Hello Leonel, Sounds like interlace problems to me. It could be that the screen you are viewing it on just doesn't do interlace. Try playing it with Windows Media Player or VLC to see if that makes any change (or another viewer at least).
If not, try that G-Spot (free) program to see what the original exactly is and try to keep the outputted file the same. Personally, if the HD version is OK, I would convert that using one of the free converters and try to keep all the settings (apart from the codec of course) as close as possible, aspect ratio etc. In the field selection I think its upper first for PAL and lower for NTSC however if you re-encode in Adobe PP. Your almost there now... Cheers, Neil. On 29 June 2011 14:09, Leonel Dolara <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > > Dear Greg and Neil, > > Thanks a lot for your clarifying answers. Yes, all the computers that I > tested on with the HD version of the movie where kind of old and no more > than one core for them. I myself have a quad core so of course it could > play > it well. > I have just tested the MPG version on the old ones and it plays very well, > so my problem is solved. And I understand and agree with you both about the > explanations for the files to be the same size. And when I rendered in mpg > I > used Maximum bitrate and Maximum everything (8mbps of video) so the mpg > file > could have been smaller. > > Just one more little question: on the mpg version I found that the faces of > the movie shot originally in HD are a bit pixelated (it shows on the faces > because they move, but I guess it is all the frame. You get to see > horizontal lines when the faces move as if there were a transparent blind > before them) , as if the deinterlace is done wrong (I guess). Could that be > that I selected it in upper and should be lower? For the record is not the > natural blurness that you see in a mpg video compared to the HD version, > it's something else. > > Thank you all! > > > 2011/6/29 BEDFORD NEIL <[email protected]> > > > Hi Greg, > > > > Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. Good fun back then, wasn't it? > > > > I'm not 100% on this, but what I do know is that, uncompressed HD video > is > > large in size (obviously). Reading a few forums on this, it seems its > > about > > 400-675GB an hour in size. Go to R3D and this shoots through the roof... > > > > However, this handy size calculator says different, but doesn't include > > adjustable bit-rates or FPS etc: > > > > <http://www.fastvideoindexer.com/articles/VideoSizes/VideoSize.htm> > > > > I believe APP does some clever math and utilises the GFX card (CUDA) > > support > > for rendering on the fly, making it seem to take much less time than it > > does > > with SD video. > > Problem is, we may have the technology to edit HD, but some people are > > still > > struggling to view HD video on You-Tube and Vimeo, let alone any files we > > may create for them. > > (I sometimes create a Lo-Fi version too, for people that have these > > 'issues'.) > > > > Playing around with the output settings for the final render, I have > found > > the 'Vimeo HD' setting seems to be the best quality against file size, no > > doubt the You-Tube one is similar. Tried outputting 1080 HD to an AVI > > once, > > ouch! > > > > Interesting thread and no doubt others will chip in with their > experiences > > too. > > > > Thanks, > > Neil. (Still learning.) > > > > On 29 June 2011 08:36, Gregg Eshelman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Which is also why it's possible to edit uncompressed SD video on old > > boxes > > > like a Pentium III which might be barely capable of playing a DVD using > > > software decoding. Done there, been that. ;) Also experienced the fun > of > > > maxing at 7 frames per second encoding to MPEG2, and that with a dual > 450 > > > Mhz PIII server. The single CPU Socket A box I had at the time could > get > > up > > > to 10, 12 with a tailwind! > > > > > > Does the same apply to HD where a system can edit it uncompressed with > > ease > > > but not be able to play it well or at all, and take forever to compress > > it? > > > Or are the requirements for editing high enough that playback and > > > compression at least as fast as realtime are no problem? > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/29/11, BEDFORD NEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hence the need for a faster processor > > > > to decompress the video.... the more > > > > the compression, the more power needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MPEG2 is an old codec, goes back to the mid 1990's. > > > > MP4 is newer, more > > > > > optimized and can produce a better image than MPEG2 > > > > with higher levels of > > > > > compression. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > Leonel Dolara > Actor y Director > leoneldolara.webs.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
