6 Replies Latest reply on Mar 19, 2010 3:12 AM by Opus Maxim

    Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder

    Opus Maxim

      This is, frankly embarrassing.

       

      I was asked to put a series of still images into a video format to be emailed to a client. The video was to be used by the client for a presentation. I spent half a day trying to get acceptable results, some of which were completely unusable. I experimented with different formats and encoders during this time.

       

      Perhaps it's worth stating, for those of you who might be sceptical, that I've been using Premiere for many years and generally know what I'm doing when it comes to these requests.

       

      After seeing the poor results of my attempts, my colleague decided to try using Microsoft Movie Maker. Not only did he achieve the desired results in under 10 minutes but the filesize was substantially smaller and the quality substantially higher.

       

      It puts the Adobe software to shame, especially considering the results below, from the media encoders log (Note the encoding time!):

       

      - Preset Used: PAL Source to Download 1024kbps

       

      - Video: 720x576, 25 [fps]

       

      - Audio:  96 kbps, 48 kHz, stereo VBR

       

      - Bitrate: Compressed, VBR, 2 Pass, Audiences:1, Avg 872.00 [kbps]

       

      - Encoding Time: 00:24:25

       

      17/03/2010 15:34:20 : File Successfully Encoded

       

      I think you'd agree...this is an appalling situation.

        • 1. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
          Harm Millaard Level 7

          Try http://ppbm4.com benchmark and send the results to Bill. It may show how your system performs. (You can send them to me as well by PM.)

           

          FTTB (for the time being) I hold it on OE (operator error).

           

          If you want more feedback, give details: Some suggestions... and answer at least the 16 questions at the end of the Wiki article.

          • 2. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
            John T Smith Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            >series of still images into a video format

             

            What was the size of those images?

             

            Discussed many times here that pictures should be resized OUTSIDE of Premiere, so they are imported at a size that does not require Premiere to adjust the pictures to match the PAL-or-NTSC size

            • 3. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
              Opus Maxim Level 1

              Thanks for your respose - I will look into the links you provide.

               

              I accept of course, that with so little information, you will assume operator error.

               

              Hopefully though, you can also accept that the exercise itself was very simple; the import of a series of still images (all of different dimensions) for export in as high a quality and as small a filesize as possible.

               

              Perhaps Premiere is 'too complex' for such a simple request and this allowed the simplicity of the Microsoft Movie Maker comes into its own. It has an 'import pictures' option in the menu that didn't require any re-sizing or optimisation. All in all, my collegue was able to peform the whole exercise in about the same time it took me to resize all the images to PAL dimensions and import them into Premiere.

               

              Even with this aside, I would have expected far superiour results from the encoding presets in Adobe Media Encoder. In fact, MS provided a higher quality file at 4.81Mb in far less time.

               

              I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft, but that just serves to make this situation all the more annoying.

              • 4. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
                Harm Millaard Level 7
                I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft

                 

                So you prefer Linux as well, since MAC is no option.

                • 5. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
                  John T Smith Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                  >import of a series of still images (all of different dimensions)

                   

                  I do not work for Adobe or have any inside knowledge, but...

                   

                  You are doing something that I don't think Premiere was really DESIGNED to do... which is switch between edit "screen size modes" on the fly

                   

                  The reason you start Premiere with a project preset is so it "knows" what it will be doing and the type of file it will be using

                   

                  Making Premiere do what it is not (again... my opinion) designed to do simply results in a very slow process

                  • 6. Re: Incredibly poor performance from Premiere Pro + Media Encoder
                    Opus Maxim Level 1

                    Hi John,

                     

                    I appreciate that Premiere wasn't necessarily 'designed' to work with differing stills dimensions (though one has to ask, in this day and age, why not?).

                     

                    Something like InDesign's image 'fitting' options would be a very helpful addition to Premiere's capabilities with stills and would save time pre-editing in Photoshop.

                     

                    However, the Adobe Media Encoder certainly was designed to encode the results and it failed miserably when compared with Movie Maker, which as primitive as it is, had far superior image quality and much small filesize when encoding to WMV. No other Codec I tried (and I stuck to the presets to save time and minimise the possibility of 'user error') achieved anything like an acceptable quality/filesize balance.

                     

                    In future, I'll be turning to Movie Maker in the first instance - which is rather insulting, considering the cost of Premiere.

                     

                    Again, I accept some of you may want further 'proof' of  what I'm saying. I can only urge you to try it for yourselves and A/B  the results.