Frage von eXp:
Hi,
've already :-( ne question;
I once rendered out some of my film from Vegas Pro 9 in various formats for me once a trial basis to see on the PS3.
It has struck me, the MPEG 2 (; 1920x1080 24p) looks pretty dark. The visible page of the compost box, the bottom of the picture is displayed on the LCD TV almost completely black. Then I WMV9 Advanced (; VC-1 - 1920x1080 24p) issued what has to MPEG 2, a better drawing in dark areas, and generally brighter and more pleasant effect. At the compost box - clusters, which are synonymous, almost every detail is seen (: just as in the lower picture).
I've never tried uncompressed AVI, which I will still with MainConcept Reference MPEG 4/h.264/AVC have rendered in what looks on the PS3 as well as WMV9.
Even darker than MPEG 2, QuickTime uncompressed, what do you have to make it look like WMV9? If someone could tell me at least, creating the difference in brightness, I would be very grateful.
Sorry, but if something is so, I always like to know why. ^ ^
Greetings
eXp
Antwort von WoWu:
In Quicktime, it is clear. QT has been working for 25 years with an incorrect gamma value (1.8), the work to ensure the correct image to display on their laser printers and it should really be with 2.2. (Probably only s.10.6)
As for the codecs, it must be between adaptive codecs and those who do not have to be distinguished.
An adaptive codec such as H.264 will include a solid color, in different shades, with macro-block sizes of 4x4 as dissolve, where other codecs dissolve 8x8 or even 16x16, because these codecs do not take into account differences in the Picture. So you get the fine courses with such gross blocks, as in MPEG2 not go.
Therefore, adaptive codecs clear image of difficult passages better.
About Do you play an AVC codec to a codec that does not support this, you immediately lose such niceties irrevocable.
Therefore, one should be very careful with intermediate codec, synonymous if everything looks fine at first glance. In detail, show the differences. (There is incidentally, a whole handful more differences, have the new codecs.)
Antwort von eXp:
Hi,
thanks for the good explanation!
Then the behaves well with uncompressed AVI similar? Otherwise I would always first in my movies AVI uncompressed change, and then with another program in H.264/AVC.
This is indeed synonymous with Vegas, but that gives me not so high data rate as I would have liked.
Antwort von WoWu:
At the data rate you can not now make this much, as MPEG2 for example, because the indicator is no longer good pictures.
You should always from the lower quality codecs encode the high-order and know what each codec actually does with the Picture. (And remember, higher quality does not mean higher data rate)
I know it is always difficult, but otherwise it's not anymore.
Now, H.264 offers really excellent range s.Tools, with which you at a low data rate can save pretty good pictures.
It is always important but it is, has used the tools to implement and how they "succeeded" is.
The weakest link in the Codierkette are still the programmer. Therefore, try codecs and pay attention to subtleties.
And do not forget ... if you are of a modern codec like H.264 or a derivative transcodierst and come in an older codec, you have the best chance that the Picture irrevocably deteriorated synonymous when it says there's so much "lossless". It is best always, you remain in the original codec.
