Premiere Pro CS3 & Quicktime

[Devin Johnston]

I'm having a problem with the quality of the QuickTime I'm getting out of premiere, I know that compression is going to remove some of the color from my final animation but the difference between my uncompressed Tiff's and the QuickTime is really night and day. I've tried many different settings and codec's and none seem to work as well as H.264, but even that one leaves my animation looking washed out and desaturated. I've done what this thread suggests (http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/33083-h-264-loosing-colour.html) but the actual difference is minimal. Can anyone offer any suggestions on the best way to configure a QuickTime so that you get the best possible output? Below are my current settings, any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

In Premiere I'm exporting my animation sequence as a QuickTime using the H.264 video codec, quality is set to 100% and my bitrate is at 70,000kbps, field order is none (progressive) frame rate is 30, pixel aspect ratio is 1.0. I've done several tests and changing the quality seems to have no perceivable effect, changing the bitrate does improve the image slightly.

[Devin Johnston]

I've done some more research on this and found out that there is a bug in the Quick Time player that shifts the gamma from what it should be to something else. Apparently this bug has been around for some time and there is no fix for it. The problem occurs when files are played back not when they are compressed. Apparently there is a temporary work around if you own a copy of QuickTime Pro. You can adjust the playback settings to compensate for the gamma shift but it's unclear whether this fix will only work on the computer you made the adjustment on or will carry over to all computers playing back the file.

 

I'm very surprised no one here knows about this since so many people use QuickTime, this is very important if you are concerned about your animations being color correct.

[BrianKitts]

Is it something that only happens when you are using the H.264 codec or is it all quicktime?

 

I typically export my quicktime files using the Sorenson 3 codec which I'm normally quite happy with the color and image quality, although it's a bit heavy in the file size sometimes. I've never notice any gamma shift out of the ordinary.....

 

attached is a side by side of my quicktime file and the raw frame render using sorenson3 (the image was lightened up a bit in premiere before exporting to QT)

[Devin Johnston]

I'm not sure if it only applies to the H.264 codec but from the look of your images I'd say it doesn’t because there are definite differences in color saturation between the original and the QuickTime. That is exactly what I'm getting and I don't think it can be attributed to simple compression. I also think the differences are worse in certain situations than others, especially where there is a lot of contrast between light and dark areas.

[vizfx]

I`m using “png” compression type. Like this you have the possibility to export even the alpha channel (transparencies) – depth “millions of colors+”

[alias_marks]

I hear ya devin. I have the same issues with the washed out gamma look of H.264 exporting out of premiere or after effects.

 

Premiere is just not a good compressor and I've 'heard' that anyone in a professional 3d house wouldn't even think about using premiere to do any compression.

 

I'd export the un-compressed 'animation' setting out of premiere and then spend the 30 bucks to get quicktime pro. Open the export up in there and compress it to whatever codec you want. It's fast, simple, and gives you all the option presets you'd think you'd want. I usually stick with Sorenson 3 or the .mov version of mpeg 4, and sometimes H.264 if sharing online.

 

Just to say it...in general....I effing hate video compression! Someone make it easy already!

[Devin Johnston]

I'd export the un-compressed 'animation' setting out of premiere and then spend the 30 bucks to get quicktime pro. Open the export up in there and compress it to whatever codec you want. It's fast, simple, and gives you all the option presets you'd think you'd want. I usually stick with Sorenson 3 or the .mov version of mpeg 4, and sometimes H.264 if sharing online.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but woulden't exporting from Premiere be the same as exporting from QuickTime Pro if the same codec is being used?

[alias_marks]

It's a valid point and seems like it would make logical sense, however I've exported cinepak avi's from after effects and premeire with the same exact settings and got completely different results. Same for mov's with the same codecs in premiere and qt pro.

 

I don't have a reasonable answer for you, maybe someone else can chime in if they have any insight.

[BrianKitts]

Premiere is just not a good compressor and I've 'heard' that anyone in a professional 3d house wouldn't even think about using premiere to do any compression.

 

interesting...... (tapping finger tips together)

 

 

I agree there has to be a difference in how adobe write's their exporter for using the codec. I've never been able to get a good .wmv file out of premiere, but you export an uncompressed file from premiere and use the free standalone windows media encoder and you end up with a great file and decent file size.

[Devin Johnston]

Now I'm really uncertain what to do, I've always used premiere for video editing even though I haven't been overly impressed by the quality of .wmv files it produces. It sounds like the best workflow would be to edit the video in Premiere, export and uncompressed version, and then use a 3rd party compressor to compress it. QuickTime Pro and Windows Media Encoder have been mentioned, but what about DVD creation. I've been experimenting with Premiere & Encore and the quality has been really bad. Any suggestions in this area?

[BrianKitts]

I just use the export to Encore option from within Premiere, and get great results going to DVD.

 

Typically my DVD's are just a single video no menu's and set to loop, which is exactly what it lets you select when you export to encore. It will export your file to a single audio and video file then Premiere automatically opens Encore, compiles the disc then asks for a disk in the burner if it's empty.

 

dead simple.

Edited November 13, 2008 by BrianKitts

[Devin Johnston]

Have you ever compared a DVD produced by Encore with a QuickTime or WMV file? I hadn’t done it until yesterday and the difference was so dramatic I couldn’t believe it. I played the DVD on an HD-DVD player with an HDMI hook up to a 50" 720P plasma set, there was so much noise I couldn’t concentrate on any details and I produced the disk using the exact method you described. One thing it did have going for it was the colors were much closer to what they should be than the QuickTime or WMV, but given the option I'd never show that DVD to anyone, it was that bad.

 

If you’re saying you get great results I must be doing something wrong!

[BrianKitts]

I guess I should be more specific when I say it looks good. I've tested my disk in a number of places. The DVD's look good on a computer playing off the DVD player, my 15" macbook, and at home on the 30" LCD and 42" LCD.

 

At work I'm running on pretty much the same setup you mentioned. 50" Panasonic Plasma running off a Blu-ray player hooked up by HDMI. I see some breakdown, but I would attribute it just to being such a large screen and the DVD not carrying all the data that the Blu-ray player can produce. For instance when I play a factory DVD movie I see the same slight quality loss.

 

True test will be when my blu-ray burner comes in. Our IT dept insists on using Zones.com for all the equipment that we order and it takes forever sometimes.

[Spacelord]

You should give Mediacoder ago, its free software, I haven't used it in ages but last time I did the encoding quality was pretty good. I remember it being quite fiddle.

http://mediacoder.sourceforge.net/index.htm

[Jim Mann]

True test will be when my blu-ray burner comes in.

 

Encore + Blu-ray...good luck with that. I installed a Blu-ray drive in the spring and though I have produced Blu-ray showreels that look great, the process is a nightmare. My experience is that Encore just isn't up to it yet. Its buggy and you have to constantly re-create the project because it can't cope with amendments. It may be down to my running XP64 rather than Vista but I was hoping for so much more.

 

Jim

[Devin Johnston]

More good news

 

What about Combustion, is the compression any better?

[Devin Johnston]

For those who are interested there is a way to get around the gamma problem when using QuickTime that doesn’t involve changing settings in the player. What you have to do if you’re using Premiere is manually adjust the gamma and brightness/contrast of your clip to compensate for the QuickTime problem. It will really look bad in the preview window in Premiere but when it plays back it will look correct.

[lyca]

hi, i havre to say i used premier long time ago on mac and it already had problrems on exporting.

the idea is good to export from premier in an uncompressed format an use anything else to make the compression, if you google, you'll find a lot of specialized programs to do the compression.

 

i personaly use avid xpress if i am on a windows and final-cut with compressor when i am on the mac, and i have to say the picture is parfect, i worked as video editor and Premier is last thing anyone would use in the field

[Devin Johnston]

i worked as video editor and Premier is last thing anyone would use in the field

 

Was that ArchViz or something else because there are quite a few people who use Premiere. This quicktime problem isn't a result of Premiere being a bad program, it's a problem with the quicktime player changing the gamma.

 

I don't know much about Avid but it looks like something you'd use on TV or Film, isn't that overkill for the kind of stuff we do?

Edited November 17, 2008 by Maxer

[lyca]

I don't know much about Avid but it looks like something you'd use on TV or Film, isn't that overkill for the kind of stuff we do?

 

yes, i come from the audiovisual sector, Avid xpress is priced around 1200€ so it is used by all kind of people for editing professional video. off coarse there is a learning time you must take. but it is the most professional App on windows for editing, there is also Pinnacle, bu i never try it.

 

anyway Premier is not that bad if know how to overcome his limitation witch is the exporting module.

 

for making a good mpeg2 compression, it's normally never a good idea to do it directly from the editing software, always export an uncompressed file, than get a specialized software for the mpeg2 compression. i always do it on a Mac so i have not tested those soft on xp, but that's usually the way to go.

 

Encore is one of them but, i've seen a lot of bad work coming out of it.

[landrvr1]

Maxer, you are not alone in getting quality Quicktime (or wmv files) out of Premiere (and every other editing software). This is a known issue that's been discussed on many a forum (including my fav = creativecow). I even had a nice chat with a tech rep at Adobe, who explained the situation.

 

The codecs for both Quicktime and Windows Media Files are basically abbreviated versions of what you get with Quicktime Pro and Windows Media Encoder. I'll take uncompressed AVIs from Premiere and dump them into Quicktime Pro for awesome H.264 compression, or use Windows Media Encoder for wmv files. I've done many tests, and in my opinion the WME offers a better compression vs file size ratio. Just my view of course, but try it yourself. H.264 offers excellent quality, but the file sizes are always much larger than their wmv counterparts coming out of WME.

[Mr-JosE]

I use AviSynth in combination with MeGUI for creating mpeg4 movies. The scripting language is quite powerful. There is a Premiere plugin for Avisynth but i have not used it myself. I prefer to export a avi/image sequence from premiere or aftereffects and load that into AviSynth through MeGUI. This uses the x264 encoder and performs very well.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Mr-JosE

[F J]

hey Maxer,

i dunno how QuickTime got so popular.. is it really that much of a kicka$$ player?

many CD/DVD's media content that come with .mov files always have another folder containing the QTplayer..

so whats wrong with using the good ol' .avi? anyone who gets a hold of that content can just open it on their favorite player..

[Devin Johnston]

hey Maxer,

i dunno how QuickTime got so popular.. is it really that much of a kicka$$ player?

many CD/DVD's media content that come with .mov files always have another folder containing the QTplayer..

so whats wrong with using the good ol' .avi? anyone who gets a hold of that content can just open it on their favorite player..

 

AVI's have their place, for one thing the files are smaller and they work great in PowerPoint presentations but if I were sending something to a client that was critical or if I were going on an interview QuickTime would be my first choice. Even with this gamma problem the quality is still better than AVI in my opinion but you still have to contend with the file size problem.

[F J]

AVI's have their place, for one thing the files are smaller and they work great in PowerPoint presentations but if I were sending something to a client that was critical or if I were going on an interview QuickTime would be my first choice. Even with this gamma problem the quality is still better than AVI in my opinion but you still have to contend with the file size problem.

 

i think the reason this is ur opinion is cuz u simply have encountered a better MOV encoder than the AVI encoder u have tried so far..

AVI's or MOV's r just packages.. its the way u encode the raw image sequences that has an impact on the final quality..

have u tried VirtualDub or WinAVI for compression and encoding?