Compressor is adding ONE random frame to the beggining of my videos... why?

I am exporting a video with the settings depicted in the screenshot below.


For some UNKNOWN AND IDIOTIC REASON, compressor is grabbing one random frame from the middle of my video and adding it to the front of my video.


You can see it in all of it's stupid action here:


http://howtofightnow.com/check-your-****-email/


This causes an odd flash, and just generally looks horrible.


Why is it doing this inexplicable and absolutely unnecessary stupidity?


User uploaded file

Mac mini, Mac OS X (10.7.5)

Posted on Feb 17, 2014 12:46 AM

Reply
13 replies

Feb 17, 2014 10:02 AM in response to Russ H

It's not letting me add the picture.... try this:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj7uyi6d229ydlw/Screenshot%202014-02-17%2003.41.46%283 %29.png


I am exporting the source file from premiere pro as h264 and 1080p with no extra settings clicked. Just shooting for one single high quality h264 file. The frame is definitely not in the source video... I've checked multiple times.

Feb 18, 2014 4:49 AM in response to MrWizard64

Instead of h.264, export a Pro Res 422. It could be that doubling up on the long GOP compression from Premiere to Compressor is causing an error. PR 422 is I-Frame, so it can possibly be recompressed more accurately (prepared to be corrected on that)?


Russ


Message was edited by: Russ H To be more specific, the PR export I mean is the one from Pr

Feb 18, 2014 9:29 AM in response to Russ H

I ended up solving the issue... and yes, you are right.


I was forced to export the files as quicktime... basically converting the file to ProRes before putting it into compressor.


This was ********, as this drastically increased the file size from the source media and subseqent compression caused a reduction in quality.


I simply learned adobe media encoder, chose the appropriate h264/mp4 setting right off the bat, and exported a file that is not only a much HIGHER QUALITY, but also significantly smaller than the file resulting from compressor exports.


The bottom line is this... despite having spent a long time building a network to distribute processing, and upgrading operating systems on "non-upgradeable" machines to do so... I'm DONE WITH COMPRESSOR.


Compression shouldn't take hours and hours anyhow... the only reason it's necessary to distribute processing with compressor is Apple ProRes's unnecessary hugeness.


No more taking up piles of memory with this god-aweful codec. No more stupid-long exports. Adobe handled everythign beautifully, and quickly at the absolute highest setting.


I feel like I've wasted a lot of time... but that's all over now! This product can burn for all I care. Thanks for your help Russ... I've seen the light, and the word "Adobe" shimmering in it's midst.

Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM in response to MrWizard64

Well, although I don't subscribe to the fire and brimstone Compressor judgement, I agree with the logic of staying within the ecosystem you began your project in. (I was going to ask you earlier why you were using Compressor rather than AME; slipped my mind.)


Can't imagine why including a Pro Res intermediate transcode would have any effect on quality. but I won't belabor that.


Most importantly your project is fixed. Life is good.


Russ

Feb 18, 2014 1:51 PM in response to Russ H

It's funny how various systems work.


I do a lot of work that has a high degree of detail that must stay clear and runs for an hour to an hour and a half. It takes a while to encode these things and I wanted to love Adobe Media Encoder as it is faster than Compressor. But after a lot of attempts and fiddling around I simply could not get output from AME that was as crisp as what I got from Compressor. So I have gone back to Compressor. I'm using 4.1.1 (on a MacMini 4 core server) as well as 3.5 on a MacPro and, while I would love faster results, I have to go with better quality.


Apparently, everyone's mileage will vary.


x

Feb 18, 2014 2:52 PM in response to Studio X

Studio X wrote:


Apparently, everyone's mileage will vary.


x

And it seems that the range of experiences with the new generation of pro apps has only grown wider – at least judging from the reports here, on FCP.co, and so forth. Some people have had great experiences and others have nothing but grief.


I have an old Creative Suite version installed on a Snow Leopard system and aside from PS and an occasional foray into AE, it doesn't get a lot of use. (Also recently sprang for the CC bundle of PS/Lightroom.) I used to have to use Pr on Windows and I really was not a fan. But I understand the CC version of the Premiere family of apps is quite good. Are you using a CC subscription or a CS product?


Russ

Feb 18, 2014 3:30 PM in response to Russ H

Russ,


I have a CC subscription for the whole Adobe range. I use Lightroom everyday, Photoshop regularly, InDesign and Illustrator a couple of times a week and AE as projects demand it's specific atributes - i.e. I can get AE to do a better job of image stabilzation than Motion.


I really feel no need to edit AVCHD or H.264 natively so have not really jumped into Premiere as FCP7 still does everything I need - and doesn't get in the way.


My work doesn't have the "MUST BE DONE NOW" pressure. Something that will save me an hour or two over the course of the project because I don't have to transcode is not relevant. But, the ability to round trip between Soundtrack Pro and Color is VERY important to me as I often need those apps to clean up less than pristine location work.


I have not embraced FCX and probably will not as Premiere offers a clear exit strategy when hardware and OSX compatiblity issues force a change away from FCP7/FCS3.


Best


x

Feb 18, 2014 4:10 PM in response to Studio X

Hey guys,


X I fully hear what you're saying, and trust me... I just spend $1,500 on a NAS drive and ran cables throughout my entire house so that i could use distributed processing. I WANTED this to work.... badly. I honestly do like compressor... I love my drag and drop presets, and I think it's great for Apple codecs


If I could figure out a way to create good prores video from my premiere pro exports, I would probably use it. That's my major barrier right now. I just cant get a good ProRes transcode from my Premiere Pro edited AVCHD footage.


If you have any suggestions on how to transcode to prores, I'm truly all ears. Not one huge file that I created looked good... probably due to lack of Quicktime codec options in AME. But from what I'm hearing, you're rocking out in FCP7 and you have ProRes footage from the moment that you logged and transferred. You're one hurdle past where I'm starting.


Right now, I just don't have a good basis for comparison... I can't get a good "Source" movie for compressor, and my 600 kbps video from AME is looking mighty nice (for my horribly restricted data rate). I'm just not sure I need to complicate it and eat up more hard drive space.

Feb 18, 2014 4:29 PM in response to MrWizard64

You transcode to ProRes BEFORE you bring the material into your editor. Once you have the stuff as an all i frame (essentially) lossless format, you can do whatever you want to it in the NLE/ Color correction process and end up with a pristine final master.


Editing AVCHD or whatever long GOP format you name is just a huge exercise in compromises.


Hard drives are increadibly inexpensive. File size is not a real limit.


And what does a NAS have to do with distributed processing?


x

Feb 18, 2014 4:43 PM in response to Studio X

Sure.... transcode before you bring into the editor and then youre files are 150 times the size that they need to be for editing. Having filled up about 5 dfferent 4tb drives even after media manager, I'm done with that. How does a 64gb memory card filled turn into 450 gb when logged and transferred? It's too much.


NAS is related to distributed processing because you can't simply expect your Mac's to efficiently access a drive simply because it's shared.


For example, I have a 12tb G-Speed drive... the fastest connection I can provide to that drive is a Firewire 800 from my MacPro. That means that everyone is limited to that connection speed, as opposed to having the ability to connect directly to the data with a 1gb ethernet connection... wayyyyyyyyyy faster. That's multiple computers with a dedicated lighning fast connection, instead of everyone sharing one single moderate connection.


Additionally, if my editor is working and I restart my computer with the shared drive... media disconnect for him. I'm essentially tied to his activities. Beyond that, even if we share a project, you have to reconnect media from every computer you use because the path of referenced media is changed... instead of:


/gspeed/media being the source for media (if I saved it on my home computer), everyone needs to reconnect to:


macpro/shared/gspeed/media... this is a huge headache when multiple people are working on projects.


The NAS drive allows the absolute fastest, uninterruptable connection to data... my transcoding time has been cut down to about a FIFTH of what it was. You can do this through a normal shared folder, but depending on the hardware involved in your network, you might find yourself incredibly limited.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Compressor is adding ONE random frame to the beggining of my videos... why?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.