Adobe Premiere CS6 Rd3 file help?

[Donnie King]

Can anyone tell me what is the difference in quality if I bring in a 4k 24fps rd3file into a 4k sequence and render out 1080p vs a 4k file into a 1080p sequence, scaling it down to fit and then rendering out 1080p? It seem as though it's the same concept, but I'm a newbie to Adobe Premiere Cs6 so I'm not sure?

 

[Sean Rawls]

Hey,

I'm interested in this as well. I can say that I recently cut in a 4k sequence and the 1080p output looked good. Also, I would suggest exporting a high-detail scene using both methods as a test.

Thanks,

sean

 

[Noel R.]

There's no difference, you get the same result. Just less work if you start off with a 4K sequence, as long as your aspect ratio is the same you are good. Make sure you are using 23.976, and not 24, they are not the same.

 

[Donnie King]

Ok thx a lot guys

 

[Karl Soule]

The difference is twofold, and which one you use will depend on what you intend to deliver at the end.

Using a 4K timeline makes it possible to output 4k as well, without having to copy/paste into a 4k sequence first. You may also see better performance during editing, since it's cutting out a scale process while playing back the timeline. You can export out a 1080p master at the end, and it will be great quality, and without having to do anything to your timeline sequence.

Using a 1080p timeline adds some flexibility in reframing your shots. If you have "Default Scale to Frame Size" turned on in Preferences, all of your clips will scale to fill the frame when dropped on the timeline. To reframe a shot, right clip on a clip, turn OFF the "Scale to Frame size" function for that clip, and use the Scale property in the Effect Controls. If you don't go above 100%, you'll still have clear, crisp sharp 1080p output. Obviously, using this technique means you'd have to do some re-editing of your timeline for a true 4k output, so it's not recommended if you are delivering a 4k master as well.

(For a better understanding of "Default Scale to Frame Size", watch the tutorial from Jeff Greenberg here: http://www.peachpit.com/podcasts/episode.aspx?e=9fb73f62-79b5-44d5-a073-ded523a10222 )

 

[Mike Harrington]

Just a little FYI....

In my tests using 5k....

Render times were at least 2-3 faster using 5k in a 5k sequence.....and exported to 1080p....rather then 5k in a 1080 sequence
The 1080 sequence did have several levels of resize....(scale to frame size....and a digital zoom) so that may have been the issue....where the 5k sequences were just a digital zoom....

The difference was so big that I had to rebuild 20 sequences and redo all the digital zooms (probably an hour total footage) to meet out deadline.

 

[Alex Mack]

Just a little FYI....

In my tests using 5k....

Render times were at least 2-3 faster using 5k in a 5k sequence.....and exported to 1080p....rather then 5k in a 1080 sequence
The 1080 sequence did have several levels of resize....(scale to frame size....and a digital zoom) so that may have been the issue....where the 5k sequences were just a digital zoom....

The difference was so big that I had to rebuild 20 sequences and redo all the digital zooms (probably an hour total footage) to meet out deadline.

And if no scale to frame size (just digital zoom)? Are you using Cuda?

 

[Curt Pair]

I have to agree with Karl on this one. I think it all depends on YOUR delivery pipeline.

I've found that I prefer cutting 5K in a 5K timeline. With the onslaught of 4K coming, and needing content in 4K... I would rather cut something ONCE and not really have to manipulate everything again, as it's very time consuming. This way, when I shoot in 5K, I edit in 5K , and then I have the widest array of options for export: 4K, 2K, 1080, 720 (oh please go away!).

On the other side of that coin... I do have several "1080" clients that I'm trying to pull into the 5K world... but for the time being... they do realize that I can indeed "reframe" shots in post... These producers hover over my shoulder and love the fact that I've created a "1080 framing guide" in my viewfinder... if we're running tight on time, they understand that anything in the 1080 framing guide can indeed end up being a full frame shot in 1080. Therefore they like to cut corners and shoot wide and medium shots and forego the tight stuff for post. I'm not a huge fan of this workflow, as it limits us greatly if we ever need to come back and edit in 5K for 5K output.

You will indeed find, even with using CUDA that if you stay in the "native" resolution for your editing, it will process and render faster. When you down scale, the program must work harder to process your renders. Just be mindful of that... Of course, if you have a Red Rocket, this really isn't a problem!

I would strongly suggest that you don't use "scale to frame size" when working with 5K material in a 1080 timeline. This does indeed tax the system more. I've been told this by several folks at Adobe. They suggested that I leave the clip "full frame," go into the "Effect Controls" and use "Scaling" there... 5K files are typically 37% of the original for a full frame 1080 output. (depending on what flavor of 5K you're using...) Often, I will set up the first clip... then click the effect "properties" for that first clip, copy them, and paste them into all the sequential clips in the timeline.... viola, all clips have the same scale attributes as the first!

I hope this helps!

 

[Michael Patterson]

I also thought when you use scale to frame size it basically just extrapolates the necessary pixels and doesn't technically down Rez anything really. I think the quality is the same if you don't check the use maximum render quality on export. The only plus that I've found using 4k manually scaled down to 1080 is that I can use an external monitor with my bmd sdi card. It's nice but 1/4 Rez at 1080 looks horrible compared to 1/4 Rez in a 4k timeline.

 

[Mike Harrington]

And if no scale to frame size (just digital zoom)? Are you using Cuda?

Lots of CUDA here.....
didnt try the no scale to frame size...in hindsight that may be the issue....I thought PPro would be intelligent enough to concatenate the transforms...but it may have actually been doing them twice...once for the resize...once for the framing....

Just worth testing....I literally saw a 3 times speed increase going to a 5k sequence....

 

[Kim Frank]

Michael is right. I'll try to get this straight:

Lets take the OP Posters example of 4K Footage in a 1080p Timeline. If you use 'Scale to frame size' Premiere doesn't actually scale the footage, it extracts 1080p worth of Information out of the 4K Footage. This way the Playback is supposed to be enhanced. Because your sytem doesn't need to debayer 4K AND THEN scale it down. 'Sale to frame size' doesn't downscale it is downsampling. That's why it shows the scale in the Effects/Motion Tab as 100%.

That's what is stated in this Tutorial on the Adobe Page from 10:00min. on:

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-aft...d-adobe-premiere-pro-edit-up-to-5k-with-ease/

So I'm wondering about what several folks at Adobe told Curtis 'Scale to frame size' does tax the sytem more. What Mike is saying sounds right, because in his case the footage had to be scaled and zoomed.

One last thing to consider is the 'Maximum Render Quality' Checkbox when exporting the Footage out of PP or MediaEncoder. This makes sure that your actual 4K Footage is used for your rendering process and not the down- (or over-) sampled Footage in your timeline. So I'm not sure what Michael ment that quality should be the same if you don't check this Option.

 

[Michael Patterson]

Sorry. I meant that by not checking the box it is the same as the scale to frame size quality. So if the box is unchecked in either a 4k or 1080 timeline, the footage will be the same low quality image in that its not using all of the 4k data.

 

[Noel R.]

I also thought when you use scale to frame size it basically just extrapolates the necessary pixels and doesn't technically down Rez anything really. I think the quality is the same if you don't check the use maximum render quality on export. The only plus that I've found using 4k manually scaled down to 1080 is that I can use an external monitor with my bmd sdi card. It's nice but 1/4 Rez at 1080 looks horrible compared to 1/4 Rez in a 4k timeline.

That's actually what I meant by no difference. That was in reference to the export quality of the 1080P export itself, which I felt was the same whether you were using a 1080P sequence or a 4K sequence, now the playback and rendering seems like a different story. I guess once I realized the 4K sequence was less work I never bothered with 1080. I think if you are going to reframe your shots for a 1080 output why not do it in a 4 or 5K sequence instead. Not all of your shots would need to be reframed, so the less scaling you do, the better your performance would be. If you use a 1080 sequence it means you have to scale everything. I don't see much purpose in working with a 1080 sequence unless you are mixing footage.

 

[Karl Soule]

I think if you are going to reframe your shots for a 1080 output why not do it in a 4 or 5K sequence instead. Not all of your shots would need to be reframed, so the less scaling you do, the better your performance would be.

Well, the issue here is that by reframing, you're going to be pushing the clips up in size - the Scale property will go up into the 200%-220% range, and, of course, it'll start to look softer and softer. Premiere is going to resize the clip up to the new Scale value, and then downsample the resulting frame to 1080p during the Export step.

I'm not sure what would happen on output - someone will need to test this and compare with using a 100% scale value in a 1080p timeline. It's possible that the quality would be the same. It's possible that the math used to push the initial upscale could soften the image in some way, and that will affect the 1080p output. If not, this could be a valid workflow for both 1080p and 4k mastering, with reframing - you'll know how soft the 4k output will be, and the 1080p could look super-clean, even with the rescaling....

Time for some tests...

 

[Noel R.]

Well, the issue here is that by reframing, you're going to be pushing the clips up in size - the Scale property will go up into the 200%-220% range, and, of course, it'll start to look softer and softer. Premiere is going to resize the clip up to the new Scale value, and then downsample the resulting frame to 1080p during the Export step.

I'm not sure what would happen on output - someone will need to test this and compare with using a 100% scale value in a 1080p timeline. It's possible that the quality would be the same. It's possible that the math used to push the initial upscale could soften the image in some way, and that will affect the 1080p output. If not, this could be a valid workflow for both 1080p and 4k mastering, with reframing - you'll know how soft the 4k output will be, and the 1080p could look super-clean, even with the rescaling....

Time for some tests...

I see what your saying, I guess I haven't done enough reframing within Premiere to see the difference. I normally reframe within DaVinci at 1080P. It is confusing. I guess for 1080 out when reframing or working with lower res footage the best practice is to work with the smallest common denominator.

 

[Karl Soule]

So, I did some informal tests, using an uncompressed TIFF export from Premiere Pro, and found some interesting results.

I wanted to see what the quality would look like if I edited in a native 4k sequence, but did the same type of resizing for 1080p output. This involved scaling some of the clips up to about 216% and reframing.

As expected, any 4k output of the scaled clips looked extremely soft. And every instinct in me was saying that this was a really bad idea. For output to a 1080p monitor, the clips did look fuzzier than usual.

I compared the various ways that a 1080p frame can be exported from a 1080p timeline, and they all looked identical. And, the "Use Max Render Quality" had no effect on the output quality.

However, when exporting out from a 4k timeline, the resulting frames looked as sharp as the export from the 1080p timeline, AS LONG AS THE "USE MAX RENDER QUALITY" BOX WAS CHECKED. If you leave it unchecked, the 1080p export from the 4k sequence (zoomed in 200%) will look a bit softer.

So, I guess, for someone who mostly cares about a 1080p master, it is possible to scale/reframe shots in the 4k timeline, and still get crisp output at 1080p resolution. Plus, you'll have the added benefit of being able to export 4k, and know what that's going to look like.

I can post the various TIF files I exported to test this out if anyone is interested.

 

[Noel R.]

So, I did some informal tests, using an uncompressed TIFF export from Premiere Pro, and found some interesting results.

I wanted to see what the quality would look like if I edited in a native 4k sequence, but did the same type of resizing for 1080p output. This involved scaling some of the clips up to about 216% and reframing.

As expected, any 4k output of the scaled clips looked extremely soft. And every instinct in me was saying that this was a really bad idea. For output to a 1080p monitor, the clips did look fuzzier than usual.

I compared the various ways that a 1080p frame can be exported from a 1080p timeline, and they all looked identical. And, the "Use Max Render Quality" had no effect on the output quality.

However, when exporting out from a 4k timeline, the resulting frames looked as sharp as the export from the 1080p timeline, AS LONG AS THE "USE MAX RENDER QUALITY" BOX WAS CHECKED. If you leave it unchecked, the 1080p export from the 4k sequence (zoomed in 200%) will look a bit softer.

So, I guess, for someone who mostly cares about a 1080p master, it is possible to scale/reframe shots in the 4k timeline, and still get crisp output at 1080p resolution. Plus, you'll have the added benefit of being able to export 4k, and know what that's going to look like.

I can post the various TIF files I exported to test this out if anyone is interested.

Karl, great info, so I guess it is possible. I guess that's what "USE MAX RENDER QUALITY" does, it extracts the available resolution if there is any. Good Stuff.

 

[John Tissavary]

All I can say is that if you plan on going out to a color grading system like Resolve, Scratch, etc..., expect to pay more if you've been cutting in a 4k or 5k timeline but are grading to master to 1080p or 2k, since none of the re-sizing you do will come across in the XML, and will have to be eye-matched manually at whatever hourly rate you're being charged for the grade.

There is no upside to working in a 4k or 5k sequence for a 1080p or 2k master.

The most efficient way I have found to cut in PP CS6, and this is both from an editing and from a colorist standpoint, is to work in the format that you will be mastering in. It doesn't matter at all if you want to do a 4k or 5k master at some later date, if that's not what you're current mastering pipeline requires then it's not the right resolution to cut in. You can always pop your 1080p or 2K sequence into a 4k or 5k sequence when the time comes and render that at maximum for the best quality output at no loss of data or resolution.

When cutting in a 1080p or 2k sequence using 'scale to frame size'. If you're outputting an 'offline' checkfile for a conform, then you don't even need to check the 'maximum resolution' box to render, you'll be blown away by how fast that little offline quicktime gets pumped out. And if you're rendering your master from the PP sequence, make sure to check 'render at maximum resolution' to get the best possbile quality.

But this brings up a major omission in the PP R3D pipeline: there should be a way to specify a debayer reslution (full, half, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16) at rendertime, just like in almost all other programs that handle R3D natively.

John

 

[Mike Harrington]

But this brings up a major omission in the PP R3D pipeline: there should be a way to specify a debayer reslution (full, half, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16) at rendertime, just like in almost all other programs that handle R3D natively.
John

cant agree more....I searched high and low for this....
dozens of reasons why it could be used....

the best way to implement it would be in a media encoder preset...or some global override....cause the last thing we want is to set the deybayer rez on a per clip basis

 

[Mike Harrington]

Not sure here....
Karl maybe you can correct us

But as far as I know....Max render quality only applies to the scaling algorithm.....
I cant find any evidence that points to the fact that using max render quality will do anything more then apply bicubic on resolution change?
(and only on cpu...not GPU which is always lanczos)

Where exactly does it say that with max render quality enabled, PPRO samples the entire picture instead of just 1080p worth? (in a 1080p sequence)
that sounds more like debayer resolution....

here is the only definitive thing I can find on max render quality
http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2010/10/scaling-in-premiere-pro-cs5.html


is this one of those 'take for granted' internet rumors...that max quality is actually a selective debayer resolution?