<p>The encoder is always the same, namely Adobe Media Encoder. What you're changing is only the <strong>format</strong>, which admittedly is a bit confusing since that dropdown mixes up a couple of concepts which don't really belong together. If you select H.264 from the format dropdown, that's the <strong>video codec</strong>. Using that format selection, you will find a ton of options below, one of which is the <strong>multiplexer</strong> tab. This is where you can select what container format you want your video and audio stream to be mixed in (usually that's <code>MP4</code>). If you select the <strong>QuickTime format</strong>, you are always exporting a <code>MOV</code> file. The codec of the QuickTime format is variable, so you get a dropdown for that instead. </p>

<p>So with both options, you will get an H.264 video stream, but mixed in a different container format. You can find more info on individual streams and containers in <a href="https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/15821/how-are-video-and-audio-streams-placed-in-container-files-and-what-interrelati/15824#15824">my answer here</a>.</p>

<p>It's a bit confusing that you are selecting different things (codecs or containers) in the format dropdown, but since there are also completely different options such as exporting as an image sequence or exporting audio only, it's hard to come up with an interface that's neither terribly bloated nor missing important options.</p>

<p>From the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/media-encoder/using/file-formats-supported-export.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adobe Support Pages</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Some filename extensions—such as MOV, AVI, and MXF —denote container file formats rather than denoting a specific audio, video, or image data format. Container files can contain data encoded using various compression and encoding schemes. Adobe Media Encoder can encode video and audio data for these container files, depending on which codecs (specifically, encoders) are installed. Many codecs must be installed into the operating system and work as a component inside the QuickTime or Video for Windows formats.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:09:35.643Z
Thanks for the answer! I still have a question, just to be sure I understood correctly. I know you can encode mp3 using different software(LAME and Fraunhofer). Fraunhofer according to the internets yields better quality. This is the basis for my curiosity here. So, regardless of chosen container format, would the actual h.264 stream be always bit-by-bit the same(if I managed to match the encoding settings)? Or in other words is the stream always encoded using the exact same encoder/codec/piece of software before writing it to the chosen container?
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:17:40.127Z
Also, I found lots of (old) discussions on QT gamma shift, so I really can't let this be until I've got a more in depth explanation. Your answer is great, but could you maybe go into more detail? :)
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:36:52.410Z
@Pichan Regarding the encoders ... to be honest, I am not sure. Premiere exports are pipelined into Adobe Media Encoder, which is an independent piece of software that gets installed together with Premiere. As far as I know, this software encodes H.264 in the same way regardless of the container. But again, I'm not 100% sure on this, sorry. But to be honest, even if it differs slightly nobody will notice the difference (in the same way that nobody can notice the difference between Fraunhofer and LAME). HOWEVER when using the QuickTime format, you have less control over your output quality. tbc
MoritzLost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:38:22.323Z
With the QuickTime format, you have a quality slider that goes from 0 - 100 instead of the exact bitrate settings that you get when you select H.264 format. So the latter offers you more flexibility regarding the desired quality/filesize tradeof, so I would prefer that setting.
MoritzLost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:41:49.737Z
Regarding the gamma shift, that's more of a player issue than an issue with the video. Standard H.264 has a tone range of 16 - 235 and contains a metadata flag that tells the player to scale those values to a range of 0 - 255. However, some players such as QuickTime in certain configurations don't read that value which leads to the gamma shift. I don't think it's much of a problem anymore, as YouTube, Vimeo et c. read those flags and display the video correctly. Also, Media Encoder has good, working presets for those services.
MoritzLost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T02:32:24.380Z
It seems the H.264 encoder in Adobe products is the one by Mainconcept.
Gyan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:36:53.863Z
@MoritzLost Thanks again. I know you can't really hear the difference between LAME and Fraunhofer, but you have a choice, why choose the inferior option. Same with h.264 :) I'm actually looking into x264 now, not seeking any real gains, just out of curiosity. Still, I hear it's marginally better and faster than Premiere's own h.264 :) Oh, and a small correction: QT supports choosing your own bitrate. I don't know how the quality slider and bitrate limit actually work together but at least I'm able to limit my exports to roughly 100MB/min.
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:39:15.587Z
@Mulvya Thanks. Do you know if Quicktime h.264 goes also through Mainconcept?
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:39:24.467Z
@Pichan It does? I didn't find that option in my export settings when I checked it. Are you using the latest CC version of Premiere? And where did you find that option?
MoritzLost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:44:43.857Z
@MoritzLost It's almost at the bottom of the export settings, between Advanced Settings and VR Video. Here's a screencap: http://i.imgur.com/kYDwpAl.png
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:47:58.540Z
For bitrates used on the web, x264 is much better than Premiere's encoder. At higher bitrates, the difference becomes modest.
Gyan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T12:11:18.537Z
@Pichan Hm, apparently I'm blind. But still, that's only a bitrate limit setting, not as elaborate as the fine-tuning that is possible with the target/maximum bitrate and CBR/VBR settings available under the H.264 format.
MoritzLost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T12:52:01.773Z
@MoritzLost True. Though I prefer the H.264 format settings, QT seems to work just fine and the people I export for don't usually care that much about encoding quality, as long as it's good enough and filesize is at most 100MB/min. And like you said, if there is a quality difference, no one would notice :)
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T22:35:50.363Z
2016-11-15T22:35:50.363Z
2017-04-13T12:46:08.110Z
MoritzLost
<p>I noticed that Premiere(CC2017) can export h.264 through its own encoder and QuickTime. Are there any / what are the differences between these two?</p>

<hr>

<p><em>PP Native h.264 encoder</em></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Ktuxu.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Ktuxu.png" alt=""></a></p>

<p><em>QT h.264 encoder</em></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/nxQXs.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/nxQXs.png" alt=""></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T20:50:56.583Z
I thought h.264 was h.264?  As far as I know, no difference
Manly
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T23:29:58.710Z
@Manly At least with MP3 there's LAME encoder and Fraunhofer codec, which both produce regular MP3 but Fraunhofer yields better quality.
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T03:40:30.613Z
I'd say LAME is better at VBR encodes and FDK at CBR.
Gyan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-16T10:37:17.370Z
@Mulvya good to know :)
Pichan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-17T09:21:11.367Z
since when lame is worse?
Display Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-17T10:02:48.103Z
@SargeBorsch Hmm.. I might've cut some corners here and relied on something I heard a long time ago, without checking the facts. According to multiple forum posts, LAME actually seems to be better most of the time. I apologise. In my defense, this was all just to demonstrate that different software produce different quality even if the end format is the same :)
Pichan
<premiere><encoding><h.264><adobe-media-encoder>
What's different between Premiere's own h.264 and QT h.264 encoders?
Pichan
# What's different between Premiere's own h.264 and QT h.264 encoders?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-11-15)

I noticed that Premiere(CC2017) can export h.264 through its own encoder and QuickTime. Are there any / what are the differences between these two?

---

*PP Native h.264 encoder*

[![](https://i.sstatic.net/Ktuxu.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Ktuxu.png)

*QT h.264 encoder*

[![](https://i.sstatic.net/nxQXs.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/nxQXs.png)

**Tags:** premiere, encoding, h.264, adobe-media-encoder

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I thought h.264 was h.264?  As far as I know, no difference  
> **username_0**: @username_1 At least with MP3 there's LAME encoder and Fraunhofer codec, which both produce regular MP3 but Fraunhofer yields better quality.  
> **username_2**: I'd say LAME is better at VBR encodes and FDK at CBR.  
> **username_0**: @Mulvya good to know :)  
> **username_3**: since when lame is worse?  
> **username_0**: @SargeBorsch Hmm.. I might've cut some corners here and relied on something I heard a long time ago, without checking the facts. According to multiple forum posts, LAME actually seems to be better most of the time. I apologise. In my defense, this was all just to demonstrate that different software produce different quality even if the end format is the same :)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-11-15. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

The encoder is always the same, namely Adobe Media Encoder. What you're changing is only the **format**, which admittedly is a bit confusing since that dropdown mixes up a couple of concepts which don't really belong together. If you select H.264 from the format dropdown, that's the **video codec**. Using that format selection, you will find a ton of options below, one of which is the **multiplexer** tab. This is where you can select what container format you want your video and audio stream to be mixed in (usually that's `MP4`). If you select the **QuickTime format**, you are always exporting a `MOV` file. The codec of the QuickTime format is variable, so you get a dropdown for that instead.

So with both options, you will get an H.264 video stream, but mixed in a different container format. You can find more info on individual streams and containers in [my answer here](https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/15821/how-are-video-and-audio-streams-placed-in-container-files-and-what-interrelati/15824#15824).

It's a bit confusing that you are selecting different things (codecs or containers) in the format dropdown, but since there are also completely different options such as exporting as an image sequence or exporting audio only, it's hard to come up with an interface that's neither terribly bloated nor missing important options.

From the [Adobe Support Pages](https://helpx.adobe.com/media-encoder/using/file-formats-supported-export.html):

> Some filename extensions—such as MOV, AVI, and MXF —denote container file formats rather than denoting a specific audio, video, or image data format. Container files can contain data encoded using various compression and encoding schemes. Adobe Media Encoder can encode video and audio data for these container files, depending on which codecs (specifically, encoders) are installed. Many codecs must be installed into the operating system and work as a component inside the QuickTime or Video for Windows formats.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer! I still have a question, just to be sure I understood correctly. I know you can encode mp3 using different software(LAME and Fraunhofer). Fraunhofer according to the internets yields better quality. This is the basis for my curiosity here. So, regardless of chosen container format, would the actual h.264 stream be always bit-by-bit the same(if I managed to match the encoding settings)? Or in other words is the stream always encoded using the exact same encoder/codec/piece of software before writing it to the chosen container?  
> **username_0**: Also, I found lots of (old) discussions on QT gamma shift, so I really can't let this be until I've got a more in depth explanation. Your answer is great, but could you maybe go into more detail? :)  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Regarding the encoders ... to be honest, I am not sure. Premiere exports are pipelined into Adobe Media Encoder, which is an independent piece of software that gets installed together with Premiere. As far as I know, this software encodes H.264 in the same way regardless of the container. But again, I'm not 100% sure on this, sorry. But to be honest, even if it differs slightly nobody will notice the difference (in the same way that nobody can notice the difference between Fraunhofer and LAME). HOWEVER when using the QuickTime format, you have less control over your output quality. tbc  
> **username_4**: With the QuickTime format, you have a quality slider that goes from 0 - 100 instead of the exact bitrate settings that you get when you select H.264 format. So the latter offers you more flexibility regarding the desired quality/filesize tradeof, so I would prefer that setting.  
> **username_4**: Regarding the gamma shift, that's more of a player issue than an issue with the video. Standard H.264 has a tone range of 16 - 235 and contains a metadata flag that tells the player to scale those values to a range of 0 - 255. However, some players such as QuickTime in certain configurations don't read that value which leads to the gamma shift. I don't think it's much of a problem anymore, as YouTube, Vimeo et c. read those flags and display the video correctly. Also, Media Encoder has good, working presets for those services.  
> **username_2**: It seems the H.264 encoder in Adobe products is the one by Mainconcept.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 Thanks again. I know you can't really hear the difference between LAME and Fraunhofer, but you have a choice, why choose the inferior option. Same with h.264 :) I'm actually looking into x264 now, not seeking any real gains, just out of curiosity. Still, I hear it's marginally better and faster than Premiere's own h.264 :) Oh, and a small correction: QT supports choosing your own bitrate. I don't know how the quality slider and bitrate limit actually work together but at least I'm able to limit my exports to roughly 100MB/min.  
> **username_0**: @Mulvya Thanks. Do you know if Quicktime h.264 goes also through Mainconcept?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 It does? I didn't find that option in my export settings when I checked it. Are you using the latest CC version of Premiere? And where did you find that option?  
> **username_0**: @username_4 It's almost at the bottom of the export settings, between Advanced Settings and VR Video. Here's a screencap: http://i.imgur.com/kYDwpAl.png  
> **username_2**: For bitrates used on the web, x264 is much better than Premiere's encoder. At higher bitrates, the difference becomes modest.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Hm, apparently I'm blind. But still, that's only a bitrate limit setting, not as elaborate as the fine-tuning that is possible with the target/maximum bitrate and CBR/VBR settings available under the H.264 format.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 True. Though I prefer the H.264 format settings, QT seems to work just fine and the people I export for don't usually care that much about encoding quality, as long as it's good enough and filesize is at most 100MB/min. And like you said, if there is a quality difference, no one would notice :)  

---

