Skip to main content
dmiraie
dmiraie
Inspiring
January 12, 2017
Answered

"Use Maximum Render Quality" for Youtube ..?

  • January 12, 2017
  • 1 reply
  • 32011 views

Should my Youtube-destined Premiere exports "use maximum render quality"?  Thnx!

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer excited_Genie16B8

    If you have CUDA turned on, then no.

    If you have CUDA turned off but aren't scaling any media, then still no.

    1 reply

    E
    excited_Genie16B8Correct answer
    Legend
    January 12, 2017

    If you have CUDA turned on, then no.

    If you have CUDA turned off but aren't scaling any media, then still no.

      A
      Ashley7
      Legend
      July 25, 2017

      Jim_Simon  wrote

      If you have CUDA turned on, then no.

      If you have CUDA turned off but aren't scaling any media, then still no.

      Hi Jim, Jim Simon​ ... I've been reading up on the render quality options... came across your answer here, as well as an answer from 2010 in the following post... Re: "Maximum Render Quality" Better to turn it OFF when using CUDA MPE?

      That other post is old I'm not sure how applicable it is these days which might clarify your answer to this thread...

      In that older thread, it seems that in some cases maximum render quality (MRQ) can benefit some render operations which still use the CPU despite the GPU being present. Does this no longer apply given advances in tech since that old 2010 post?

      I ask because your answer seems to imply that in the presence of CUDA there is no need to check the MRQ box where as that old post seems to imply there are cases for checking MRQ despite a GPU being present... cases which Adobe was apparently interested in diminishing over time. Perhaps they've been diminished to the point where the exceptions to the rule no longer apply.

      A general layperson's test that old thread suggests one can take is to render a complex portion of a timeline twice, once with/without MRQ... if the MRQ render yields a longer encode time with a GPU present, that old thread indicates the longer time means the CPU is being used because MRQ is checked... which therefore supposedly indicates additional work of value is being done in the CPU despite the GPU's presence.

      I'm guessing that way of seeing things may no longer apply or that you know MRQ has specifically no benefit for YouTube as a destination. Just curious which...  Thanks!

      A
      Ashley7
      Legend
      July 29, 2017

      That bit you quoted about MRQ ... that often with highly-compressed media it makes things worse? Yup.

      The majority of my media starts from either the GH3, which I've typically shot in "standard" mp4 or mov (both highly-compressed long-GOP) as the stuff has more noise when using the All-Intra camera setting; and these days, for some of my projects, from my Samsung S7 ... ​phone!​ You know ​that's​ highly-compressed ​long​-GOP.

      For much of the 'standard' mov/mp4 from the GH3, if the project needed best quality, I've used either MediaEncoder to watch-folder create transcodes, or Prelude to transcode editing media, typically in Cineform, although occasionally DNxHD/R. The phone media, I always convert to CFR via Handbrake, and for some projects, have then taken that 4k/8-bit media and within ME have made 1080 4:2:2 10-bit ... which surprised me as to how far I can push that media then in Lumetri or Resolve without inducing artifacts.

      For the 1080 projects I've worked with straight-from-the cam media from the GH3, MRQ and MBD do not seem to help, but MRQ often induces artifacts, especially edge jaggies and halos.

      Working with 4:2:2 media in a good intraframe codec (Cineform, DNxHD/R, mid-upper ProRes ... ) the two options don't seem to hurt, can add to render time somewhat (though not always) depending on the machine involved and I suppose effects used and such options ... and for some clips and or effects, may help some. I know some editors just use them period. I've talked with quite a few about this at NAB, and for those that use them, others just shake their heads and say they can't see enough difference when they do work to be worth the time, and often ... they can cause a problem. So they just leave them off.

      Red Giant's video de-noising plugin is doing such an improved job over a version or two back, that I'm starting to shoot more of the All-Intra from the GH3, and just allowing time for de-noising that media. But still, haven't noted that in the 8-bit it produces any advantage to either MBD or MRQ. I haven't tested it for projects needing to go down to 1280x720 or SD yet, though. Especially going to SD for DVD purposes, it ​might​ make some difference. I think I can get away with just BluRay finally, however ... so ... well, I'll still test it. Moving diagonal sharply focused lines are marvy for testing this.

      Neil


      https://forums.adobe.com/people/R+Neil+Haugen  wrote

      That bit you quoted about MRQ ... that often with highly-compressed media it makes things worse? Yup.

      Good to know!

      https://forums.adobe.com/people/R+Neil+Haugen  wrote

      The majority of my media starts from either the GH3, which I've typically shot in "standard" mp4 or mov (both highly-compressed long-GOP) as the stuff has more noise when using the All-Intra camera setting; and these days, for some of my projects, from my Samsung S7 ... phone! You know that's highly-compressed long-GOP.

      For much of the 'standard' mov/mp4 from the GH3, if the project needed best quality, I've used either MediaEncoder to watch-folder create transcodes, or Prelude to transcode editing media, typically in Cineform, although occasionally DNxHD/R. The phone media, I always convert to CFR via Handbrake, and for some projects, have then taken that 4k/8-bit media and within ME have made 1080 4:2:2 10-bit ... which surprised me as to how far I can push that media then in Lumetri or Resolve without inducing artifacts.

      Interesting that "All-Intra" had more noise! Correct me if wrong, but this generally means the in-camera processor/compressor was giving you something ready-made that, for you to solve it with All-Intra back at HQ would have meant transcoding All-Intra to something achieving the same results as GH3 in-camera processing... and in the end you found transcoding the in-camera processed footage (with less retained data) to be viable aesthetically and otherwise.

      CFR via Handbrake ... have not heard of doing that with S7 media... I have an S7, have not used handbrake. It seems whatever you transcode to, in that case 1080 4:2:2 10-bit, actually makes use of Lumetri more flexible than on orig footage... so the Lumetri's effectiveness/flexibility seems affected by the source footage for the clip within Premiere, that Premiere doesn't translate during export enough to make that transcoding unnecessary? I was thinking Premiere might have tranlated internally first enough to avoid that... like with MBD chosen... but apparently you see S7->CFR->1080-4:2:2-10bit-ThenUseLumetri a different/better experience. (?) It's interesting because trancoding isn't adding quality (via data) per se... but I guess the space things end up in, perhaps with how the data is worked into that space, allows for better use Lumetri or some such.

      https://forums.adobe.com/people/R+Neil+Haugen  wrote

      Red Giant's video de-noising plugin is doing such an improved job over a version or two back, that I'm starting to shoot more of the All-Intra from the GH3, and just allowing time for de-noising that media. But still, haven't noted that in the 8-bit it produces any advantage to either MBD or MRQ. I haven't tested it for projects needing to go down to 1280x720 or SD yet, though. Especially going to SD for DVD purposes, it might make some difference. I think I can get away with just BluRay finally, however ... so ... well, I'll still test it. Moving diagonal sharply focused lines are marvy for testing this.

      Neil

      "Red Giant's video de-noising plugin" ... you have an advanced workflow using quite a bit outside of the Adobe suite... I'm currently largely within the boundaries of the suite... still good to hear about these small nuances... even if I don't act to try some of them out right away, they are in recesses of grey matter so can bubble up at convenient times... ... thank you.

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices