Weird: QT Pro output is cleaner than Compressor's

Working at E3 right now, have to compress my outputs to client specs for their web site. They asked for H.264 saved as an MP4, 1100 kbps at a custom size. They told they normally compress using Quicktime Pro - opening their SCQTs and using the 'Export' command. I tried to set up a custom Compressor setting with the exact same specs and tested both methods.

The QTPro output is definitely cleaner, especially on details like the lower thirds. I would have expected the outputs to match ? don't both apps use the same engine for compression?

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

Custom size? Is there any resizing? If there is, turn on frame controls and set it to "best".



www.strypesinpost.com

That was it! Thanks Strypes!

Yeah it was 480x270, an odd size. When do you think we should enable Frame Controls - when it's an odd size, or anytime you resize to a smaller frame?

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

I would enable Frame Controls whenever I am doing any kind of scaling. The trade off between "Good" to "Best is between time and quality. "Best" uses an optical flow based scaling algorithm so it will produce the sharpest result, but it may result in artifacts if your source material is not so good (eg. excessive noise or pixelation). The trickier bit may have been in the lower third. Semi transparent layers tend to be problematic with most forms of motion estimation, so if artifacts are present, you may want to switch to "better" (bi-linear). However, because you're going to a web based format which also uses motion estimation for compression, artifacts may be caused by the H.264 encoding as well, so you will need to test.



www.strypesinpost.com