got me to the tryoutversion of premiere pro 2 test load. First have a project made from 3 1-3 mb big avis, ton background and exported. the result was not only about 30 mb large but synonymous in horrible quality compared to the sources. I then have to try even a wmv simply placed into the project, maximized to full screen as possible and with the same configurations as the original exported. again, twice the size and quality of nasty! mitlerweile I'm about to run against wall to ne.
apparently it is generally not possible to make good quality videos with acceptable file size. lies s.der tryout version, or am I just too stupid good codec or format settings set?
Antwort von Kast&Oroff:
What export codec are using it for? And what settings?
Antwort von Kast&Oroff:
ichs have been tried with: always DV - PAL / standard template
divx 5.2.1 320x240 25/30 fps square pixel divxconfig: encoding performance: slow, and in between 250-700 kbps, encode mode: 1pass, Interlacing: Progressive-source, source pre-processing already tried everything, max keyframe interval: 300 u 500; everything else std.
then
windows media video 9 codec 320x240 25/30 fps pxl square config: one-pass vbr quality, Qualy 80 U 100, decoder complexity main u complex, key frame interval 8000 ms
and ffdshow with divx and xvid. quite the same settings. although the picture is getting any worse. either somewhat or very milky ugly.
habs jetzt mal but not with the template profile with the Custom. settings tried.
video for windows, divx with cfgs the same as above. This time threw times acceptable quality. settings but it was only a single large 1mb avi with the same 4,5 mb but I think for something larger file size. * * be frustrated to try cheering s.verzweifeln am. namely'd like to tinker and make a few videos on youtube, so the input would be less appropriate. : [
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
1. Generally, 2-pass VBR. 1-pass is not efficient enough. With 2-pass is analyzed and then transformed, so better quality at the same place (so synonymous directly write DVD recorders are shit).
2. What EXACTLY is it worse? Milky? Very ugly? By this I do not understand much.
3. If the original material really progressive?
4. Expect the people at YouTube, the material is not anyway around so that it is compatible and playable now (I do not know really happy to know it)?
Antwort von Kast&Oroff:
The problem is the rohmaterial, divx and wmv are END-packed, if you do the project loads, so the export is again compressed, so the lousy quali!
wmv which is now relatively smaller than ne-avi divx, so if you export as divx, may well be that the file is bigger again, but just with lousy quality. (but killed 10 times?)
With rohmaterial better if it were, it is not so heavily compressed! or wenns no other way, I'd (likely divx / wmv material as the huffyuv then there ne rather large file, which you can edit at least reasonable / lossless), while export as avi then does not quite vllt lost so much quality, but ner as in wmv rohmaterial I'm here anyway very skeptical ...
VLG
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
You have misunderstood something.
These are the export format, which he used! Not the raw material.
Antwort von Kast&Oroff:
ok. now s.end times came out with a file of acceptable size and quality. I 2pass taken as recommended, however, may have been the main errors that the swelling was de-interlaced videos. think you're right with the server-side post-processing on youtube are indeed synonymous. flv files (flash video, I'll take much time on)
Thank you for the tips, help: D synonymous vlg
Antwort von Kast&Oroff:
oh yes. there were already compressed divx, and wmv files. got one with a similar program fraps game videos they made and not made into a short-film musikunterlegtem. perhaps there is also a link. is nothing special and will be interested but does not slow down (game: just cause). But there must be forged before or tuned;)
