best format to output to

Vince K

Vince K

Well-known member
Hey all...
I know it's been asked before but I've searched for hours trying to find the post that was up here early last week.
I'm done editing a music vid and normally my workflow is : convert to prores 422, import to FCP, edit, and export as 720p .264.....
BUT....
this particular client is asking me for a mpeg version and says its better because of the small file size..
I've tried to output to a decent size mpeg 4 but all of my efforts look like garbage.
Any heads up to what I'm supposed to do would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers!
 
Are you exporting from within FCP? Using Compressor or using QuickTime Conversion?

Honestly, I hate exporting anything from FCP except a full-rez FCP movie, self-contained. Using QT Conversion is clunky and rarely gives me decent results, and using Compressor is clunky and really, really slow.

Export your self-contained FCP movie using current settings, then quit FCP. Open Compressor, and try the included MPEG-4 preset. If that doesn't give you what you want, you can make a copy of the preset and tweak it as needed.
 
You should also point out to your client that the lower the file size, the lower the quality. If they gave you more specifics about what they wanted the file for- i.e. progressive download, intranet, etc. You for example could give them a much better final quality if you delivered a relatively high bitrate H.264, then they upload it to YouTube or Vimeo, then they embed that into their own site. Directly streaming out an MPEG these days is kind of a last resort iMHO.

Noah
 
To quote the words of esteemed FCP guru Larry Jordan

"Final cut is a great editor but not so great as a compressor. There is a dedicated application for that.
For this reason always select EXPORT MOVIE then handle your compressions later with compressor"

I always always always select EXPROT MOVIE and choose self contained. Then I handle compressions to
other codecs or long gop codecs afterwards with either compressor or mpegstreamclip
 
PerroneFord said:
H.264 is mpeg. Mpeg4.
Click to expand...

Really??? That's good to know...

I exported out as a .264 mov then converted to mpeg4 in mpegstreamclip using apple mpeg compressor... and that actually seemed to work just fine. :)
I was trying to do the same right of FCP but yeah [edited by moderator]

The client wants to shop the video as well as post on youtube... thinks mp4 is fine for this. I told him that a .264 would look great all around and would suit his needs but he's stickin' to his guns. Seems he did another vid and it was sent to him as a mp4 now he's hooked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look,

MPEG is an acronym for Moving Picture Experts Group.

They are an organization who's job it is to set forth video standards. Those standards are typically known by both a numerical designation, and a common english name.

So in this case, the MPEG group came up with their 4th recommendation of this type (type 3 was superseded before being made available). The common english name is AVC (Advanced Video Codec), and the numerical designation is H.264. (By the way, Mpeg2 is the DVD video standard)

So for practical purposes, Mpeg4 = H.264 = AVC. They are all names for the same thing. There is a wrinkle in that. The Mpeg4 standards are somewhat broad and there are variations within it. But the spec that most are using (Mpeg4 part 10) is aka H.264.

So exporting out at H.264, which is very lossy, and then exporting again as mpeg4 (again very lossy) is just doing double encoding to the same thing. A total waste.



Vince K said:
Really??? That's good to know...

I exported out as a .264 mov then converted to mpeg4 in mpegstreamclip using apple mpeg compressor... and that actually seemed to work just fine. :)
I was trying to do the same right of FCP but yeah....

The client wants to shop the video as well as post on youtube... thinks mp4 is fine for this. I told him that a .264 would look great all around and would suit his needs but he's stickin' to his guns. Seems he did another vid and it was sent to him as a mp4 now he's hooked.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PerroneFord said:
Look,

MPEG is an acronym for Moving Picture Experts Group.

They are an organization who's job it is to set forth video standards. Those standards are typically known by both a numerical designation, and a common english name.

So in this case, the MPEG group came up with their 4th recommendation of this type (type 3 was superseded before being made available). The common english name is AVC (Advanced Video Codec), and the numerical designation is H.264. (By the way, Mpeg2 is the DVD video standard)

So for practical purposes, Mpeg4 = H.264 = AVC. They are all names for the same thing. There is a wrinkle in that. The Mpeg4 standards are somewhat broad and there are variations within it. But the spec that most are using (Mpeg4 part 10) is aka H.264.

So exporting out at H.264, which is very lossy, and then exporting again as mpeg4 (again very lossy) is just doing double encoding to the same thing. A total waste.
Click to expand...

gotcha, thanx for explaining that dude...so for shiz and giggles what the least lossy export format?
 
Vince K said:
gotcha, thanx for explaining that dude...so for shiz and giggles what the least lossy export format?
Click to expand...

Well, you can use things like uncompressed, or various codecs that do lossless compression. These lose ZERO when you make them. Mathematically perfect representations of the original. The downside is that the files are usually VERY large.

Probably the next best are codecs using wavelet compression. They are very efficient and very good. But are not widely implemented at this point. Third is probably using the mpeg4 or VC-1/WMV codecs. They are efficient and given good bandwidth look excellent.

But delivery spec and codecs are MASSIVE subjects and very specific to needs. It's very hard to generalize.
 
PerroneFord said:
Well, you can use things like uncompressed, or various codecs that do lossless compression. These lose ZERO when you make them. Mathematically perfect representations of the original. The downside is that the files are usually VERY large.

Probably the next best are codecs using wavelet compression. They are very efficient and very good. But are not widely implemented at this point. Third is probably using the mpeg4 or VC-1/WMV codecs. They are efficient and given good bandwidth look excellent.

But delivery spec and codecs are MASSIVE subjects and very specific to needs. It's very hard to generalize.
Click to expand...

thanx again dude...you're awesome :beer:
 
so I was able to do all this...BUT...it only went from 1.3 gigs to 500mb...anyway to get it smaller than that and still retain most of the quality?
 
Vince K said:
so I was able to do all this...BUT...it only went from 1.3 gigs to 500mb...anyway to get it smaller than that and still retain most of the quality?
Click to expand...

What's the run time on this video?

That won't be the entire answer as there are lots of variables in how large the files are with any codec... but it's a starting point.
 
Vince K said:
so I was able to do all this...BUT...it only went from 1.3 gigs to 500mb...anyway to get it smaller than that and still retain most of the quality?
Click to expand...

The encoded file size is DIRECTLY proportional to the bit rate you choose. If you make a 10% change in the bitrate, your file will be 10% smaller. The smaller it gets, the worse it looks. Only you can decide how good you need it to look.

What format did you compress it to?
 
The video runs 3:40 .

Dumped the 565GB .264 version into compressor and made a 65 MB mp4 and the quality isn't really that bad...but it was small enough to send thru yousendit..which is what he really wanted in the first place

I also made a 720p .264 version for reality sakes...but that sits at 1.3 gigs

Sooo many formats ...I gotta lotta reading to do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top