Skip to main content
B
Billy Ramone
Known Participant
January 31, 2025
Answered

Why are my rendered files so large?

  • January 31, 2025
  • 3 replies
  • 1458 views

Hello, great and powerful Adobe community.  I'm finding that no matter how I tweak my render settings, my video file sizes seem unreasonably large.  For example, today I rendered a 1hr Premier Pro edit using Media Encoder's YouTube 1080HD export preset, which produced a 1.8Gb file.  When I upload this 1.8Gb file to YouTube and then download it, the downloaded file is only 89Mb.  Seems like a huge disparity considering I'm using an export setting presumably optimized for YouTube specifically.  As you can see from my settings (below) I've got the target bitrates cranked down pretty low, to the point that the video quality already takes a noticable hit.  Any lower and the video quality is just poor.  What is YouTube doing to squish my 1.8Gb file down to 89Mb?  I notice a lot of 1080 video on YouTube looks crystle clear.  How can I acheive these small file sizes and still get acceptable video quality from Adobe Media encoder?

 

- Preset Used: Custom
- Video: 1920x1080 (1.0), 25 fps, Progressive, 203 (75% HLG, 58% PQ), Software Encoding, 01:08:06:02
- Audio: AAC, 320 kbps, 48 kHz, Stereo
- Bitrate: VBR, 2 pass, Target 4.00 Mbps, Max 6.00 Mbps
- Encoding Time: 00:46:52

 

This particular example is a little odd because the source video was downloaded from WebEx, so the quality was iffy to begin with, but that doesn't explain the bloated file sizes.  In fact, since the video content was just PowerPoint slides with audio, I'd actually expect better compression since there's hardly any motion in the video at all.  Can someone give me a hint as to what I'm missing here?  Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

    Correct answer PaulMurphy

    Video platforms will always re-encode your videos after you upload them, so there’s no need to worry about matching their final file size. Instead, the goal should be to export a high-quality video that holds up well after the platform applies its own compression.

     

    When exporting for YouTube, file size mainly affects your storage and upload time. Beyond that, it’s best to focus on quality by using a high bitrate to minimize any loss during YouTube’s processing.

    3 replies

    FlyingFourFun
    FlyingFourFun
    Inspiring
    February 2, 2026

    You have some interesting / good feedback already.

    Just wanted to add that if your Webex has fringing around the corners and ‘noise’ that will drive the compression a little crazy.  If that's the case, run the footage through a noise removal tool, and then the export will actually be smaller also.  If some cases similar to that, I will use Topaz, and dehalo/remove compression, and then use the webex/zoom in the project, and it can look way better, and compress better.

     

    Additionally, adobe likes to introduce an I frame (Full frame) more often, I believe as low as every 12 frames, but as little every 30 for a 1080p.  

     

    YouTube will push this and use more P and B frames.  The custom and propriety elements people reference is that they seem to have a way to understand the video and make a decision on how far to push the I frame separation potentially dynamically and use more P and B (partial frame referencing the full I frame).

     

    The H264/H265 is standard, with lots of room to tweak and still be complaint.

     

    YouTube can use something called AV1, but based on your question I assume the downloaded version you got was H264 or H265.  AV1 is not used for every upload on YouTube, and I don't think for 1080p videos, but it's been some time since I have confirmed if they have changed this approach for AV1 priority for videos).

     

    At the end of the day, YouTube video is ALWAYS a degraded version (smaller file) of what you upload.  Their goal is to keep visual fidelity as close as possible but reduce the size.

     

    If you want some pointers/considerations for what to take into account for your export to have it look the best on YouTube:

    Beat the Compression! How to Get Better YouTube Uploads

     

    If you want an idea of what it would be like if you upload to YouTube, and then downloaded the same video over and over again, to demonstrate the loss of data in YouTube compression:

    This Is What Happens When You Re-Upload a YouTube Video 1000 Times! - YouTube

     

    As others here have pointed out, Premier is focused on quality, and YouTube wants a good quality video.  They will make the decision based on their economics, how much compression to apply.  As others here have pointed out, you do not need to try and match the upload and download size.

     

    Hopefully this assists you understand what happens behind the curtains.

    ElectricBlue93
    ElectricBlue93
    Participant
    February 2, 2026

    The answer is simply this. The compressors that are built into video editors aren't as advanced as what Google has created and are not as advanced as a dedicated compressor because it can't do both at once efficiently. It prioritizes the render over compression. Google's compressor being the best is both a trade secret and a unique scenario bc they can optimize it to work for a single player (YouTube) and can optimize YouTube for the compression they want. If you need better compression algorithms than what your current app of choice offers, then you should run your high quality videos through a dedicated compressor. Wondershare UniConvert has a compressor built in that you can tell what traits you'd like to forcibly keep (frame rate, resolution, etc) and then it compresses based on those settings. If it needs to reduce something (like frame rate or bitrate) to achieve the size you're looking for, then it'll choose the things you didn't lock. If it doesn't need to change any properties then it'll just compress normally. It will only reduce something if standard compression isn't enough. To ensure the best compression you want the smallest output in filesize from your renderer as possible while maintaining the quality you want. The less it has to compress, the better. But also if it has too little data to work with, then it won't come out right. So balance between size and quality when rendering, then compress. Hope this helps despite being a year late.

    P
    Community Expert
    PaulMurphyCommunity ExpertCorrect answer
    Community Expert
    January 31, 2025

    Video platforms will always re-encode your videos after you upload them, so there’s no need to worry about matching their final file size. Instead, the goal should be to export a high-quality video that holds up well after the platform applies its own compression.

     

    When exporting for YouTube, file size mainly affects your storage and upload time. Beyond that, it’s best to focus on quality by using a high bitrate to minimize any loss during YouTube’s processing.

      B
      Billy RamoneAuthor
      Known Participant
      February 3, 2025

      Hi, Paul.  I appreciate your response, but I'm not sure I agree that this is a "right answer."  The question is: if YouTube can produce a 100Mb file from my 2Gb file and maintain reasonable video quality, why can't I just export a decent looking 100Mb directly from Media Encoder?  I don't only produce videos for YouTube and in my business file size is a always a concern because my video files are included as a part of other products.  Plus, handling files that are several Gbs in size is unweidly for clients who want to use them as part of their PowerPoint presentations, websites, or training platforms.  My point is that if YouTube can compress my 2 Gb into something under 150Mb and still maintain reasonable video quality, why can't I just export a decent looking 150Mb directly from Media Encoder?  I can't seem to get anything even close to that small without the video quality falling off a cliff, and I've already got my bit rates clamped down.  If I tried to render at the 16 mbps bitrate that Media Encoder defaults to, I'd end up with a 15Gb file.  With respect and appreciation, I don't my question has been answered.

      R Neil Haugen
      R Neil Haugen
      Legend
      February 3, 2025

      I didn't say I didn't like the answer, I simply pointed out that my question wasn't in fact answered, which is true.  As I said in my post, I'm very appreciative of the responses, but you're misreading my problem.

       

      I understand that online video platforms will compress my video, of course.  What I don't understand is why I can't get the same level of compression/quality from Adobe Media Encoder.  Re-read my post and you'll see I'm not asking about encoding for YouTube or any other specific online hosting service, I'm asking about rendering for a range of purposes, not all of which will involve re-encoding.  I'm merely using YouTube as a compression engine because I can't figure out how to get as good a result from Media Encoder.  If I crank down my Media Encoder export settings to produce a 150Mb file, I will get horrible quality.  But if I upload my video to YouTube and use it as a compression engine, YouTube can take my 2Gb file and compress it to 150Mb while stll preserving decent video quality.  My question is: if YouTube can make my 2Gb video look decent at 150Mb, why can't I get a good looking 150Mb file directly from Media encoder?  I can't get anywhere near that small of a file.  Is there something wrong with my export settings (see original post)?  Or is AME simply not capable of YouTube's compression voodoo.  For example, if I want to skip YouTube entirely and create a 1:30:00 minute 150Mb video file of tolerable quality to embed in a client's PowerPoint presentation, can Adobe Media Encoder do that?  Because apparently YouTube can.

       

       


      If you're just working to get smaller long-GOP files out ... that takes knowing the fine details of setting up the various options for that in pretty much any encoding app. 

       

      Premiere and Resolve are both noted for not being so great at the "base" level settings for higher compression with (mostly) preserved video quality. But both have many options in their encoding dialogs that can be tweaked to get higher compression without notable visual loss. So you can get a smaller file, that looks decent, if you know how to get it through the options.

       

      There's a couple users here who know how to tweak the profile/levels and such settings to get this done. I've never bothered. It's been ok, and the file sizes haven't bothered me or my clients.

       

      One bit of advice often given for users of both Premiere and Resolve, is to export a ProRes say 422 file from Premiere. Then take that in Handbrake or ShutterEncoder, and create a long-GOP file.

       

      As those to front-ends for the ffmpeg encoder both do a better job of naturally shrinkifying files.

      Everyone's mileage always varies ...
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices