17 Replies Latest reply on May 13, 2014 5:52 PM by freethedata

    Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?

    freethedata Level 1

      Normally one would expect that the closer a copy is to the original source, the more faithful the copy would be.  Yet I do not find that to be the truth in Premiere Elements.  I am trying to burn to disc some files about 1 hr 10 mins in length to a Blu-ray disc.  The original files are a combination of JPEGs, .MOV files and .MP4 files.  When I go to burn these files to a Blu-ray disc, Premiere Elements informs that these files will use 13.54 Gb of disc space.  Then I copied these same files to the computer as a .m2t file, and I also burned that file to a Blu-ray disc.  Premiere Elements calculated that the .m2t file will likewise use 13.54 Gb of disc space.  Yet in fact the two files actually consumed  different amounts of disc space.  The .m2t file uses 8.8 Gb, and the files made from the original sources use only 7.1 Gb.  One can just look at the discs and see they are different file sizes; the disc made form the .m2t file has a recorded band 12mm wide, while the recorded band of the disc made from the other files is only 9mm wide.  And there is a visible, noticeable difference in resolution when playing the discs, though both read as 1080 60i files by the Blu-ray player.  In the disc burned from the original files, one cannot read signage that is readily readable in the disc made from the intermediate file.

       

      Does anyone have an explanation why the copy is more faithful to the original than the original, and why the burned discs have different disc space used when PRE12 indicated, in the burn to disc menu, they would both use the same amount of space, and why the disc made from the source files is more compressed than the disc made from the intermediate file?

       

      After this set of results, I rendered the files before burning, repeated the experiment, and got the same file size and compression difference as with the unrendered files.

        • 1. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
          A.T. Romano Level 7

          freethedata

           

          Keep in mind that a variable not constant Bitrate is involved with the burn to disc of the Timeline content as well as the Timeline content export as a .m2t (Publish+Share/Computer/AVCHD with Presets = M2T - H.264 1920 x 1080i30. That information including whether the Bitrate of the source is higher or lower than the export bitrate setting probably addresses the questions that you have.

           

          I have done a mini run through of what you described (or I think that I have). I will be reporting on the results in details which suggest that you are expected to get the same quality Premiere Elements Blu-ray disc format on Blu-ray disc (BD-RE) whether you go Timeline content to burn to Blu-ray or export to a .m2t file and then to burn to Blu-ray disc format on Blu-ray disc.

           

          While I am compiling my data for your review, please check what is going on with your variable Bitrate as you proceed through your workflows - from the Bitrate of the original through the Bitrate of the export.

           

          To be continued.

           

          ATR

          • 2. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
            freethedata Level 1

            In both instances, burning the original files and the .m2t file to discs, the bitrate set in the Burn menu was 24 Mbps.  The actual bitrate on the disc with the higher resolution is 15.5 Mbps and 9.8 on the disc with the lower resolution.  There is no bitrate slider or display when converting the original files to the .m2t.  The .m2t file has a bitrate of 21.8 Mbps.  The videos were originally recorded with different cameras and their bitrates varied from about 8 to 21 Mbps; some of the videos were 24 fps and some were 30 fps.

             

            I have repeated this experiment with another set of mixed still and video files and achieved similar results as described above.  In the same scene, signage is readable in the disc recorded from the intermediate that is not readable in the disc recorded from the source; video made from the source is more compressed, though somewhat less so, 13.2 Mbps v. 17 Mbps.

             

            I certainly hope I will not have to do twice the work to create a high resolution Blu-ray disc!

             

            If necessary though, any preference as to creating the intermediate file as H264 1920x1080 30i or MPEG2 1920x1080 30i. I used H264, but the MPEG2 will apply less compression.

            • 3. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
              A.T. Romano Level 7

              freethedata

               

              Please remind me what your Premiere Elements project setting is - are you set up for a 1080i or 1080p project? I am trying to get at the choice of intermediate (.m2t interlaced file vs .mp4 progressive file).

               

              Bottom line is that I am not seeing any differences in end product quality going Timeline content direct to Blu-ray disc or Timeline content to AVCHD.mp4 to Blu-ray disc. I will be posting details of the results later today in terms of actually data obtained.

               

              But, I wanted to bring up two points that caught my attention in your prior post.

               

              If you are doing burn to Blu-ray and Space Required = 23 GB or less, then you do not put a check mark next to "Fit Content to Available Space" otherwise you run risk and consequences of the error message "Adobe Media Encoder - Property Data Invalid!". True, with the "Fit Content to Available Space" checked, the bitrate shown will be 20.19 Mbps and without the check mark 24.00 Mbps. But, that 24.00 Mbps is not worth getting the error.

              ATR Premiere Elements Troubleshooting: PE11: Blu-ray Burn Dialog "Fit Content to Available Space" Choice

               

              You wrote

              There is no bitrate slider or display when converting the original files to the .m2t.

              Please reconsider. Two ways to get to Bitrate settings for the .m2t file prior to export include

              a. Publish+Share/Computer/MPEG and Presets = MPEG2 1920 x 1080i30 (MPEG2 HD.m2t)

              or

              b. Publish+Share/Computer/AVCHD and Presets = M2T H.264 1920 x 1080i30 (AVCHD.m2t)

              Which one are you using? Either way, under the Advanced Button/Video Tab of the preset is an area showing default Bitrate sets as well as sliders for video bitrate adjustments. Have you seen them and worked with them?

               

              More later.

               

              ATR

              • 4. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                freethedata Level 1

                I was not aware that there could be a problem by clicking on "Fit Available Space"; I did not experience it.  Thanks for the warning.

                 

                I also was not aware there was a Quality setting opened by clicking the Advanced button; thanks for the tip.

                 

                You write are comparing Direct to Disc to Timeline content to AVCHD.MP4 to disc; my digital intermediate is a .m2t file.  This digital intermediate was created in PRE8 (before upgrading to PRE12);  the preset used was "H264 1920x1080 30i", so it's interlaced.  (In PRE8, this preset falls under the MPEG setting; there is not a separate setting for AVCHD.)

                 

                I burned both the DI and the timeline containing the original source files for the DI to Blu-ray in PRE12 using the H264 1920x1080i preset.

                 

                If you are using an internal Blu-ray burner, and I can only use an external Blu-ray burner (see our previous discussion), could this contribute to the observed difference?  Maybe the difference in transfer speed between a SATA and a USB3 connection has an effect?

                • 5. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                  A.T. Romano Level 7

                  freethedata

                   

                  I am going to re-do my work using your details. I have Premiere Elements 8.0/8.0.1 as well as Premiere Elements 12/12.1 on Windows 7 64 bit.

                   

                  What did you do in 12/12.1 for the Timeline to Blu-ray, just rebuild the 12/12/1 Timeline with the same files that you used in version 8.0/8.0.1?

                   

                  To be continued

                   

                  ATR

                  • 6. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                    A.T. Romano Level 7

                    freethedata

                     

                    I have tried to go through the general scheme of the workflow that you have described and am not seeing a difference in Premiere Elements 12 burn to Blu-ray disc format on BD-RE disc when I compared the end product when the Timeline content is

                    • MPEG2.m2t file from Premiere Elements 8.0/8.0.1

                    or

                    • Timeline made up of the files that went into the MPEG2.m2t

                     

                    I do not see any differences between our results attributable to Blu-ray external burner (you) and Blu-ray internal burner (me) since we both are doing a comparison of results with one burner in the equation.

                     

                    Here is what I did in my mini test run

                     

                    Premiere Elements 8.0/8.0.1 MPEG2 HD.m2t Intermediate

                     

                    Project Preset = NTSC AVCHD Full HD1080i30

                     

                    Created a MPEG2 HD.m2t file in Premiere Elements 8.0/8.0.1 using 3 AVCHD.mts clips which I copied 7X to give a 3 min 53 second Timeline.

                    Ships.mts (23.8 MB; 11.88 seconds; Bitrate 15.8 Mbps (Max 25.00 Mbps).

                    Bicylces.mts (12.3 MB, 6.20 seconds, Bitrate 15.6 Mbps (Max 25.00 Mbps)

                    Birds.mts (21.7 MB, 10.72 seconds, Bitrate 15.7 Mbps (Max 16.0 Mbps)

                    All three AVCHD.mts clips were 1920 x 1080 @ 29.97 interlaced frames per second.

                     

                    Share/Personal Computer/MPEG with Presets = MPEG2 1920 x 1080i30, using default settings under Advanced Button/Video Tab and Audio Tab.

                    Export setting default bitrates were: Minimum, 18 Mbps; Target, 25 Mbps; Maximum, 30 Mbps.

                     

                    The resulting MPEG2.m2t file was characterized by

                    File Size 862 MB

                    Duration 3 minutes and 53 seconds

                    Bitrate 29.2 Mbps (Max 30.0 Mbps)

                     

                    Premiere Elements 12 Burn to Blu-ray disc format on BD-RE disc (25 GB/2X)

                     

                    Burn to disc of the individual files from Premiere Elements 8.0/8.0.1, duration 3 minutes 53 seconds

                    BEFORE, in burn dialog, Space Required 682.00 MB with Bitrate 20.19 Mbps

                    (no check mark next to "Fit Content to Available Space")

                    Preset - H.264 1920 x 1080i NTSC Dolby

                     

                    AFTER video file (00000.m2ts) in BDMV/STREAM Folder

                    File Size 466 MB

                    Duration 3 minutes and 53 seconds

                    Bitrate 15.8 Mbps (Max 21.0 Mbps)

                     

                    Burn to disc of the MPEG2.mt2 "Intermediate" File, duration 3 minutes 53 seconds

                    BEFORE Space Required 681.00 Mbps with Bitrate 20.10 Mbps

                    (no check mark next to "Fit Content to Available Space")

                    Preset - H.264 1920 x 1080i NTSC Dolby

                     

                    AFTER video file (00000.m2ts) in BDMV/STREAM Folder

                    File Size 428 MB

                    Duration 3 minutes and 53 seconds

                    Bitrate 14.8 Mbps (Max 21.0 Mbps)

                     

                    I could not pick up a quality difference between the two BD-RE burn tos using CyberLink Power DVD v9 for computer playback.

                    All these burns involved variable bitrates. So, what you see "fixed" in the burn dialog will vary in the burn process to give the end bitrate and file size.

                     

                    Please review.

                     

                    Thanks.

                     

                    ATR

                     

                    Add On..I have proof read a few times. Please let me know if any problems with the details.

                    • 7. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                      freethedata Level 1

                      I am encouraged to see that you achieved a higher bitrate in the disc burned from the source files than in the disc burned from the intermediate file.   That is what I expected when I decided to burn another disc using the source rather than the intermediate in the first place.


                      I reviewed your workflow and note some instances where we differ, but they are not significant:

                      1)  Your original source video files were of higher quality than most of mine.  Some of mine were of 720x1280 30i, and most others 1440x1080 30i .MP4s.  My source also included many JPEGs.

                      2)  You saved your intermediate as  MPEG2 1920x1080 30i; mine is a H264 1920x1080 30i, so slightly less resolution and bitrate in mine.

                      3)  I did not reassemble the original source files in PRE12 to burn them to disc, but  reopened in PRE12 the project created in PRE8 to create the intermediate file, and changed the Share setting from “Computer” to “Disc”.

                      4)  In all cases, I checked the “Fit contents to available space" box.


                      I will try another burn of the source files with the “Fit contents” box unchecked and see if that makes a difference, and recheck everything else.

                      • 8. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                        A.T. Romano Level 7

                        freethedata

                         

                        Thanks for checking out the data that I compiled trying to replicate your workflow.

                         

                        Please review all as well as the results from what you have planned, and then let us know what is happening. If necessary, I will do additional testing to get us as near as possible in workflows for these comparative studies.

                         

                        Thank you.

                         

                        ATR

                        • 9. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                          freethedata Level 1

                          Retried burning source files with "Fit to Available Space" unchecked.  Made essentially no difference:  file size and bit rate practically unchanged from burn fitted to available space, but still 30% less than disc made from the Intermediate file.  Still puzzled.

                           

                          Maybe will try a different combination of source files and see if results more like my original results or your trial.

                          • 10. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                            freethedata Level 1

                            Let me suggest that maybe processing stills leads to a different compression routine in disc burning than processing video.

                             

                            What effect may checking or unchecking "Optimize Stills" in the Project Setting have?

                            • 11. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                              freethedata Level 1

                              When I try to burn files like these containing a mix of JPEGs and videos of different formats to Disc, the burn attempt often, but not always, crashes before completion, yet burning the Intermediate almost always successfully completes.  That is why I took to making the Intermediate file in the first place.  Would this not also suggest the elements is doing something different when burning JPEGS and video than just videos?

                              • 12. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                A.T. Romano Level 7

                                freethedata

                                 

                                Thanks for the replies.

                                 

                                The major consideration for the jpegs can be targeted at the pixel dimensions of the jpegs and how many?

                                 

                                What does your typical workflow look like in this regard?

                                 

                                ATR

                                • 13. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                  freethedata Level 1

                                  The project I am working on is about 1 hr. 6 mins. in length, of which about 21 mins. are different types of HD videos and the rest are stills.  At 5 secs. duration for each still, that would be about 530 stills.  These too were taken with different cameras, so dimensions are either 4608x2592 or 5426x3065, plus some panoramas of 8192x1856.

                                   

                                  Both the stills and videos were imported into Premier from Albums in the Organizer.   I added titles then shared to both computer and disc.

                                  • 14. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                    A.T. Romano Level 7

                                    freethedata

                                     

                                    Thanks for the further details of your workflow.

                                     

                                    The classical recommendation for still pixel dimensions is SD 1000 x 750 or HD about 1920 x 1080. But, with Premiere Elements 10, 11, and 12 as 64 bit applications running in Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 64 bit system and the increased computer resources that comes with that, those classical recommendations can be stretched considerably (at least until the computer resources hold out). But, consider, often the higher resolution

                                    a. does not get you better quality in the end product

                                    b. higher resolution is reduced to the specifications of the export preset

                                    c. cause labored workflow as it does not enhance the quality of the end product

                                     

                                    Earlier versions of Premiere Elements would not let you import stills beyond a certain number of total pixels. In these later versions, Premiere Elements lets you import a still grossly oversized for the project. But, just because you can, does not mean you should. And, 530 stills of these huge sizes that you mention.

                                    JPG size limit in PE8??

                                     

                                    In a mini test run you might want to export after resizing these stills closer to 1920 x 1080 and then determine if your workflow improves in any or all ways.

                                     

                                    We will be watching for progress.

                                     

                                    Thank you again for the updates.

                                     

                                    ATR

                                    • 15. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                      freethedata Level 1

                                      After reading the linked to discussion, I understand why my burns to disc sometimes crash, but why am I able to export these same files to the computer as MPEGs or AVCHD without any difficulties?

                                       

                                      I am not sure I am inclined to resize all these stills at this time, and may wait until next vacation to resize next batch of stills and rerun this comparison of source files v. intermediate file.

                                      • 16. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                        A.T. Romano Level 7

                                        frrethedata

                                         

                                        When you take these 530 stills into a export to file saved to the computer hard drive, please remind me, what are you going from and to?

                                         

                                        From:

                                        4608x2592 or 5426x3065, plus some panoramas of 8192x1856.

                                         

                                        to

                                         

                                        720 x 480 or 1920 x 1080 or other?.

                                         

                                        ATR

                                        • 17. Re: Why better resolution burning an intermediate file rather than original?
                                          freethedata Level 1

                                          One 10Gb H264 1080x1920 30i .m2t file., which also includes the video files as well as the stills.