Uncompressed exporting faster than compressed? WHY?

R

richg101

Well-known member
I just exported a 4 minute .mov file out of premiere. uncompressed 8bit 4.2.2, maximum bit depth. 2552x 1440 (16:9) it took about 2.5 mins to export. =42gb file

the same 4 minute video exported out as a .mov file as h264 maximum bit depth, 1920x1080 (16:9) took about 2 hours. =280mb file

why is this? Is it worth exporting out initially as uncompressed then re-importing and exporting with compression for manageable file size?
 
The extra time it's taking is for the compressing. It's pretty simple for it to export uncompressed so that goes quickly; basically just "spit it out". For compressed there is a lot of calculation that goes on for every frame.

There would be no advantage to re-importing the uncompressed and then compressing it because you have to eventually compress and will have to wait then. The exception could be in the case of using a third party compressing software, in that case you might export uncompressed and import into the third party sw.
 
I always render a uncompressed master file out of Premiere, than use Handbrake to do the h264 conversion - better quality, smaller file size and faster than Premiere.

Frank
 
thanks. i always thought it was the number of effects layers that determined the speed of export. 4mins of 2553x1080 footage made up of more than 30 clips with 4 layers of adjustment effects on each clip, exported in less than 3 mins seemed too good to be true. it then takes just 15mins to import back in and export as a h264 mov file. so total of under 18mins instead of almost 2 hours if i were to export straight to mov h264
 
That seems odd that it would be so much faster that way. Although 15 minutes for a 4 minute clip seems more what I would expect vs. 2 hours. I wonder if you ran out of ram or something when trying to do it all at once and that slowed it down.
 
30 clips, 4 layers of effects (each) sounds more like a job for AE than Premiere.

Also, I'm wondering because you didn't say . . . What's the quality of your 288 meg (2 hours to render) file look like when compared to the 42 gig/15 minute render?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top