Logo Logo
h.264 direkt verarbeiten oder vorher konvertieren???

h.264 process directly or convert before??

Frage von meawk:
Dezember 2009

I have all the time my MOV h.264 processed directly, ie without first converting to another codec (could do it, because the raw data could be processed completely and smoothly without jerking, etc. - cut, color grading... Rendering -).

Now someone claims in another forum that "would be bad" wg. the "not so good h.264 codec" and says, "The convert to another codec would be virtually synonymous better for image quality." So he says you should, in principle, synonymous if the system permits to convert the direct processing of raw materials, to a "better" codec. . .

Had happy times when the opinions of experts. If this opinion is true, which codec would be advisable to convert it into the front of the editing? Thank you in advance.

Antwort von Meggs:

Not universally valid is the statement from the other forum, I believe. I think it is possible that certain editing system provides for the direct processing of H.264 inferior results.

Antwort von meawk:

So, in my case, this is so: I'm working with Sony Vegas and had been of the opinion that, for example, those with Apple Final Cut Pro or FCE to work the problems with the 1080p h.264 AVCHD or were raw data, s.lautesten because I had heard the wailing from this corner in terms of real-time editing.

H.264 is "not a good codec, as suggested here sometimes?
If so I have no problems with Vegas with the raw data in the processing of 1080p, it is still converting the grounds of "supposedly not so good h.264 codec advisable before in a different codec to improve the image quality after rendering to receive?

Since an attachment is synonymous: "After Effects" finds this clutter (h.264) unworthy. . .?? Ähhhh. . .


Antwort von Axel:

To a deterioration occurs only if, for example is changed from NLE to an effect program, and it must be exported. Will you stay in your NLE and have the other hand, for any processing steps to render the meantime, refer all calculations of the final rendering process on the - admittedly sparse - Details of the original footage.

So it's all about real time. A weaker comprimierter codec increases the real-time. With it, the end result is not better, than if with suitable hardware and software of A to Z natively works in real time. But it prevents the loss of quality in a highly visible Zwischenexport or render necessary step if the editing system is not seized.

At the Apple History: Apple is well known, is set to ProRes. The fact that someone "complains" but I consider it a rumor. H.264 can be cut with Macs so far not clever in real time, period. If you can consistently with Vegas on your system can in real time, just be glad.

Since an attachment is synonymous: "After Effects" finds this clutter (h.264) unworthy. . .?? Ähhhh. . .

The one who has probably tried to keyframe multiple composition layers separately and found after the export has been forgotten one or the other keyframe ". Then he has the perhaps premature due to the fact that the H.264 too much time was compressed and did a test with an Intra-frame codec (such as DVC PRO HD "P2"), in which all the key frames were then "there". "Unworthy clutter" is irrelevant, however, that's true. Sowas does not have to happen (in fact the problem is well known and widespread), but when it happens, one tends to be more codecs that are not "better", but better "" ...

(EDIT: My buddy just corrected me: a rendering step means no additional quality loss, but he brings nothing synonymous. The next amendment rejects the existing render files. So just spoils the ex-and import the image quality.)

Antwort von meawk:

Thanks Axel!

Thus'd following workflow:
1. Original raw data in Vegas invite you to cut and render the film,
2. Load rendered movie in Vegas, color grading, etc. and then final render looks on film

no further quality loss wg. Point 2 mean. Am I correct?


Antwort von wolfgang:

Now, the longtime head of development department of Sony Vegas has never seen a problem is if you (directly into the Vegas timeline so virgin), HDV, or AVCHD processed material. To come to the decoding of this material is simply not herrum - no preference whether it happens in the NLE, or in one conversion tool converts about where to Intermediate. The justification of Intemediate codecs - such as the Canopus HQ or the Cineform codec - one part comes from the fact that we in the conversion of these codecs somewhat s.Qualität (measurable but loses almost) not visible, but the picture quality rendering stable over several generations can receive - what compositing together with the improved Farbsampling can be an advantage. The second reason for this lies in the better codecs playback capabilities in many NLEs. In sum, it is interesting to note that some synonymous Grass Valley - a long time supporter of their very high quality Canopus HQ codecs - has now developed a new decoder, and the markets as a booster in the new AVCHD Neo - and thus of the intermediate processing may something passed? Speculation perhaps, but just now handles this product AVCHD natively.

Why, in my understanding of the nativne AVCHD editing, is the fact that conditions of the adjustment mechanisms on AVCHD be retained. I'm convinced there was no expert, but the Vegas Pro workflow 9c here by now very much - the picture quality of the issued material of SonyAVC encoder loses to the original material is now so little that they have stuck with the nose and between the original HDTV must s.1920er render material and must switch back and forth to even still see a difference.

Relevant's just how good the decoder and encoder quality in a specific NLE. These components are bad, you might lose the joy of it. If you have a good system, but should not be.

Pass me the real-time capabilities for many issues, as I have today on a 2.7 GHz Q6600 with Vegas Pro 9c - and from all these backgrounds, I cut my Canon HF100 AVCHD material today, more and more natively. However, I am synonymous with rather simple compositing applications go, very much for compositing this may be different.

Antwort von meawk:

Thanks Wolfgang!

Antwort von Axel:

@ wolfgang. Exactly how I see it synonymous. Nativ is good. The border is where the real-time stops - or the patience of the cutters. Afaik you belong even more synonymous with the video and your friends know so that real early was not so obvious. But there were synonymous - and there are today - the assessment of a statue, which was Resolutiondargestellt full. This may be sufficient as long as it is not just about the timing of animations about.

"meawk" wrote:
Thus'd following workflow:
1. Original raw data in Vegas invite you to cut and render the film,
2. Load rendered movie in Vegas, color grading, etc. and then final render looks on film

no further quality loss wg. Point 2 mean. Am I correct?


Please go out of one pixel that lies somewhere in your clip to any frame. The H.264 file describes the pixel (position, color, brightness). It is 99.9% the same pixel, which would be described with a codec that compresses each frame independently. Now, if you are altering the sequence of frames, by so-called hard cuts, the entire new system of reference are converted to all remaining data. Depending on how good the encoder is, perhaps, is the pixel and 98.5% the same as before (at the intra-codec 100%).

The important thing is to be aware that there is definitely recompression by a certain loss of quality. Therefore, it would be better not to export the movie and the effects of the grading in the same program. If the encoder is not quite so great, may already be in hard cuts off the brilliance.

But this is probably still unlikely at Vegas of (the many muddy DSLR videos that are circulating in my district judge, one can not say that of all.). But it is absolutely forbidden to change s.dem film before the first export anything, which has implications for pixels in a frame, so their position, Chroma or Luma. Done, not only will the original information that a hypothetical pixels lost, but irretrievably synonymous all related to spatially and temporally.

The next generation - after the import and export so endültigen one - is to look fuzzy and be full of artifacts. That you need not believe hearsay, you can test it: Export the Stillimage an original clip. Then alter the brightness and minimum export. Re-import, make a letterbox mask over it (or so) and export again. Mach of the same spot again Stillimage. That it is darker and has a letterbox is not the worst. It has become mush! And the changes are in Comparison to what we normally hires with Video, ridiculous.

Editing you object to a swing in real time and after trimming, etc. exportierst a final film, which is Stillimage with the naked eye to be indistinguishable from the original, except for the improvements through the postpro.

Antwort von wolfgang:

"meawk" wrote:

Thus'd following workflow:
1. Original raw data in Vegas invite you to cut and render the film,
2. Load rendered movie in Vegas, color grading, etc. and then final render looks on film

no further quality loss wg. Point 2 mean. Am I correct?

Perhaps a simple way: this workflow would schelcht because he goes over defacto 2 Render generations. The native cut is recommended when one needs only one generation rendering - ie the material into the timeline sets, where all the changes and then makes the result directly rausrendert.

Vegas still supported unofficially and in specific cases of AVCHD material beiCanonHF100 material smartrendern but only if the event in the timeline does not s.Anfang trims. Since sowas but when cut often happens, what good is difficult.

So, all cut into Vegas and corrected in the timeline, and render it out.

Oh Axel, of course, we had a time there was hardly avi cut. Then came DV. And then we had a time there was hardly any mpeg2 cut possible - we talked about that mpeg2 a distribution format is inappropriate for the cut and then only for SVCDs or DVDs would be good. Today we cut mpeg2 HDV or synonymous in the form of full-HD mpeg2 and butter without any problems. Today it is occasionally speaks of that AVC is a distribution format - is what you say about this tomorrow?

The quality of the rendered material can still be considered always good when the average system is the original footage and the rendered material frame-accurate sets of each other - and at some pictures in the form of looking at the difference images. One can even be quantified, but of course remain static images. But to do that you see today hold relatively small differences in AVCHD, between original material and a first-generation rendering.

The real-time capabilities are no longer the bottleneck soo much - clearly brauchts fast systems, unchanged. But some decoders are already on clock speed of the processor has become relatively independent, for example, brings it currently on my Q6600 no more overclock for real-time preview in Vegas Pro 9 for 1920 AVCHD material. Of course we are not now as much as for example in mpeg2, but the systems evolve next (perhaps more slowly than originally expected, but they evolve) next. Overall, the native editing of AVCHD will hold more and more fashionable.

Needless to say, that all these considerations are more for the consumer / prosumer segment. Professionals will be unchanged to take a higher value acquisition format, and for good reasons. AVCHD and HDV formats are unchanged consumer, of AVC-i is not stop the speech.

Antwort von meawk:

Axel Thank you, thank Wolfgang, there's a lot to me now "clear". . .

Antwort von Axel:

"wolfgang" wrote:
But to do that you see today hold relatively small differences in AVCHD, between original material and a first-generation rendering.

WoWu can always very well explained. Although the files are smaller than, say, HDV is not AVCHD "more compressed", but intelligent compressed. It may well be that this a smart rendering is possible, synonymous when one trims the top, at least, that we see no difference. H.264 is similar.

But I do not synonymous wrote about the first generation, but on the next, and I wrote of synonymous changes in the pixels. This is precisely defined only on a few values, and any change of it is Offer of information, not as in hard cuts, in parts per thousand range, but double-digit percentage range.

When the second generation will build on these clipped information, the synonymous use sophisticated encoding protocols any more, unless said a light blue pixels: In a previously saved Mov but I was green ....

Antwort von meawk:

Thanks Axel, I know what you want out and I will no longer continue to get stuck in "shirtsleeves" s.The thing.

Antworten zu ähnlichen Fragen:
Gratis Color Process online Seminar
h.264 Bitrate
H.264 codec
H.264 für Linux
HEVC vs. H.264 Dateigröße
H.264 TV Aufnahmen eindampfen
PP2020 - h.264 Export
h.264 or mpeg 4 or 263
H.264 ruckelt bei Wiedergabe
Umrechnungsfaktor Bitrate MPEG2 -> H.264?
Edius 9.4 keine H.264 400Mbit/s.
H.264 --> als DVD brennen
H.264 / H265 Codec in Da Vinci Resolve
DavinciResolve H.265/264 NVIDIA allgemeineFragen
Welche sinnvolle H.264 DirectShow-Komponente?
h.265 statt h.264 - Lohnt es sich?
Arbeiten mit AVC/H.264 Dateien (MPEG-4)
MPEG-4 H.264 mit einer DVB-C Karte
DVD (.vob) in H.264 rekodieren - nur womit?
Warum ist h.265 "heller" als h.264?
Vidiu Teradek X: Kompakter Streaming H.264-Encoder
Seltsame Bildfehler im unteren Drittel bei H.264
Externer Rekorder für 4K H.264/265 10Bit?
warum ruckeln Schwenks/Zooms bei H.264-Transportstreams?
AJA HELO Plus: Professionelles H.264 Recording und duales Streaming
PCIe DVB-S+hdtv-mpeg2+h.264- oder USB-Karte.

weitere Themen:

Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
After effects
Apple Final Cut Pro
Avid Media Composer
Final Cut
MAGIX video deLuxe
Pinnacle Studio