Hi Gary,
Please see the 3 basics below (you've given one already). I'd like to see a screenshot and a 5 second sample file - unedited video from your camera.
Thanks
Dafydd

Will do. In the meantime here's a MediaInfo dump from the origianl material

Gary.

Attached is a screendump from the editor. A 5 second clip is harder to find. Attached is the shortest clip I could find at 9 seconds.

Gary.

Sorry I cant replicate your issue.

Dafydd

How are you trying to replicate it?

I've taken a clip from the resulting AVCHD file which is attached. I've actually used Corel to clip out a relevant section as trying to do so in PD9 produced even more complex problems as it swapped the interlace again.

O.K. Several days and several experiments later I've partially solved this.

The problem only occurs when the stabiliser is selected. It would appear that the problems occured on shots where I selected the stabiliser, and in one video (from which the clip above comes) I must have clicked on 'apply to all' as PD9 was applying the stabiliser to almost all the clips.

I don't know if it was simply that the problem clips were panning shots, but with the anti-shake stabiliser selected the fields are misaligned which produces exactly the same visual effect as reversed interlace.

Note to self and others - only ever use the stabiliser on static shots.

Suggestion to Cyberlink - how about allowing us to select stabilisation in one dimension only, so that it can cope with shaky panning shots. This is exactly what option 2 does on my stabilised SLR lenses, it only stabilises vertically so that you can still use the stabilisation when panning.

Gary.

Hi gbainbridge,

This is just an input to your thread here;
I have a Panasonic HDC-SD600. Now, I find that with any camera, panning shots are a challenge.
I recently bought a handy little Manfrotto "hand-pod"- that helps me stabilize if I feel I HAVE to pan.
Moreover, at least my Panasonic is not thrilled and comfortable with panning at all, whether "i" or "p".
I will very soon get the warning "panning is too fast".
This being said, I have gotten my clips rendered OK- but I stay away from choosing stabilizer.
I rely on my shooting and camera.
Just something.
https://www.petitpoisvideo.com

I don't know that, I will have to look for it.
I normally use a monopod, but on this occasion I didn't think of taking it on holiday with me.

The camera has antishake, but it seems limited. In particular it doesn't correct for rotation of the camera, and when used tends to give a 'sea-sick' feeling to the video.

Gary.

gbainbridge;

I've been trying the trial version of PD9 (32 bit) and am having a few problems.

There have been some problems with the interlaced format and also stabilization in Powerdirector...It is getting better, but I still see posts (depending on the Camera or HD format/version). I think they are all being looked at with an eye on solving this!

Having said that, I looked at your machine (DXDIAG) and have a couple of (hopefully) helpful observations for you:

1. 2GIG of RAM (and I think that is MAXIMUM for your Micro Star mainboard) is probably not enough for this program in this configuration.
2. Your GPU (video) dedicated memory on the card is too low for video editing.
3. Your video card driver needs to be updated (here is a link).
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/Download/index.aspx

Go to that link and update your card drivers...that will help some, but I think the bigger issue is the machine you are trying to run this on. The new program is powerful...but like anything with a big engine..it needs a big gas tank!

With all the attention that "interlaced" HD is getting, I am confident that Cyberlink will soon see some fixes implemented.

Hope this helps!

Actually I have upgraded the video driver since I posted that DxDiag file. I am now on driver 8.17.12.6099 dated October 2010. It doesn't seem to have made a vast difference although I can now select hardware decoding.

As far as your other points are concerned, as you rightly say, I can do nothing about the amount of RAM with this motherboard, 2Gigs is the limit. I may consider getting a new graphics card in future, if only to allow me to use hardware assistance.

However PD9 is still pretty fast. I've today been experimenting with editing SD video and amazingly it is rendering slightly faster than real time which is pretty impressive. Even an SD render from the HD original is not that much slower than real time.

Having said that, for PD9 to have been released without being able to handle interlace correctly seems rather remiss. As I understand from other postings here, faults which were reported on the beta version still exist in the release version. I assume that the programmers were working to a tight schedule, but it does tend to reduce users confidence in the program.

Gary.

Heck...I still have some bugs that my team found in Windows version 3.11 that we are waiting to see fixed!!! (Hear that Bill Gates??)

I can tell you that the difference between the Beta version and the Released version of PD9 is substantial. Thankfully not too many NEW issues, but certainly some that remain!! Testers continue to pound on the product deficiencies, hoping to make them go away. User reports (like yours) highlight the most prevalent issues, and hopefully get the most attention.

PD9 has alot of room to grow...but MAN is it better than Powerdirector 3!!!

Heck...I still have some bugs that my team found in Windows version 3.11

Only some?

MAN is it better than Powerdirector 3!!!

I admire your persistence with the Powerdirector brand.

I've used professional editors like Avid, but they of course require a lot of expensive external hardware. I did for a while use Avid Free for my own purposes, but that was on Windows 98 and it will not run on newer versions of Windows, nor handle HD.

I'm generally trying out a few options before deciding what to buy, and PD9 is currently at the top of the list, but if it means buying new hardware, then a Mac and FCP are very tempting.

Gary.

nahh! Not really persistence!! I tried many other Retail NLEs over the years. Powerdirector just kept beating them at supporting new technology, so I always came BACK!!

Have a GREAT day!

I'm generally trying out a few options before deciding what to buy, and PD9 is currently at the top of the list, but if it means buying new hardware, then a Mac and FCP are very tempting.

Not a bad choice to go Mac because besides the option to use FCP, PowerDirector runs great when booting natively in BootCamp. But get this. It also works fine even with emulation using Parallels in the OSX environment. I couldn't believe it but it edits and renders avchd smoothly.