems and reporting it to Adobe, chances are that we'll see an update with fixes sometime in the near future. With that said, I have no idea how Adobe handles the technical process of exporting, so it could very well take a complete overhaul of how the program encodes h.264 to fix the problem.

Well, I did my own little comparison with a shot from my A7s (XAVCS 50mbps) and seeing as I don't have FCP X I used FCP 7. The AME H264 looks nicer than the FCP one in this instance.
Dropbox - WALKING 444.jpg
Pro Res 444 from Premiere
Dropbox - WALKING AME.jpg
H264 from AME at these settings:
Dropbox - WALKING FCP.jpg
H264 from FCP 7 at these settings:

Exporting video from FCP scrunches it.

When I export my video from FCP it gets scrunched. Imagine that you start with a square and you export it and it comes out like a vertical rectangle. It looks correct in FCPs image and wireframe box, but it is not correct according to the title safe boxes. When I play the exported video it includes black space on both sider of the video. What can I do? I set the Motion project presets to NTSC DV (720 X 480) and FCP sequence settings to NTSC DV (3:2) (720 X 480) and I don't have the Anamorphic 16:9 checked. How can I export this without scrunching or squeezing it?

Welcome to the family.
You can only go through your settings very carefully, one at a time. If the sequence is DV, the clips are DV, and the export is DV, the resulting file will be DV. Our experience around here is this question is 99.9% user error caused by the fact that FCP's various settings are weirdly conflicting with common sense or other parts of the process.
Good questions to answer: Why are you exporting out of FCP and where are you viewing this exported file?
bogiesan

Exporting quality

I used Final Cut Pro 3 for many years and just upgraded to 5. In 3 exporting as an FCP movie seemed to be the highest quality export, but with 5 they've changed the settings. My question is what is the highest quality export? Is it just as a Quicktime movie or is it using the compressor or what? And is there one setting that's better for DVDs and one that's better for other uses?
And now what's the quickest export?
Thanks very much,
-Brad

I'm doing this birthday videographer/editing gig for my dad's boss' wife. She wants to see all the raw footage and pick out what she wants - which I find incredibly insulting because it's suggests she doesn't trust me to edit the thing - though she asked specifically for me in the first place - but anyway... I need to export a 40 some minute project and I want to do if fast at a lower quality just so she can see everything. Currently I'm going with the LAN setting, but I just wanted to make sure there's not a better option.

Motion 4 render quality from FCP

I do not appear to get the same quality rendering .motn on the FCP timeline as I do exporting .mov out of Motion 4, and so far a I can tell I have set my FCP sequence to do "best" quality. I'm using the 4444 codec. I'm evaluating by exporting .mov from FCP. What have I missed?

Phillip, we've seen a couple of similar post recently. I haven't followed them closely (altho I may have posted on one or two) but you might try scrolling down the Motion forum a few pages to see what turns up. You may find something that helps.
I just finished a Final Cut project with about a dozen Motion files pulled into the FCP timeline and rendered in FCP and an equal number of Motion projects rendered out of Motion as movies and imported. They all looked the same to me when the project was finished. Never used anamorphic, though, so I dunno if that could be a factor—shouldn't be.
bogiesan

Why icannot export pdf file from other app to ibook (after update today)?. Please correct my problem. iPad 2, iOS 5.0.1

Why icannot export pdf file from other app to ibook (after update today)?. Please correct my problem.
iPad 2, iOS 5.0.1

Why icannot export pdf file from other app to ibook (after update today)?. Please correct my problem.
iPad 2, iOS 5.0.1

Exporting text from fcp

I have a lot of separate text boxes in my sequence. Since I can' t do a spell check in fcp, I was wondering if i can export all the text boxes out as a plain text document to do a spell check.
I tried exporting as a xml document, but navigating through all the tags was quite a problem.
TIA for any suggestions.

Usual workflow is following.
1. Put all Text-generator clips to one track
2. Export sequence to XML
3. Launch TitleExchange, point to exported XML and say where to put converted file.
Exporting to STL you'll get text file like that
+00:01:27:26 ,00:01:29:26 ,They had this idea that+
+00:01:29:30 ,00:01:30:31 ,behind scary+
... which you can open in any spell-checker.
We use TitleExchange to bring subtitles from FCP to DVD Studio and back (in case we need subtitled DVD and Betacam output)
Though, this may be much expensive way of checking spelling (135 Euro per TE licence).
There are lots of subtitle software, I only wanted to mention a way of exporting text from FCP with help of subtitle processors.

So what's the export quality like???

Hi, after the 'pain' of i-movie 8, what's the view on the export quality in 9?
Does it export high enough quality to look good when burnt to dvd and played back on tv?

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
It looks the same as iMovie 08.
I did a compare one day using the same clip burned to DVD from iMovie 06 and from iMovie '08.
The iMovie 06 clip looked like it came from the DV camera directly and the iMovie 08 clip looked much worse. The difference is the single field processing used by iMovie 08/09 and the fact that it throws out every other horizontal line.
Because the two softwares handle the imported video differently - single field processing is how iMovie 08 / 09 handles the video, meaning that one of every two lines of the image is ignored. iMovie 06 uses ALL of the image to form the video.
If your primary workflow is editing DV clips and making DVDs, iMovie '06 is better suited. Your movie will arrive at iDVD in DV format, which is an ideal match for making a DVD: same resolution, same pixels aspect ratio, and original quality. If you share your movie from iMovie '08 / 09, it gets re-rendered at 640x480 or less, and then iDVD upscales it back to 720x480. The end result is obviously not as good.

Poor export quality Aperture 3

I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to find any answers in regards to export quality in Aperture 3. When I finish editing an image and I export it in either TIFF, JPEG or PNG all of them look the same regardless of if I change DPI, File size etc and none of them look even close to as detailed as the original. I'm exporting "version" and changing the options in presets with no luck.
Can someone help me? I can't accept the poor quality of the exported images as they make my portraits look fuzzy and not sharp (when they're very sharp and vivid in Aperture!). Is it possible to get the same quality in an exported image as I see in Aperture. It seems like it should be a no brainer!
Thank you!

I had the same problem. While in a One-to One the Creative told me to do this. What ever you are planning to export the file/files to have pluged in (flash drive, hard drive) or loaded (DVD/CD) before you start the process.
Chose the file or files by highlighting them then choose File - Export - Version. In the center of the window that will pop up there is a "Export Preset"" tab. He told me to choose TIFF- Original Size (8-bit). He did say that any higher than 8 bit is pointless. I did this and it worked great. I had a large beautiful file that I was blowing up to 30 by 20 and it looked so bad printed before I learned this trick. I printed it again after exporting the new way and it really looked great!
I hope this solves your problem, it was VERY frustrating for me also.

Setting default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0

Hi,
Anyone know if it is possible to set a default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0. Even if it remembered the last used setting that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Nick

OK, I have managed to get higher quality images from the PDF renderer. Here is what I have found:
1) The PDF renderer in Reporting Services 2005 will size all images that it is given at 96 DPI no matter what DPI the image is when you pass it to the renderer. That means that a 300 DPI image or even a 600 DPI image will be sized in the PDF as if it is only 96 DPI. That means your high DPI image will render much larger than you expect.
So you might expect a 300 DPI image that is 6.5 inches wide to render properly at 1950 pixels. Yet, the PDF renderer will size it as it were 96 DPI which would make the image 20.3 inches long!
2) There is good news though. Despite sizing the images as if they were 96 DPI, the PDF renderer appears to render higher DPI images at a higher quality than 96 DPI. So despite the sizing being wrong, the image actually is rendering at a higher quality.
This means that you should size the image to the proper number of inches based on 96 DPI calculations. Then you can use Bitmap.SetResolution to set your images to at least 300 DPI. That should give you a higher quality image that is the proper number of pixels to fit properly in your report.
I am able to do all of this sizing dynamically because I am using objects as my data sources, but I am sure there are VB functions you could use in the report itself to accomplish the same task.
It is late, and I've been at this project all day long, so forgive me if I have explained anything poorly or gotten any concepts long. Yet, at this late hour, I believe this is what the renderer is doing.
I hope this helps someone else in the future, or at least points them in the right direction.

Can the exported video from FCP X play in WMV?

(1) Can the exported video from FCP X play in WMV?
(2) If not, can I convert with the help of Compressor 4 to make it to play in WMV?

No to both. You need third party software to create WMV. Telestream has tools for this.

Export quality in After Effects

I'm using After Effects CS4 and have exported as an MPEG-4. The quality of the final movie is very poor. It looks like a low quality JPEG. In After Effects preview, it looks fine.
I'm familiar with exporting quality videos out of Premiere. Is the usual workflow to open AE projects in Premiere and use the options there to export? Or am I missing something in AE?

That may be, but I'm just not a fan. I did some tests a few years ago and decided that Animation
wasn't worth it and that it was in fact creating artifacts in my renders.
Just to show my work, I am pulling some info from wikipedia as a reference:
"For complex 3D rendered scenes or digitized film of real-world footage, it barely compresses at all and also can add visible noise."
Now I know, wikipedia isn't highly reliable, anyone can edit it, blah blah blah, but this statement runs congruent to my own findings. Add to that the weighty file size, and then the fact that this codec is officially my ENEMY because my students, who are instructed to use Sorenson 3, often forget to change the codec for their .mov renders, and so sometimes I get these bloated files that I have to trash and they have to re-render, and I just don't really care for this codec at all.
I just don't render video any more. Haven't for a long time now. So many advantages to using img sequences, I haven't looked back to big bloated video files.

Why is export quality HORRIBLE? FCP 7.3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for