H264 Not good enough

[etrust]

Hi Guys,

I have tryed everything with vegas, after effects and premiere.

My Original FIle is 12 GB. If I convert with on of these tools it becames around 400 MB.

My Result ist not bad when there is good light on the footage. But I have a Very Dark Intro. So there is terrible.. I can see pixels there.

I played wit mbit/s. Quality allways best.. I can render perfect out BUT if I choose H264 on after effects or premiere the quality is not similiar like my Original File.

The Big Question: My AVI 12 GB is perfect. So how to make it smaller for Youtube without change the Quality????

 

[JeganRX]

I don't know about Vegas, but Adobe's H.264 encoder is pretty terrible. I only use it for quick samples that I need to send off, or want to show people, but it's not really reliable for final output.

Of course, it's also hard to say what settings may be impacting quality as well; dark scenes usually *are* worse in compression, but elaborate on what settings you've used for your encodes and we can help better.

In the end though, I'd suggest you use something x264 based, like StaxRip, SUPER, Handbrake, Mencoder, MeGUI, etc.

EDIT: Also, you're going to have a loss of quality no matter what you do, especially since you're using Youtube. The compression they apply is heavy as hell; it's bitstarved beyond belief, so don't go crazy.

 

[Demistate]

I don't know about Vegas, but Adobe's H.264 encoder is pretty terrible. I only use it for quick samples that I need to send off, or want to show people, but it's not really reliable for final output.

I wouldn't use the word terrible to describe Adobe's implementation of Main Concept h.264 encoder

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/

This independent test pits mainconcept only slightly behind x264. x264 is also updated on a daily basis so it's pretty normal for an application that only gets refreshed every 12-18 months to be slightly behind.

 

[JeganRX]

I wouldn't use the word terrible to describe Adobe's implementation of Main Concept h.264 encoder

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/

This independent test pits mainconcept only slightly behind x264. x264 is also updated on a daily basis so it's pretty normal for an application that only gets refreshed every 12-18 months to be slightly behind.

Call this contradictory to the point of a comparison, but I never liked following codecs by SSIM or PSNR metrics, and skimming it, I see no picture-based comparison. x264 in particular is completely unreliable via those metrics once combined with things like MB-Tree or Psy-RD.

 

[Demistate]

Call this contradictory to the point of a comparison, but I never liked following codecs by SSIM or PSNR metrics, and skimming it, I see no picture-based comparison. x264 in particular is completely unreliable via those metrics once combined with things like MB-Tree or Psy-RD.

Even if x264 is better than this test shows, it still shows that Mainconcept encoder is still the best encoder you have to pay for compaired to other pay encoders using SSIM and PSNR metrics.

I still think "Terrible" isn't a fair way to describe Mainconcept's encoder. For Hard disc playback of h.264 files Mainconcept will get the job done, even if you need to add more bits to the stream to equal picture quality of x264.