Jump to content
Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Titles for resuse...AVI or MP4?

Recommended Posts

When making generic titles for reuse is it better to save in AVI or MP4? I can't see much difference in quality between the two.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MP4 files will almost always be compressed. That might be fine, since there are major camera mastering formats that are effectively MP4, but I'd steer away from it.

AVI files can contain many different things. It depends on what codecs it's using, and you should be able to set that up somewhere. Really, you probably want something like titles stored uncompressed, so look around for a suitable settings panel. The resulting files will be big, but you won't compromise anything.

P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. What type of files are uncompressed? I'm using a PC not Apple. Size is not a big deal for me. I'd just like to be able to make a library of stock titles to save time. But want titles to look as good as was originally made.

I think the AVI is 264 if that means anything.

Beside titles, it would also be nice to save the edited video clips uncompressed in the origonal res.

Here are my export options.

Mp4

Avi

Mov

Mpeg1

Mpeg2

Wmv

Mkv

Flv

M2ts h264

Webm

Ogv

Swf

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AVI is a wrapper.

MP4 is a compressor AND a wrapper. 

Most of the time AVI is a MPEG variant like .h264 or .h265. 

Both are horrible codecs that only exist for streaming online. 

You really want to work with Pro Res (mac) or DNX (windows) if you care about any quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vnx-vs-mp4-rs.jpg.317637c5d0ccf20c513bc97ddb8ec119.jpg

20 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

AVI is a wrapper.

MP4 is a compressor AND a wrapper. 

Most of the time AVI is a MPEG variant like .h264 or .h265. 

Both are horrible codecs that only exist for streaming online. 

You really want to work with Pro Res (mac) or DNX (windows) if you care about any quality. 

I just rendered a short 1080P 24fps clip on Premiere Pro in mp4 h.264 and in VNX. I took stills of the same frame and compared the two. While the VNX does seem to show more detail I noticed that it is also more saturated adding a bit more pink to the clip. Do you notice this as well? Do you compensate for it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AVI can be all kinds of things. Anything that offers AVI container should offer a variety of compression options, including "none." The same goes for "mov" which effectively means "Quicktime."

If you aren't being given those options, to be completely upfront, it sounds like you're using really very basic software and it might be better to find something more capable.

It's quite possible to get high quality results out of h.264, which is the codec generally used inside MP4 files (which are themselves heavily based on Quicktime.) Several camera codecs, including those used by Sony and Panasonic, use h.264. There are a lot of configuration options for h.264 which can yield results suitable for high end mastering, or suitable for a realtime phone video chat. It does a lot of different things.

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/23/2019 at 5:31 PM, Bob Speziale said:

vnx-vs-mp4-rs.jpg.317637c5d0ccf20c513bc97ddb8ec119.jpg

I just rendered a short 1080P 24fps clip on Premiere Pro in mp4 h.264 and in VNX. I took stills of the same frame and compared the two. While the VNX does seem to show more detail I noticed that it is also more saturated adding a bit more pink to the clip. Do you notice this as well? Do you compensate for it?

 

MP4 looks better to me. More shadow detail, less contrast. VNX may be slightly sharper, but can't be for sure. In either case saturation looks too much for my taste. 

What I'm looking for is something like TIFF, but for video. With TIFF still photos you can import, work on it and export. Then re-import the TIFF and do more work and export. It stays the same and does not change when exported.

What codec is like that for video? Or should one be shooting in a certain codec that is conducive to import and export without loss? I don't have fancy cinema cams. I'm using Fuji 1080p and Sony 4k still cams for video and don't know what options for video they do have. I just use them at the default video setting.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

 

MP4 looks better to me. More shadow detail, less contrast. But VNX may be slightly sharper. But can't be for sure.

 

What I'm looking for is something like TIFF, but for video. With TIFF still photos you can import, work on it and export. Then re-import the TIFF and do more work and export. It stays the same and does not change when exported. What codec is like that for video? 

I just save the changes each time to a different project name, like project-v1, project v2, etc. so if I don't like the way things are coming out I can go back to a previous version, and I can compare still frames of different versions exported with different names. For pics I shoot raw, but save as 16 bit jpg, so the raw files are never changed. For video I work in premiere pro and export as h.264 mp4 at the highest quality available,  and use 20mbps 2pass vbr for HD and 40mbps 2 pass vbr for 4K.

Ultimately my stuff will go on a website for stills or youtube or vimeo for video so it gets viewed on someone's smart phone or laptop or desktop. I try for the best quality but am not fanatic about it because it's not being played in a theater or displayed in a gallery blown up to a large print where the quality would show.

I remember the excitement of first hearing the Beatles and the Stones on AM through a transistor radio, so the magic is in the content. Years later I heard the Yellow Submarine album on CD on a good system in 5.1 surround and I could pick out every individual instrument. It was amazing but didn't change the way the song affected me. These days I listen to music on youtube on $30 plastic computer speakers or $20 headphones or on the oldies cable TV station with 3" speakers on the side of my TV set. So I think most of the enjoyment is in the listener's brain rather than the medium.

Edited by Bob Speziale
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm confused. When you say "titles" to me, you're referring to graphics/text elements. 

It appears to me you're talking about "videos" or "finished product".

So finished product is generally produced using the following method;

- Pro Res or DNXHR master is created and backed up. 
- OMF export OR discrete non-mixed audio stems are exported
- Project file will be exported as XML and AAF for future reference
- All of these final pieces will be put onto a hard drive and LTO tape backup 

Once that is completed, you will create the final export for web. 

- .h264 codec, double pass, VBR, 1080p, 20Mbps max, 18Mbps minimal
- .h265 codec, double pass, VBR, UHD, 40Mbps max, 30Mbps minimal

Looks like you're running into the age old problem of consistency with color space. Apple spent a lot of time developing quicktime in order to insure the color is accurate across the board. That doesn't mean it will be accurate on youtube, which generally requires a bit of tweaking on the color side to get accurate. I do all of my grading/exporting in DaVinci these days and I've found the colors to be FAR more accurate than Premiere/Media Encoder. I make the .h264 right out of DaVinci and it works so well, the quality is literally perfect. I actually rip the file from youtube, throw it back in DaVinci and throw it on my color grading monitor to insure its identical. 

You also have to remember, you need to keep the colors within the Rec 709 spec. If you fall out of spec, the MPEG encodes will look like crap. 





 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler, it started out as titles. But now the discussion has morphed into titles as well as video clips.

I noticed when I saved titles and reused them they were more pixelated than fresh titles never recycled. When I wrote the post I did not have the problem I have now which is lots of video that needs editing. And I want to export that edited video to reuse later as a fresh import. Is that possible with video editing or do you have to keep the video that you put into the editor current and never export it as it will lose quality if reimported?

Say I have an hour of video and need to cut it down to 10 min. I want to export in a format that can later be re-imported with no loss. 

Here are my export options.

Mp4

Avi

Mov

Mpeg1

Mpeg2

Wmv

Mkv

Flv

M2ts h264

Webm

Ogv

Swf

Will any of them yield an export with no loss when it is re-imported? Or do I need different software?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, those export options are wrappers, not codec's. So really mentioning them doesn't mean anything really. Inside each wrapper you posted above, there is a compression codec that needs to be selected. Inside each codec there will be a style of compression, either i frame or long GOP in most of the 'MPEG' varants. You want to stay away from any MPEG varant for "mastering". 

As pointed out above, you want Pro Res or DNXHR for 2k and 4k "mastering". Outside of theatrical, which generally master to DCP's (which is a JPEG2000 codec variant), our home editorial software can generally use one of those two codec. Sadly there is no other industry standard lossless codec on the market which your computer can encode that can be used specifically for editorial purposes, other than Pro Res and DNXHR. 

Adobe Premiere, Avid and DaVinci Resolve can all work with DNXHR on windows and Pro Res on Mac. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  Normally my software is fine. But projects are not complex like the one lm doing.  Will check out Adobe Premiere Elements.

Bob also had good idea to save various versions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Bob also had good idea to save various versions. 

Just remember, .h264 is the lowest acceptable quality codec available and using it for mastering is silly because it's so highly compressed, if there was any data degradation there would be no recovery available. It works great for uploading to web viewing, but that's about it. Remember that BluRay's are between 30 - 40Mbps .h264 and UHD BluRay's are upwards of 150Mbps .h265. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Abel Cine



    Visual Products



    Just Cinema Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    CineLab



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    Metropolis Post



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Ritter Battery



    FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    Serious Gear



    Wooden Camera


×
×
  • Create New...