Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance...

Ben Freedman · July 11th, 2011, 09:40 AM

That's an amazingly backhanded compliment...like saying "This bit of the software doesn't work and is horribly buggy, but look how well integrated the required workaround is".... :(

Best,

Ben

Marty Baggen · July 11th, 2011, 02:22 PM

It is what it is... not a compliment, it just helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of your tools.

Tim Kolb · July 11th, 2011, 03:42 PM

It sounds like the still images may be very large? Much larger than the sequence frame setting?

AME does that whole downconvert from the source file...not the sequence (unless you check the "use previews" box).

I don't typically have much of a problem with AME for the last two or three drops...

Exporting through AE is silly and the issue is probably solvable within PPro once we know more about the source still images and all the downconvert settings and framerates in/out.

If you haven't used AME since Premiere Pro CS2, using that experience to comment on a piece of software this many years and this many versions later isn't terribly helpful.

Marty Baggen · July 11th, 2011, 05:07 PM

Just to clarify... I have certainly spent time with each and every export function of Premiere that has come down the pike since Premiere 2, including AME.

All things being equal, I obtain superior results from 3rd party software, particularly in the areas of rescaling and when applicable, deinterlacing.

Like anything else in these forums, take it for what it's worth, terribly helpful or not.

Steve Kalle · July 11th, 2011, 05:41 PM

I mean this in the most respectful way, but you are doing something wrong. What you have done is like calling a mechanic and describing sounds of a problem but not actually bringing the car to the mechanic - ie, you have not listed all of the settings from the source footage & stills to the export settings; thus, we cannot honestly diagnose or even conclude what, if any, problem there is with AME.

I have used 28MP JPEGs from an engineering firm and I had zero problems rendering to SD for broadcast and the web. This is in addition to my personal 24MP images used in other projects all mixed in with XDCAM and/or nanoFlash files. And I always have MRQ enabled which makes a huge difference. TMPGEnc cannot match CS5's quality and speed with MRQ enabled (I also used TMPGEnc for SD encoding until CS5).

One quick question, are you using a CUDA card and is hardware acceleration enabled? There is a big difference between the scaling algorithms used with software MRQ and CUDA MRQ.

Ben Freedman · July 11th, 2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

I mean this in the most respectful way, but you are doing something wrong. What you have done is like calling a mechanic and describing sounds of a problem but not actually bringing the car to the mechanic

You're right. I was hoping, as is often the case on the forums, that I could say to my mechanic "Here's the problem", and the mechanic (or in the case, the forum participants) would say "Ah... we've seen this exact issue 100 times before. All you have to do is "X"..." Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

One quick question, are you using a CUDA card and is hardware acceleration enabled? There is a big difference between the scaling algorithms used with software MRQ and CUDA MRQ.

Yes, I have a Quadro 4000, and had it enabled during this render. Should I not?

Best,

Ben

Marty Baggen · July 11th, 2011, 07:36 PM

Steve.....I'll be sure to give CS5 another shot. Coming from another TMPGenc user, you surely understand the frustration with the results we've had with AME in the past.

I did a variety of renders when I first obtained CS5, and at that time, I felt that the TMPGenc outputs were visibly better.... but that was an update or two ago, so after reading your testimony, there's a strong argument in favor of taking a closer look and I appreciate you making mention of it.

So far as the original issue of this thread, more info would certainly help track down the problem.

Sareesh Sudhakaran · July 11th, 2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Freedman

Wow! What a horrible workflow to have to import into AE just to get a decent render.
Ben

I apologize if this is a little direct, but you're wrong.

All things said and done, I've found through experience that the overall time taken (from ingest to render) on Adobe CS is much faster than FCS, assuming the same computer specs. An entire feature film timeline from Premiere can be moved to AE (no rendering required) in about fifteen minutes on a modern consumer PC (full HD at 25p).

Ben Freedman · July 11th, 2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran

I apologize if this is a little direct, but you're wrong.

All things said and done, I've found through experience that the overall time taken (from ingest to render) on Adobe CS is much faster than FCS, assuming the same computer specs. An entire feature film timeline from Premiere can be moved to AE (no rendering required) in about fifteen minutes on a modern consumer PC (full HD at 25p).

Howdy...

I didn't say it was a long render.... I said it was a horrible workflow. It shouldn't be necessary, on any platform...

B.

Bo Skelmose · July 12th, 2011, 01:31 AM

My problems with exporting always comes from material that just do not match the sequence settings.
Seems as if it might be the same problem you have. Although Adobe claims that you can handle HD material in a SD project it would be better to export the HD material from a HD timeline to SD before importing to a SD timeline. When I mix SD material into HD projects I have to export and uprez. the material from SD timeline, before I import to a HD proj.

When you first export to HD and then take that material into a HD timeline - you probably make some material that mach the sequence settings and this will look good.
No matter what this HD file, would be the best to achive.

If you are using Mercury Playback engine - is there any yellow stripe over the material that looks bad ?
The stills - are you zooming in them? - if not try to make them 1920x1080 before exporting.

Get a Canon 600D today and I am eager to try this camera. Maybe I get the same problems....

Sareesh Sudhakaran · July 12th, 2011, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Freedman

H. It shouldn't be necessary, on any platform...

B.

It isn't, Ben. The reason why I asked to go into the details is because I've never had a problem with the media encoder from Adobe. I've done HD to SD many times without going to AE or any other encoder.

My point is: this is not an Adobe vs FCP situation at all. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for the results you are getting, but without more info, nobody can help.

Tim Kolb · July 12th, 2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Freedman

Howdy...

I didn't say it was a long render.... I said it was a horrible workflow. It shouldn't be necessary, on any platform...

B.

This assumes that moving the timeline to AE strictly for the quality of the export is necessary...it's not. there is some other issue at work here.

Steve Kalle · July 12th, 2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Baggen

Steve.....I'll be sure to give CS5 another shot. Coming from another TMPGenc user, you surely understand the frustration with the results we've had with AME in the past.

I did a variety of renders when I first obtained CS5, and at that time, I felt that the TMPGenc outputs were visibly better.... but that was an update or two ago, so after reading your testimony, there's a strong argument in favor of taking a closer look and I appreciate you making mention of it.

So far as the original issue of this thread, more info would certainly help track down the problem.

Hi Marty,

The key with CS5 is enabling MRQ (Max Render Quality) for all down-rez material. It adds significant time to the export but the quality is well worth the time. If you would like, I can render out some examples to show how much sharper it is with MRQ enabled (with hardware acceleration - software MRQ is not as good). If you have used Photoshop and down sized images using Bicubic interpolation, then you already have seen what hardware MRQ is like in AME as it uses the same algorithm. Furthermore, all of the Premiere Pro benchmarks do not use MRQ so they are not a great source for 'real world' results.

On a side note, the quality is so good that I now export to SD MPEG2 for broadcast and then use that file to encode to SD H264 for the web.

With CS4, I always had to export to HD and then use TMPGEnc for DVDs and other SD material (but not any more).

July 11th, 2011, 09:40 AM	#16
Ben Freedman Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 188	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... That's an amazingly backhanded compliment...like saying "This bit of the software doesn't work and is horribly buggy, but look how well integrated the required workaround is".... :( Best, Ben

July 11th, 2011, 02:22 PM	#17
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... It is what it is... not a compliment, it just helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of your tools.

July 11th, 2011, 03:42 PM	#18
Tim Kolb Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Neenah, WI Posts: 547	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... It sounds like the still images may be very large? Much larger than the sequence frame setting? AME does that whole downconvert from the source file...not the sequence (unless you check the "use previews" box). I don't typically have much of a problem with AME for the last two or three drops... Exporting through AE is silly and the issue is probably solvable within PPro once we know more about the source still images and all the downconvert settings and framerates in/out. If you haven't used AME since Premiere Pro CS2, using that experience to comment on a piece of software this many years and this many versions later isn't terribly helpful. __________________ TimK Kolb Productions

July 11th, 2011, 05:07 PM	#19
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... Just to clarify... I have certainly spent time with each and every export function of Premiere that has come down the pike since Premiere 2, including AME. All things being equal, I obtain superior results from 3rd party software, particularly in the areas of rescaling and when applicable, deinterlacing. Like anything else in these forums, take it for what it's worth, terribly helpful or not.

July 11th, 2011, 05:41 PM	#20
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... I mean this in the most respectful way, but you are doing something wrong. What you have done is like calling a mechanic and describing sounds of a problem but not actually bringing the car to the mechanic - ie, you have not listed all of the settings from the source footage & stills to the export settings; thus, we cannot honestly diagnose or even conclude what, if any, problem there is with AME. I have used 28MP JPEGs from an engineering firm and I had zero problems rendering to SD for broadcast and the web. This is in addition to my personal 24MP images used in other projects all mixed in with XDCAM and/or nanoFlash files. And I always have MRQ enabled which makes a huge difference. TMPGEnc cannot match CS5's quality and speed with MRQ enabled (I also used TMPGEnc for SD encoding until CS5). One quick question, are you using a CUDA card and is hardware acceleration enabled? There is a big difference between the scaling algorithms used with software MRQ and CUDA MRQ.

July 11th, 2011, 07:36 PM	#22
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... Steve.....I'll be sure to give CS5 another shot. Coming from another TMPGenc user, you surely understand the frustration with the results we've had with AME in the past. I did a variety of renders when I first obtained CS5, and at that time, I felt that the TMPGenc outputs were visibly better.... but that was an update or two ago, so after reading your testimony, there's a strong argument in favor of taking a closer look and I appreciate you making mention of it. So far as the original issue of this thread, more info would certainly help track down the problem.

July 12th, 2011, 01:31 AM	#25
Bo Skelmose Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 495	Re: Question on rendering for you gurus.... Thanks in advance... My problems with exporting always comes from material that just do not match the sequence settings. Seems as if it might be the same problem you have. Although Adobe claims that you can handle HD material in a SD project it would be better to export the HD material from a HD timeline to SD before importing to a SD timeline. When I mix SD material into HD projects I have to export and uprez. the material from SD timeline, before I import to a HD proj. When you first export to HD and then take that material into a HD timeline - you probably make some material that mach the sequence settings and this will look good. No matter what this HD file, would be the best to achive. If you are using Mercury Playback engine - is there any yellow stripe over the material that looks bad ? The stills - are you zooming in them? - if not try to make them 1920x1080 before exporting. Get a Canon 600D today and I am eager to try this camera. Maybe I get the same problems....