1 person found this helpful
Haven't Heard of X264, But I usually export H264 directly out of Premiere, which has a good encoder already. It creates a MP4 file with the H264 codec that is universal, working well with all the major media players. I don't think you'd want to output to an intermediate codec from premiere, just to re-encode it to something else.
If you must use an exported file to encode something outside of Premiere, you'll want to use something like the Lagarith lossless codec, or an uncompressed avi or quicktime for shorter works. Uncompressed files will be huge.
Thanks for the advice. What I am trying to do is more closely match what I see in Premiere in tone and saturation when I export to H264.
Haven't Heard of X264,
X264 is a preferred codec for some users, that avoided some quicktime H264 issues? Or something like that. And was the most recent QT H264 no longer showing those?
This should do the trick:
It appears as a QuickTime export component so you'll be able to use it from any QuickTime-compatible app. In Premiere's Export dialog you can access it by selecting QuickTime as the format and then x264Encoder as the codec under the Video tab.
x264 is a preferred codec for some users
It's actually an open source encoder using the H.264 codec. Reports often praise both it's speed and quality compared to other encoders.
I have done some experimenting with Adobe Media Encoder using the H264 encoder that comes with Premiere and the X264 Encoder plugin. Using either one, the match between the Premiere image in tone and saturation is off when viewed in Quicktime. The X264 file has slightly, slightly better saturation in Quicktime, but still appears bright and a bit flat. With the VLC media player, the Adobe H264 encoded file is a near match, the X264 encoded file is still brighter than Premiere and has a bit less saturation. I uploaded clips to Vimeo for comparison and the H264 file is the closest match to the Premiere image. Go figure....
That's why you can;t use software players to judge quality. You really do need a properly calibrated external TV for that purpose.
Thanks for the advice. I can understand using a calibrated TV to judge quality for broadcast, but I am expecting that everything I shoot is going to wind up on the web for my clients. Or, they will play the video on their computer from a DVD. They want to embed the video into their websites. (mainly architects) If I still need to use a TV, does it matter what file type and/or how I connect the computer to it?
I am coming from the still world and the color management system there. I am used to a certain predictability and to produce specific types of files for specific kinds of output. My thoughts were that if people were going to view the video on the web from h.264 files, that was how I should judge the quality. If not, I guess I'll buy another TV for the office.
Some times you have to let things go a bit because "video" is a different world to stills and print media. (although that is a can of worms in itself)
Your clients or audience do not have a side by side comparison ( as you do) and their display devices and set ups are simply something you have no control over.
Something you do have control over is your own system so set it up and then trust the waveforms and other scopes. That is your personal reference point.
I see no value in getting a "TV" for this purpose. A decent Computer Monitor will serve you better.
BTW - here is no harm in making a little "compensation" for the export media. I wil often add 'Gamma Correction' (Effect) for a QT Export intended for broadcast. ( I add +1 to base of 10. ie. 11)
Thanks shooternz. It is a lot like saving still images for the web.