6 Replies Latest reply on Jul 5, 2010 11:37 PM by blazer003

    Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4

    blazer003 Level 1

      Adobe Premiere Pro CS4

      2 Xeon Dual Core 3.2 Ghz

      2 GB RAM

      XP SP3

      Nvidia 8600 GT

       

      The program that I use for presentation (ProPresenter) prefers Quicktime files rendered in the Photo JPEG format.  I render it from a HDV 1080i 60 time line to a 1280x720 file.

       

      In CS3 this worked great.  In CS4 when I render it out, the file looks terrible.  I even bumped it to 100% quality (normally I do about 85% in CS3)

       

      The video has bad posterization and looks like it has been rendered at a low bit rate, which I think may be what is happening.  CS3 didn't let me set the bit rate, and neither does CS4, but 2 minute files took about 700 MB to 1 GB after being exported in CS3.  The resulting files in CS4 are 150 MBs.

       

      The bit rate option when Photo JPEG and many other Quicktime codecs is selected, is greyed out and cannot be set.

       

      So what can I do?  I NEED to be able to export to Photo JPEG at high quality.  Why would Premiere not allow me to set a bit rate, but more over, use such a low one?  At least in CS3 it chose a high bitrate for you.

       

      Am I missing something?  Are others having this problem with Quicktime exports?

       

      Here is the output from CS3.  Some banding in the bacground gradients, but that's to be expected with JPEG.

      CS3.jpg

       

      Here is the output from CS4.  Banding is much worse, jaggedy posterization, obvious artifacts.  All of this becomes even more apparent with motion.

      CS4.jpg

        • 1. Re: Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4
          Colin Brougham Level 6

          Yep, that's pretty standard with QT exports using some flavor of compression from Premiere Pro. I frequently need QT MOVs with H.264, and Premiere makes extremely large files with absolutely horrific results.

           

          The best workaround I've found (free, anyway) is to export an uncompressed QT or AVI from Premiere, and then drop that into MPEG Streamclip. Some will suggest using QT Pro, but MPEG Streamclip offers many more/better functions than QT Pro. Anyway, from MPEG Streamclip with your uncompressed video loaded, select File > Export to QuickTime; from there, set your encoding parameters as required for your application, and export the file. You can also save presets to make it easy to process multiple files to the same format and parameters, though there is no batch capability (that I'm aware of), so it's a one-at-a-time affair.

           

          Hope that helps...

          • 2. Re: Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4
            blazer003 Level 1

            Well, that's a deal breaker.  Unless someone can show me how to do what I want to do without hours of extra exporting/re-encoding work, something that was simple in CS3 (and CS2) there is no way I'm upgrading to CS4.  I have found almost nothing I like better about CS4 and quite a few issues.  This and overall performance in the interface being the main reasons.  One of my colleagues that I colaborate with some video projects on upgraded from CS2 to CS4 and said he really liked it, so I figured I'd download the trial, but it's just an even more bloated and graphics intensive interface than CS3 (which, IMO is already way to bloated) and little in terms of new content.  Needless to say, a 30 day trial is just what I needed.  The render queue is a good idea, but a broken upgrade is a downgrade IMO.

            • 4. Re: Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4
              blazer003 Level 1

              I would like to follow up a little bit.  After talking to my friend, the bitrate problem was addressed in the 4.1 patches and exporting to Photo JPEG at least was fixed, at least that's what he told me and from his description of the problem, I'm quite sure he knew exactly what I was talking about.

               

              But still, after he listed his annoyances such as the much longer render times, and an interface and timeline playback that just never seems to be quite fast enough to keep up, I long for the simple interface of Premiere 6.5 with updated HD capabilities.  Every step since then has made the interface more unnessarily resource intensive.

               

              I don't think I'll be upgrading to CS4, sorry Adobe.  Please stop making Premiere for super machines.  I have a very good computer, and it's having trouble running Premiere CS4.  It doesn't NEED to be this resource intensive.  It doesn't have to bog down when it's run on anything but the best of the best computers.

               

              In a simple A-B-C comparison, the speed of playing an HD clip with a couple effects goes down and down and down as you go from Pro 1.5 -> CS3 -> CS4.  Why?  What other areas are so improved that we need to have such a slowdown of the core?

               

              Sorry, I'll stop venting now.  I was just so hoping that I could recomend we upgrade to CS4 and solve some of our CS3 problems.

              • 5. Re: Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4
                TheSoundOfMatt

                What Quality settings are you using? Also, do you have the same version of Quicktime installed??

                 

                I just did a test using CS4 where I outputted a composition using Quicktime PhotoJPEG at quality=100, and compared it with an uncompressed output of the same composition. Exactly the same image. PhotoJPEG quality=100 is uncompressed picture quality.

                • 6. Re: Poor Quality of Photo JPEG Quicktime Export PPro CS4
                  blazer003 Level 1

                  This post is from quite some time ago.  My initial issue with the quality of the photo JPEG .mov file was patched.  The other issues of slow interface and taking forever to export were not addressed (to my knowledge, I chose not to upgrade).

                   

                  I'm debating on trying CS5, as the Mercury Engine is supposed to be pretty good.