Want the output as DIVX or XVID or h264 as output

[nwfdvd]

I am using Edius v4.x latest, I have EDIUS NX Series (PCI/PCI-X) with Sony HDR-SR8E ( 100GB ) AVCHD camera.
so after I capture and edit the video ..I want to make the output as DIVX or XVID or H264 for low size video with Hight Quality ...so how to do this ?
and what plugin I must use and..how to insert it in the Canopus Edius software like adobe to make it have the same output ...

Thanks alot

[STORMDAVE]

I recommend H264...more people have QuickTime than the DivX codec....but don't quote me on this :)

Also I recommend that you buy QuickTime Pro (Cheap) and use that for your H264 encoding. You need to export your timeline to a file and then open it in QTPro and encode from there.

[THoff]

I regularly create QuickTime H.264 files, and I do not exit Edius to do so. Here is how I do it:

Step-by-step instructions

[GrassValley_KH]

If you want to use XviD or DivX, you'll need the codecs installed - from there you will need to use ProCoder Express for EDIUS, and then choose to use a generic exporter (AVI).

Eventually you will see an option to configure Advanced output settings - if you bring this up, you'll want to choose the target AVI Encoder (change from RGB uncompressed to DivX or XviD).

[nwfdvd]

H264

Thanks alot..will try the guide ( step by step ) and try the advance option also ..thanks alot all

[DaveT]

I DO NOT recommend using the QT Pro h.264 encoder.

Get mencoder with x264 and learn how to use it. If you need me to give you an example script to make it QuickTime compliant (as in works in QT Player), I can, I can. It can be tricky and I myself have had to trash the mencoder documents to get it working right myself.

Why do I say this?

x264 has far more options and provides clearer videos.
x264 encodes a lot faster. QT Pro is slow as a tortoise. On the PC side at least. Oddly, it's much master on the Mac. And the video clarity when you use QT Pro to encode on a Mac is better, too...Apple's PC support with its H.264 stuff is simply terrible.
x264 is FREE. It's completely open source and it's continuously being optimized and made faster/better.
You can setup batch encodes (writing a .bat file)

As far as playing back h.264 files (either .mov or .mp4), on the PC side I strongly advise against using QT Player. Why? Cause it's performance simply sucks. Get something like MPlayer (and get a GUI if you have to) or Media Player Classic or something. They all perform much better. Ever watch a trailer off of Apple.com in QT Player and see all kinds of frame clipping and stuff? That's QuickTime doing it most likely, not the video. Those other players will run it silky smooth. As will QT Player on the Mac.

Note: My method creates a .mp4 container and not a .mov container. Gives you many more options than just using QT Player.

Yes, it's annoying to have to use command line. But in the end between the encoding speed, quality of the encode, and just about everything else it makes it work it. Besides, you can just create one .bat template file and just replace the filenames in it when you need to encode something.

[STORMDAVE]

I've had zero problems with QTPlayer under OSX or PC....I have created H264 files on both. It looks excellent when doing 2pass. Encoding is fast on my Mac. Also you can extract the .mp4 out of the .mov if you want, it's not that hard. QT Pro does this.

QuickTime player is available on more computers than other off brand players...

[DaveT]

I can create videos using x264 on a single pass MUCH faster than QT Pro can (on a single pass) and looks better than QT Pro multipass. Last time I tried, using single pass as a test, x264 encoded about three times faster. Plus if you set up mencoder and x264 right you can full utilize each and every core/CPU you might have in your system.

Using single pass is easier on the end user's system who is trying to play it back. :)

I stated encoding using QT Pro on a Mac is faster than on PC. Although the more recent of QT on the PC might be better optimized. Wonder if Apple made it video quality that the PC one encodes match the Apple one. When I did a ton of testing across multiple Mac and PC systems, not in one case was the file encoded in QT Pro on the PC as clear as the one encoded using QT Pro on the Mac. The difference wasn't huge, but we could see it w/o much issue. So the double whammy was it encodes slower on the PC _and_ looks worse. But again, maybe it's better now.

But it still doesn't touch the output of the x264. QT Pro can read the x264 just right so as long as the right variables are used (as QT Player in the end does not support h.264 100%...you have to fall within QT Player's guidelines.)

If you are a beginner and just want to get things done, QT is fine. But if you want to get nitty gritty and with a little work get the best out of your time spent, using x264 with a front end of your choice (but I do strongly recommend mencoder as it's optimized better than anything else out there I've tried), then throw QT Pro out the window for the most part. Don't get me wrong, QT Pro is fine in some cases. I use it myself from time to time.

Dave