I test now with twisted HD test material all possible ways by working to ensure the future of HD technology to be prepared. In this case, I always return to oddities. The starting point is always an Avid Media Composer and the coding, I Sorenson Squeeze "one.
When I click on the Avid HD Preview Picture, then, this picture perfectly okay from. Just as I would like to encode it so that future users will be able then to an appropriate playback device and play on a large monitor can show. Generally yes for the Quicktime-HD codec and the Windows Media 9 codec in question. So, each 1920 times 1080 pixels. Fields are converted to frames.
While the WMV-9-Picture looks satisfactory, the Quicktime Picture Coding according to the very pale. So no pretty colors and contrasts more. Has someone an explanation for this?
What also surprised me: On my eMac, I can with the Quicktime player encoded file does not play, because sometimes appear only a few times standing frames. The "Red-One-trial recording with the dairy women, however, I can on the eMac and easily the best quality. This file is strangely, significantly larger than mine. In the dairy women are 11 seconds nearly 90 MB, while my 5 seconds only 8 MB large. Nevertheless, the eMac with my file and overwhelmed with the much larger women's milk does not file.
The WMV file will run on the Mac anyway.
Now I would like to find out how I can be a Quicktime file to create that beautiful colors and contrasts remain on file and these two platforms is stable. I guess times that people will play for something like an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 will use.
Has anyone ideas about this?
Matthias
Antwort von PowerMac:
Macs can be quite normal with Flip4Mac WMV content display. Lad doch mal deine File high. What codec and what settings you have the Quicktime file used?
Antwort von Pianist:
"PowerMac" wrote:
Macs can be quite normal with Flip4Mac WMV content display. Lad doch mal deine File high. What codec and what settings you have the Quicktime file used?
First times for WMV-File: I have the same WMV Player downloaded and installed. Because now my WMV-Picture on the Mac the same way as before groats from the Quicktime-Picture on the Windows Calculator. Imagine a ship in the evening sun, which now looks like a ship in the fog looks. EMac synonymous with this file only in the form of some individual plays, not a continuous movement.
And for Quicktime File: The I have with Sorenson Squeeze encoded Sorenson-3-codec, 2-Pass VBR, Data 8000 (are the KB per second), 1920 times 1080 pixels, 25 frames per second, every 30 keyframe frames (less is probably not).
I wonder why this woman milk file looks so much better and synonymous on my Mac is running ...
Matthias
Antwort von PowerMac:
I recommend as a first H.264 codec. This 2xVBR. Do you have the Quicktime Player high Wiedergabeinstellungen enabled?
Antwort von TheBubble:
"Pianist" wrote:
Imagine a ship in the evening sun, which now looks like a ship in the fog looks.
This sounds like a color management problem. Are there any color have been created and are available for normal reproduction, as synonymous for the presentation of the overlay color correction set correctly (and the same) set?
Antwort von Pianist:
404ERR
Antwort von HeikoS:
It's all about gamma ....
Antwort von usul:
Mac: 1.8 Win: 2.2
Antwort von Pianist:
"HeikoS" wrote:
It's all about gamma ....
Yes, very clear - but what if I never adjust, but then I expect that the picture after the coding looks exactly as before. So I'm currently experimenting with the appropriate filter to get something to offset what some perceived as a problem source is hineingemogelt. That surely can not be the intention.
Matthias
Antwort von Pianist:
"usul" wrote:
Mac: 1.8 Win: 2.2
I have the problem yet but synonymous, when I, within the Windows system remained. I'm in a QT Avid reference, import it into the Sorenson Squeeze, choose QT times 1920 and 1080 and so let him reckon. When I look at then the QT movie in QT Player and go directly to my Avid lege, I see perfectly well that the picture in Color and contrast is completely different looks, though I never in these settings have somehow influence can or ought to have , because those settings so the code did not do.
Matthias
Antwort von HeikoS:
The software interprets the footage but different, it is a kind of internal Vorkorrektur operated. Thus, it is unfortunately.
Antwort von Pianist:
"HeikoS" wrote:
The software interprets the footage but different, it is a kind of internal Vorkorrektur operated. Thus, it is unfortunately.
That may well be - but it should be yes, at least to look like in the squeeze-preview window. Does it do not. Even if I search for and after the gamma always next reduced, the picture does not look as before within the Avid. Even the colors do not: The sky is then more turquoise than blue.
Matthias
Antwort von noch ´n Gast:
if I do what should note: The eMac is quite a bit older Calculator, my knowledge of synonymous after a few problems with the graphic representation had / has. How about time with a test run at a slightly newer model (eg iBook)? And what are Quicktime on Windows: probably yes, you have the latest QT version? I had (and have) with my site the problem with Windows users who always complain terribly, my videos that they can not see. Lag but until now always because either no QT installed and still hold an old version, while I with the latest on everything nicely .264 had brought. But - I know here are not synonymous - I mean only!
Antwort von Pianist:
'nor' s guest wrote:
if I do what should note: The eMac is quite a bit older Calculator, my knowledge of synonymous after a few problems with the graphic representation had / has.
You now refer you to another part of my problem that my on the Windows Calculator created Quicktime files are not properly running on the eMac, right? This as I said once again note that the milk of women (Red One) as totally smoothly, although 11 seconds is nearly 90 MB and my 5 seconds only 6 MB. So it must generally go.
Can someone actually me the difference in size explained?
Meanwhile, I am the way, with my main problem with gamma -35, but happy, I'm still not.
Matthias
Antwort von PowerMac:
Sounds not everything for the latest cleaner and Quicktime version.
Antwort von Pianist:
"PowerMac" wrote:
Sounds not everything for the latest cleaner and Quicktime version.
Do you now on my encoding problem on the Windows calculator or on my playback problem on the eMac? The Windows system with the Avid is two months old, because everything should be up to date. And the eMac is a bit older, but the milk of women running as smoothly indeed synonymous.
Meanwhile, I am the way, the squeeze landed at the following settings: contrast +20, brightness +20, gamma -50. Only the colors are a bit paler than the original, then I can squeeze in, but no influence.
I have always suspected in any case, if I Picture s.einem so extremely much herumschrauben needs. Something can not agree.
Matthias
Antwort von PowerMac:
Why are you always with women, the milk? Schau doch mal da rein. This is Motion-JPEG. This is quite different than your Sorenson. I sometimes synonymous with export squeeze. I guess since H.264 and a solid data and 2xVBR. It looks mostly good. Quicktime has its problems sometimes with the gamma value, so it can look a bit listless. Hast thou the playback settings to "high"?
Antwort von Pianist:
"PowerMac" wrote:
Why are you always with women, the milk? Schau doch mal da rein. This is Motion-JPEG. This is quite different than your Sorenson. I sometimes synonymous with export squeeze. I guess since H.264 and a solid data and 2xVBR. It looks mostly good.
This Motion-JPEG file seems synonymous but in the Quicktime container to be embedded. How does it because such a file? Mir, it is ultimately no preference, what kind of file I create as long as they can play well.
And can it be that the only h.264 squeeze on the Mac and not squeeze under Windows is available? Previously I could only find H.261 and H.263.
Matthias
Antwort von PowerMac:
Because you misunderstand something. Quicktime is a container format. It is extremely important, what codec a file has. Who cares of the Quicktime container? Ultimately you need a program like Cleaner is not. This is just a better surface for the Export of using Quicktime. That is, you just need a current version of Cleaner and install an update of Quicktime (7.1.3). Then you have synonymous H.264. The best codec is currently in existence. Quicktime is synonymous only a framework. Either Quicktime is running or not. Everything else is the ability of the person files encoded.
Just because the milk of women running, it means nothing did. Motion-JPEG codec is an old, it has been there. Ergo: anywhere nice update with compression settings and employ. This is not as trivial as it seems. There are multimedia agencies, which only encode files. They have more experience of course, what setting for what is better or worse.
Invite your file but get up!
Antwort von Pianist:
"PowerMac" wrote:
That is, you just need a current version of Cleaner and install an update of Quicktime (7.1.3). Then you have synonymous H.264. The best codec is currently in existence.
What exactly do you mean with "cleaner"? There are many programs that have the word "cleaner" in the title. And what Quicktime, I have just downloaded the current player, but I probably already had. Now I have just now when Apple purchased a registration number to the Pro version. There seems to be synonymous to create an h.264, but what should I offer as a starting material? Since then I have probably only times from the Avid expect an AVI, right? I would s.sich avoid multiple conversions. The Quicktime is not so with the Avid verkoppeln like the squeeze, but stands on its own.
The squeeze is therefore in any case not synonymous continues h.264 capability. Although this is advertised. Strange. I overlooked what?
Matthias
Antwort von Bernd E.:
"Pianist" wrote:
What exactly do you mean with "cleaner"?
www.apple.com / downloads / macosx / video / cleaner.html
www.apple.com / downloads / macosx / video / cleaner.html
* grrrrr * The PowerMac knows perfectly well that my Avid on a Windows Calculator running. And it seems such software only for OS X to give. With me is only on the desk eMac, which is my only Mac.
So once again the question: How do I integrate the h.264 codec in Sorenson Squeeze?
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
"Pianist" wrote:
I have always suspected in any case, if I Picture s.einem so extremely much herumschrauben needs. Something can not agree.
Perhaps it calms you (synonymous when it does not help you first), but I may be your problem with a somewhat pale reproduction probably reproduce (without Avid software, etc.).
Antwort von PowerMac:
I mean really squeeze, not cleaner. Make both the same and therefore I am the. So the latest version of Squeeze?
Antwort von Pianist:
"PowerMac" wrote:
I mean really squeeze, not cleaner. Make both the same and therefore I am the. So the latest version of Squeeze?
If you accidentally my other thread with the noise of the FLV files you read: This morning, I squeeze of 4.3 to 4.5 can now be refreshed and FLV files with MP3 sounds, both as synonymous with Windows on the Mac seen and heard can be.
Now I had expected in this context, synonymous to the h.264 codec to be able to use that is so synonymous in the lists than for the new version. I've found him yet still can not.
However, I have been with many QT settings (Sorenson 3) experiments and a very good solution. It seems normal to be that you s.Kontrast, brightness and gamma herumschrauben must. What I have not been so aware of: You can use the Long-GOP compression perfect opportunity to land (eg blue sky) to calm down. If only every 100 frames keyframe comes, sees the whole better than if every picture or every fourth picture can make a keyframe. And moving vehicles still look good.
How high (above of 8000 kbits / s) can actually increase the data rate without playback problems einzuhandeln?
The Sorenson 3 looks much better way, than all sorts of WMV-9-variants.
And by chance someone who has already tried eavesdropping on whatever devices (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, etc.) these Quicktime movies well? Because somehow I need a list of times for customers, in order to know what technology they should use for playback. Or just a small shuttle computer with QT Player?
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
I did a little experimenting. The slightly faded s.Player presentation seems to lie, the actual file seems ok. Could you please even the VLC media player used to play with pale File? Are the colors better?
Antwort von Pianist:
"TheBubble" wrote:
I did a little experimenting. The slightly faded s.Player presentation seems to lie, the actual file seems ok. Could you please even the VLC media player used to play with pale File? Are the colors better?
I have just these times VLC player downloaded and installed on my eMac. Comment: The picture looks exactly like the Quicktime player, really no difference. It really seems to be that you must unscrew the encoding. And second point: Again, this program does not, my calculator for uninterrupted playback of this file to animate. Since then an error message, which in essence asks whether it could possibly be that my calculator is too slow.
Tomorrow I try again the Windows version on the fast new Windows Calculator. But as I already wrote: I am beginning to taste the best settings s.die ran. So this is an insoluble problem.
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
Use the Comparison prefer the Windows version, I have no Mac and hab 'it only under Windows probiert. To test the performance of Color Resolutions synonymous small, HD is not necessary.
If you like, you can synonymous me a small test file to you.
If it is a file in HD Resolutionhandelt, depending on the codec should be properly computing power and support by the graphics card available.
Antwort von Pianist:
Addendum: recordings made with the Ikegami Editcam HD have been made, ie directly in the Avid DNxHD codec was produced, appear after the squeeze synonymous filter without completely flawless. Just as it should be. That I could think after yesterday's test shots to find out.
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
If you are looking for remedies, you should try the problem with possible followed by simple means.
Antwort von Pianist:
"TheBubble" wrote:
If you are looking for remedies, you should try the problem with possible followed by simple means.
What should I do after big ask? If I were in a probably not for me recurring situation (DVCPRO HD) had a problem with this issue but in my future work (DNxHD) does not occur, there are good reasons, the problem is not next to follow, because I am no longer concerned.
And if I someday extraneous material to get reliable DVCPro HD, I must also remember that as a trap lurks. And even that is not to be, because I just noticed is that the DVCProHD material, which I in comparison to the timeline with the recordings of Editcam HD purely geschnitten have been duly mitgesqueezed. Normally this would have been a scene so brightly and be pale. If they did not. That I do not understand, but they are just computers.
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
"Pianist" wrote:
That I do not understand, but they are just computers.
This is a problem and can lead to a be. You know / understand the cause, but ignore them, because the symptoms occurred immediately.
I suspect that your problem is something that is synonymous already been described elsewhere. I do not think it really bad and it would be with small irregularities in the Farb-/Gamma-Abstimmung dismiss, maybe it will be sometime synonymous fixed / adjusted.
I would have found but still interesting to know whether your problem maybe that is what I suspect, or whether only when encoding something went wrong. I think this is similar to others here.
Antwort von Pianist:
"TheBubble" wrote:
I would have found but still interesting to know whether your problem maybe that is what I suspect, or whether only when encoding something went wrong. I think this is similar to others here.
I can again describe why I believe that the only times we do not get resolved: DVCProHD material of an HDX-900 by Avid in the fire pond copied. The Avid is in a position to DVCPro HD material to work natively, without anything after it is converted DNxHD. Only effects are then calculated as DNxHD.
When you first export a Quicktime reference I had to find that the squeeze just as DNxHD calculated recognizes Effects, but with the DVCProHD material may not start. Since then just a white picture.
Consequently, I have a video mixdown in Avid made so that the entire film as DNxHD is available. Then, the squeeze everything synonymous detected, but after the encoding, I noticed that the picture is bright and pale. So I referred to and after experimenting with filter settings for the best possible result when encoding to achieve. Note: The squeeze is now no longer uses the DVCPro HD data, but to the DNxHD data.
Today I have pictures of the Ikegami Editcam HD (see my new thread) Avid in the open. This camera is so directly in the Avid DNxHD codec on. So, these files by directly synonymous with the cutting of squeeze as Quicktime encoded. And without that it is bright and pale. It follows: According to DNxHD, DVCProHD converted files will be treated differently from squeeze than with the Editcam HD recorded DNxHD files. That alone is quite strange.
Still it is strange but when I made a timeline louder Editcam-DNxHD files after one or more converted DNxHD, DVCPro HD files clean cut. Then suddenly synonymous these files are handled correctly and do not see light and pale.
I'll take this problem next time do not follow me just because it's for a project completed in the near future is concerned. Then no more, because then the Editcam HD comes. I do not synonymous, the manner in which I said in this matter could get new insights.
