Render in PE8 washed out

[paul440]

One more little nag that i can't solve.

Attached is a side by side of an MTS file on the timeline (without Timeline Render by the way - its just PE8 best effort to show the MTS file using my hardware). You can see the quality is good.

On the right part of the attached image is the MPEG or H.264 render at 1280x720p. What I dont understand is why the colours are washed out? Look at my shirt and pants and esp the blue pants of the kids...

Oops! will update my own post before Im accused of spreading dis-information. I just watched the original MTS files in the ImageMixer prog that came with the HF200 - and to be fair I would say they are also washed out just like the render. So that kind of suggests that the render is doing the right thing and just showing the original as it is... but it also suggests that the viewing window in PE has fiddled non-destructively with the files to make them look better... And they do look better!!

Can anybody comment on what PE does to colour enhance files for previewing? This seems to be a bit confusing, because how can you make your editing decisions if you are already seeing something thats been touched up?

Paul.

[ATR]

paul440

it also suggests that the viewing window in PE has fiddled non-destructively with the files to make them look better... And they do look better!!

I would agree that the process of rendering the Timeline by pressing the Enter Key of the computer main keyboard is "non-destructive", but after than I would ask you to look further into the concept of this type of rendering.

This type of rendering has NO impact on the quality and just gives you the best possible preview of what your end product will look like. It is especially useful when dealing with titles, transitions, effects, and non DV AVI components. That is why your "make them look better" caught my attention.

You could have a Timeline content that looks "good" in the Edit Mode Monitor unrendered and "good" when you view the export when played back on your computer or TV. Other possibilities include:
a. Edit Mode Monitor, good unrendered, and Export, bad at playback.
b. Edit Mode Monitor, bad unrendered, good rendered, and Export, good at playback.
Rendering is your window of opportunity to get your best possible preview of what the end product will look like (with your edits applied to a final product), and it offers picking up problems that can be corrected at the Edit Mode level and before export. Your end product is the best final judge for quality. There are some who say "you do not have to render the Timeline, my Edit Mode Monitor view is good" and do not render and continue to export presuming a good export playback which may or may not be the case.

The down sides of rendering the Timeline this way are:
a. time consuming
b. creates large temporarily files on your hard drive, example, a 80 KB photo could result in a 17 MB .avi preview file from ONE render of the photo; a 380 KB .12 second video could result in a 42 MB .avi preview file for ONE render of that video. That is why one should consider to directing preview files (Scratch Files) off the C local drive to typically an external hard drive. (See Edit Menu/Preferences/Scratch Discs).

DV AVI is the native format of the Premiere Elements Timeline. When you import non DV AVI content, the need for rendering of the Timeline in the Edit Mode is a major consideration for reasons cited above. Use of high definition video and this type of rendering take you to larger size preview files being deposited to your hard drive.

ATR

[paul440]

Hi ATR,
Thanks for your reply (I am amazed at the countless hours you put into this forum to help people - very inspiring).

I may have mislead you slightly with my long ramble.

For sure the process of rendering the timeline is non-destructive - its just creating low qual preview movies so you can see your editing faster and smoother. And the final render has nothing to do with those low qual files anway. So we agree there.

My workflow to recreate the problem in my attached photo is:
* Add an MTS file to the Timeline. (Background rendering off).
* Red line appears above the clip proving the PE has not attempted to create any low qual preview of this yet.
* Do not hit Enter - ensure that no previews are created.
* Now I can move the current-time indicator (the red vertical line) to anywhere in the clip and PE will display that frame in the Monitor Panel.

("Monitor Panel" is the term used on P13 of the PDF manual).

Now, if I look at the frame shown in the Monitor Panel, the colours will be darker and sharper than either (a) the original MTS file viewed in an MTS viewer or (b) any final render of the movie at high quality settings.

It is that comparison that Im showing in the photo. I am not discussing anything to do with the preview renders PE does for you.

Interestingly the final (MPG) render will look identical with its flat colours to the original MTS viewed in an MTS viewer - which makes me think that everything is happening correctly.

I am just perplexed about what PE is doing to show the frame on the Monitor Panel - it seems like it is saturating the colour slightly (and in a positive way too). But that ends up being misleading and unhelpful.

(Now if I do choose to Timeline Render a section of the clip - the colours still stay darker compared to the original - but I think that is unrelated to this problem).

PE7 and PE8 have native support for AVCHD files (although I think nobody can actually work easily with them in editing; except maybe i7 and Windows 7) - do we know if the codec used or the way in which PE is showing those files within the prog is altering the colour space ??

Does that make more sense? (I hope my terminology is correct).

Look forward to responses.

Originally Posted by ATR

paul440



I would agree that the process of rendering the Timeline by pressing the Enter Key of the computer main keyboard is "non-destructive", but after than I would ask you to look further into the concept of this type of rendering.

This type of rendering has NO impact on the quality and just gives you the best possible preview of what your end product will look like. It is especially useful when dealing with titles, transitions, effects, and non DV AVI components. That is why your "make them look better" caught my attention.

You could have a Timeline content that looks "good" in the Edit Mode Monitor unrendered and "good" when you view the export when played back on your computer or TV. Other possibilities include:
a. Edit Mode Monitor, good unrendered, and Export, bad at playback.
b. Edit Mode Monitor, bad unrendered, good rendered, and Export, good at playback.
Rendering is your window of opportunity to get your best possible preview of what the end product will look like (with your edits applied to a final product), and it offers picking up problems that can be corrected at the Edit Mode level and before export. Your end product is the best final judge for quality. There are some who say "you do not have to render the Timeline, my Edit Mode Monitor view is good" and do not render and continue to export presuming a good export playback which may or may not be the case.

The down sides of rendering the Timeline this way are:
a. time consuming
b. creates large temporarily files on your hard drive, example, a 80 KB photo could result in a 17 MB .avi preview file from ONE render of the photo; a 380 KB .12 second video could result in a 42 MB .avi preview file for ONE render of that video. That is why one should consider to directing preview files (Scratch Files) off the C local drive to typically an external hard drive. (See Edit Menu/Preferences/Scratch Discs).

DV AVI is the native format of the Premiere Elements Timeline. When you import non DV AVI content, the need for rendering of the Timeline in the Edit Mode is a major consideration for reasons cited above. Use of high definition video and this type of rendering take you to larger size preview files being deposited to your hard drive.

ATR

[ATR]

Paul,

You continuously refer to the Premiere Elements previews in terms of low quality. I would differ with you on that idea.

I have consistently observed high quality previews (sharp and crisp) after rendering the Timeline in the Edit Mode to get the best possible preview of the end product. But, I will not labor that point now.

With regard to your observations on your source media viewed with "MTS viewer", imported media on the Timeline viewed in the Edit Mode Monitor with or without rendering, and your end product viewed by whatever player.....have you factored in the major contribution of your computer Monitor(s). You ask about Premiere Elements color management for unrendered Timeline content (which is like asking what a Hollywood star looks like without makeup), but not about your Monitor's native resolution and color management.

I have two monitors, one widescreen with a high native resolution and another SD with lower native resolution. If I go to the Premiere Elements Window Menu/, click on Show Docking Headers, and drag the Premiere Elements Monitor from one to the other computer Monitor, I get a darker colored image on one than the other. Have you looked into this?

Further, I do not believe that starting out with source media of questionable quality is the way to start out. True, in Premiere Elements Effects, there are Adjust effects that can be applied (Auto Levels, Channel Mixer, and such) that can improve a not so good situation, but....

It sounds like that you are very serious about your video editing work and have looked into various aspects of the project. But I would ask you to consider my comments without getting trapped in certain areas.

ATR

[paul440]

Hi ATR,

Ooops, my apologies you are right I did continuously refer to previews as low quality. I think I was too focussed on my own workflow where that is always the case. Sorry about that...

You are right that every monitor is different, but in my case I only have one. So I am seeing the same clip, on the same screen looking quite different in different applications - these differences are shown in my original photo. And I have done no processing to the clip at all.

So in my mind, the application (PE) seems to be doing something to the MTS clip as it shows it. Bear in mind this is native AVCHD, which it would seem few people seem to bother with in PE. Maybe after a convert to hi quality MPG and then putting that on the time line (what most people are doing?) will actually result in a better representation of the clip and then there will be no differences to the timeline view and final Export.

I wll try that and report back. Any other tips or things you can see wrong in my workflow please let me know. And apologies once again for casting a negative view on the preview files - I clearly still have much to learn..

Paul.

Originally Posted by ATR

Paul,

You continuously refer to the Premiere Elements previews in terms of low quality. I would differ with you on that idea.

I have consistently observed high quality previews (sharp and crisp) after rendering the Timeline in the Edit Mode to get the best possible preview of the end product. But, I will not labor that point now.

With regard to your observations on your source media viewed with "MTS viewer", imported media on the Timeline viewed in the Edit Mode Monitor with or without rendering, and your end product viewed by whatever player.....have you factored in the major contribution of your computer Monitor(s). You ask about Premiere Elements color management for unrendered Timeline content (which is like asking what a Hollywood star looks like without makeup), but not about your Monitor's native resolution and color management.

I have two monitors, one widescreen with a high native resolution and another SD with lower native resolution. If I go to the Premiere Elements Window Menu/, click on Show Docking Headers, and drag the Premiere Elements Monitor from one to the other computer Monitor, I get a darker colored image on one than the other. Have you looked into this?

Further, I do not believe that starting out with source media of questionable quality is the way to start out. True, in Premiere Elements Effects, there are Adjust effects that can be applied (Auto Levels, Channel Mixer, and such) that can improve a not so good situation, but....

It sounds like that you are very serious about your video editing work and have looked into various aspects of the project. But I would ask you to consider my comments without getting trapped in certain areas.

ATR

[ATR]

Paul,

How about this? It is quick and easy and may help.

Download the free HD Converter called Koyote Soft from:
http://www.koyotesoft.com

With Koyote Soft, convert your AVCHD (presumed 1920 x 1080, 25 interlaced frames per second) to:
MPEG2 1920 x 1080 16:9
Frame Rate: 25 frames per second
Video Bitrate: 9000 to 25000, Kilobytes per second
Audio Bitrate: 448 Kilobytes per second (higher offered)

Then run the converted video through the same paces in Premiere Elements 7 and 8 as you did with the original which I believe to be AVCHD (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264) 1920 x 1080i 25 frames per second. Did you ever say which camcorder this original is coming from?

Also, as I asked in the other thread of your's that I am working on, do not tell me that you are doing this on the computer with 10 GB free hard drive space. OK?

To be continued....

ATR

[paul440]

Ive been evaluating that prog since yesterday .
Nothing to report yet, but will let forum know what I find.

All my AVCHD footage is straight off the SD Card of a Canon HF200.

Yikes, it has 20GB free now... Hope thats OK. Its the only computer I can use at the moment.

Paul.

Originally Posted by ATR

Paul,

How about this? It is quick and easy and may help.

Download the free HD Converter called Koyote Soft from:
http://www.koyotesoft.com

With Koyote Soft, convert your AVCHD (presumed 1920 x 1080, 25 interlaced frames per second) to:
MPEG2 1920 x 1080 16:9
Frame Rate: 25 frames per second
Video Bitrate: 9000 to 25000, Kilobytes per second
Audio Bitrate: 448 Kilobytes per second (higher offered)

Then run the converted video through the same paces in Premiere Elements 7 and 8 as you did with the original which I believe to be AVCHD (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264) 1920 x 1080i 25 frames per second. Did you ever say which camcorder this original is coming from?

Also, as I asked in the other thread of your's that I am working on, do not tell me that you are doing this on the computer with 10 GB free hard drive space. OK?

To be continued....

ATR

[ATR]

Paul,

I will be looking forward to your results, but I am very concerned about interpreting them since they are coming from a computer with only about 20 GB free hard drive space and AVCHD FULL or its converted to MPEG2 being edited in Premiere Elements under that situation.

I am working away on your other thread. I will meet you over there with an additional immediate comment.

ATR