12/1/2023 0 Comments Editready vs adobe media encoder![]() However, Encoder goes far beyond these basic functions. The most obvious reasons to use Encoder is to do basic changes such as naming a file and directing it to a specific location on the computer. You would open this project in Encoder, then change export settings to give you the resulting file format (MP4, PNG, MPEG2, etc.). Let’s say you have a project that you wish to export files from. To help you better understand Encoder, here’s an example of how the program works. Media Encoder compresses media files, reducing their size. It allows you to change media in many different ways, including altering the format. Media Encoder is a software program by Adobe that is used to provide media content for the web and other sources. Learn more about Encoder and what it can do. Due to its extensive options, it can make a lot of export jobs easier. ![]() But, before we do, a primer on the computer that I used to test the software.Adobe Media Encoder is both a standalone program and a capable integrated system with other Adobe products. I own two computers, a mid 2010 Macbook Pro with a dual core 2.66GHz i7 processor and 8GB of RAM, and a custom-built editing PC that is insanely beefy in terms of specs and raw power. SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME PRO Back in the day, the Macbook was no slouch in terms of performance, but time has not been kind to it, and the performance these days is pretty underwhelming. Suffice it to say, I would NEVER choose to do transcoding work on the Macbook unless it was absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, EditReady is a Mac-only app, so in order to test its speed and overall performance, I had to use the Macbook.Ĭoming into the conversion process, I had been expecting all of my tests to be painfully slow because, frankly, the Macbook is on its last leg. ![]() However, once I started using EditReady (and comparing it to Adobe Media Encoder, which is what I normally use for all of my encoding), what I found was pretty impressive. I used a single 57 second h.264 clip shot on my Canon 60D to conduct my test. The original clip was full HD, and the original file size was 274MB. 54 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.28GB.36 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size: 799MB.27 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 499MB.1 Minute, 7 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.11GB.58 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size 784MB.50 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 432MB.Here are my results as I encoded the clip into 3 different flavors of ProRes in both EditReady and Media Encoder: SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME FULL Obviously, this is an incredibly simple test, and it has its limitations in terms of really putting the performance of both softwares to the test. However, I ran the clip through this test twice to make sure that the results were accurate, and sure enough, they were exactly the same the second time around. Other than EditReady being faster than Media Encoder (and way more intuitive to use), it seemed to strain my computer less during the encoding process than did Media Encoder. Of course, that's just subjective observation as I wasn't measuring CPU or RAM usage during the encoding. With that said, I felt like I could multitask with other programs while EditReady was encoding. The same cannot be said of Media Encoder, which seemingly turns the computer into a giant paperweight while the program is encoding. SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME PRO. ![]() ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |