1 person found this helpful
The YouTube preset does a good job of it, but it will get a touch softer after upload.
that is what i did. tried both cs5 and cs6 versions of premiere...doesnt look good. not crisp. softer is an understatment...lol...especially on moving type...
when the mp4 is on my computer it is great. as soon as it is uploaded and crunched up by youtube, it looks heinous..
Post the link. I'll take a look.
ok...dont make fun though...just started learning this in the last couple of years...sound is not the way i would have prefered...i literally do everything and am in the process of learning how to do it all...
i realize i have a ways to go, but there are other factors...out of my control....
thx in advance...
posted on youtube here...used the youtube HD preset 23.987
OK, the animations seemed a little choppy, as if you're sequence was 30 fps instead of the exported 24, but the text was perfectly legible in all scenes. Watching at 1080 res on a 1920 x 1080 monitor, it looked just fine. Even the catalog page was perfectly legible.
jim, the animation is always a bit choppy...maybe i went from 24 to 23.9 but not more than that...would love to know how to fix that
shot on a 5D mark III...24p.
Either way I though that premieres claim to fame was that it could take all kinds of sources of different kinds and spit them out the specified setting. the whole 4:4:4 32 bit float thing...? or am i mixing concepts here...?
either way thanks again Jim.
There are some things that are a challenge for any software. Going from 30 to 24 fps is one of them. 24 to 30 is much easier. But without pixel motion interpolation, the other way can be tough.
i agree with you Jim.
but i didnt do that.
shot at 24p. never went anywhere near 30 for any of it. i exported at 23.987 because i read somewhere that that might be better for web video...cant even remember where...also my exports from AE were all 24p. i guess i will just keep it the same across the board.
i just wander if i use the animation codec out of after effects, full on lossless, if it would improve anythiing for the final render. I used an avid codec for export out of after effects for a better file size for the clips i put into premiere. seemed to work alright. then use h264 playback codec when i exported the final.
there is just such a difference in quality for some of the reels i see. i want that quality. clarity.
When you upload something to Youtube, it's actually out of your control how Youtube will re-encode for quick loading. Same goes for facebook, that even treats simple pictures poorly (as you say, the "crispiness" is usually blurred away due to compression) and any other online viewer. The proof is that if I try to watch directly on Chrome's viewer a video I upload to my own server it will take ages to load, wehereas this same video uploaded on youtube loads almost instantly (re-encoding+compression going on). Yes, of course, I don't pay for a bandwidth as huge as Youtube's for my server, but then again they have many more users at the same time... Still, think about what the page you are uploading your video to does to it, because it may be the case it is not entirely your fault if you can watch it good on your computer.
i want that quality. clarity.
Then you may have to give up on YouTube and deliver a Blu-ray instead.
I've been asking the same thing for sooo long.
I'm not sure if it's the import I'm doing wrong or the export. I notice that a lot of my editing friends who use FCP, that know much less about editing than me get a much clearer final product.
Is it that final cut has a clearer final product or I'm just making a critical flaw in the process?
Here's some work: YouTube.com/SircusFilms vs YouTube.com/purplefilmsllc
I use the canon EOS 5d mark II, and most of my friends use the canon t3i.
Help me PLEASE.
I checked out portions of one video from each. The Sircus clip looked sharper than the Purple, but this is most likely due to differences in the camera.