Is it me or is AE export way better than AME?

[David Rypstra]

I would guess its because you are editing in a DV timeline. I would stay in native HDV and resize in AME. Maybe even make a custom uncompressed SD timeline and then use AME?

[Tim Kolb]

Before I’d make that call, I’d set up a custom project/sequence setting in PPro with a 640×480 frame size and try to export it to the exact same encoder settings.

Sourcing non-square pixels from a DV PPro timeline to export with a 12% higher pixel count (720×480 vs 640×480) than rendering something from AE with square pixels, and encoding to square pixels is not “…set(ting) everything up in premiere the way it is in AE…”

I’m quite certain the two different framesizes in sources, and then the two different framesizes on the encode targets play a role in the difference you are seeing.

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

[Alex Ezorsky]

Ok thanks for all your help, however here’s what I’ve done since to no avail.

I made a premiere timeline that was 640×480 square with source shrunk to fit, rendered 640×480 square
(still not sharp)
I made a premiere timeline that was 1920×1080 square and rendered it shrunk and cropped in AME
(still not sharp)
I made a premiere timeline that was 1440×1080 square and rendered it simply shrunk in AME
(still not sharp)

I go back, check my render from AE and though the files are roughly the same size the difference in image quality is obvious. If it will help I will find a way to post these videos for reference.

I really want to trust premiere, but now I don’t know what to think, are all of my square pixel premiere projects better off done in AE?

Any other ideas?

Again thanks a bunch.

[Slobodan Milivojevic]

AME is now upddated (4.2 update), and all export issues have been fixed….

But, regarding your answer, AFX export is very good, so if are working on a project in this software, than go on with AFX….

[Alex Ezorsky]

Well AE isn’t so good at long projects (15min), doesnt do live-preview, and sucks at audio editing. The project is quite simple so I figured premiere would be fine. Why is premiere exporting the same dimensions, same aspect, same, pixel ratio, same compression, at LOWER QUALITY!?

[Tim Kolb]

[alex ezorsky] “Why is premiere exporting the same dimensions, same aspect, same, pixel ratio, same compression, at LOWER QUALITY!?”

Um…how are these two examples the same anything?

Per your initial post:
———————————-
AE comp settings 640×480 sq px (video scaled down)
AE export settings: FLV 640×480 CBR 480mbps

Premiere sequence settings: DV NTSC 720×480 (.9) (video scaled down)
AME export settings: FLV 720×480 CBR 480 mbps (crop 2 px on top)

—————————————————

These may be the same approximate viewing size, but there is almost nothing else that is common between them other than the final bitrate of the FLV.

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

[Alex Ezorsky]

Ok you are right and I am sorry to let my frustration show.

However in my second post I mentioned how I made changes to the settings in response to your post about size differences.

At the time of my first post I was not aware that the “desktop” setting in premiere meant “custom” (strange to me) which is why I settled for the DV NTSC preset. However since then what I did was make sure my AE comp and Premiere sequence had the same settings.

AE: 640×480 square 29.9fps
Premiere: 640×480 square 29.9fps

Then I opened AME and imported both the comp and the sequence. Then I exported both with the same settings.

AME export: FLV 640×480 500kbps

After reviewing, the premiere file was still less sharp than the AE one.

Thanks again for all your help.

[Tim Kolb]

Was the source material DV?

I’m not completely sure, but I think AE makes everything progressive unless you choose otherwise.

I wonder what would happen if you went into the PPro project and made that clip “always deinterlace” in the field options?

Progressive material will always fair better through an aggressive transcode than interlace will…

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

[Alex Ezorsky]

AH! I LOVE YOU!

Seriously I was about to completely lose it with Premiere and seriously considered FCP. My situation is still quite stupid but you have hit the nail mostly on the head.

first I tried setting up a sequence as (progressive). The result was a much clearer image during little motion, but low and behold when the character moved warbly ghosting would appear.

Then I tried going back to the normal 640×480 sequence and changed the field to “always de-interlace” on the clip settings which sadly had no effect.

Finally I went back to my progressive sequence, changed the clip to “always de-interlace” and voila! Finally the full crispness the video was intended to be!

Strange notes: My camera (admittedly lower end) the JVC HD7, supposedly creates files that are 1920×1080 square, interlaced. When I did some research however, I found out that the camera apparently first captures 1080p then somehow converts it to interlaced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JVC_GZ-HD7. This seems ridiculous to me.

I am also still a bit confused why even in the timeline and timeline monitor my raw files 1920x1080i square scaled down into a 640x480i square timeline look low quality, but the same file looks fine in a 1920x1080i timeline OR when scaling down looks fine in a 640×480 square but only if DE-interlaced in a progressive timeline.

This is some heady video science that I am trying to wrap my head around but only getting halfway.

Whether I totally get it or not, I have found the solution and owe it all to you Tim Kolb.

Thank you, and thanks CCF

[Tim Kolb]

🙂

Glad to help.

It can be frustrating to troubleshoot these issues at times…

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,