I kind of stepped back from this topic because I agree with what Jeff pointed out, plus he is more inclined to experiment. No need for me to mudd the waters.

• CPU is important, and specifically for video editing Intel CPU's have an edge in performance. Not necesarelly reflected in price, but that's another story.


• GPU encoding cuts out a lot of the time by using the integrated ASIC hardware. That hardware has nothing to do with gaming cores, so upping for a top of the line card makes no difference. I got the 580 because I do other things too on that computer. I am hot sure if the faster bus makes a difference:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_RX_500_Series
  


• the GPU encoding might still have some issues and nVidia is usually better in this respect. I switched from a GTX960 myself, and it served me perfectly. I don't have a 10xx series, but I know that they improved the ASIC block (called nvenc in nVidia) significantelly.


• GPU memory and even system memory in my usage doesn't get used so much. Sure, there can be scenarious that will ask for more memory (like Jeff suggested), but... are you gonna use it like that?


• With all the faults, I found out that PD makes a better use of GPU and has better performance than may editors out there, proffesional or not. That's why I have stopped here.

Quote I kind of stepped back from this topic because I agree with what Jeff pointed out, plus he is more inclined to experiment. No need for me to mudd the waters.

• CPU is important, and specifically for video editing Intel CPU's have an edge in performance. Not necesarelly reflected in price, but that's another story.


• GPU encoding cuts out a lot of the time by using the integrated ASIC hardware. That hardware has nothing to do with gaming cores, so upping for a top of the line card makes no difference. I got the 580 because I do other things too on that computer. I am hot sure if the faster bus makes a difference:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_RX_500_Series
  


• the GPU encoding might still have some issues and nVidia is usually better in this respect. I switched from a GTX960 myself, and it served me perfectly. I don't have a 10xx series, but I know that they improved the ASIC block (called nvenc in nVidia) significantelly.


• GPU memory and even system memory in my usage doesn't get used so much. Sure, there can be scenarious that will ask for more memory (like Jeff suggested), but... are you gonna use it like that?


• With all the faults, I found out that PD makes a better use of GPU and has better performance than may editors out there, proffesional or not. That's why I have stopped here.

You're not saying if you mean intel is better for "this" program or video editing, in general. Because the latter is just not the case, assuming the amd has more threads. That is what eevry single article says is that you should go with amd if youa re going to sue the computer for a lot of productivity work, ie editing and that the itnels are only recommended for gamers. The only time the itnel would be better for videoe diting is if either it's an itnel with the same mor more cores than the amd or if the program is not properly optimized to utilize extra threads.

I don't have an example of useage that would use x amount of RAM or y amount of vram. The fact remains, if you search in any search engine for recommended pc specs for video editing, every one of them will recommend at least 16GB RAM, with it also syaing it's better to have 32 or even 64. Then for gpu, it will always sat amkiunt of VRAM is the most important aspect. So, again, if that is not the case for this program, soemthign is odd about this program's optimization, to go against all exprert articles' claims.

I'm not here to criticize the software, but I also read a professional revew that said powerdirector's effects are not close to professioanl level and thata nyone wanting effects would need to go with nero's product or that videostudio is better at that too, but that program is much slower encoding.

So I am just flat stuck now, not knowing what to do because most programs don't allow BR burning and then this program is apaprently not optimized to sue good pc specs and the other one I know of that still allows BR burning not only makes you pay a licensing fee to do so, but it is known for being a slow encoder.

doublethr33,
I also read a professional revew that said powerdirector's effects are not close to professioanl level and thata nyone wanting effects would need to go with nero's product or that videostudio is better at that too, but that program is much slower encoding.

Powerdirector's FX are, in my view, perfectly acceptable, but it also has New Blue and Prodad and Boris, even Pixelan, so that argument is garbage, the FX library is well stocked by big names in the industry.

As for Nero, I can't believe they're still in business. Anyone who recommends a Nero product over a Cyberlink product for anything is having mental frame-drops.

Now Videostudio, a direct competitor, I'll just say I never liked the user interface, at all, except for the Smartsound implementation which was much better than my bestie NLE, PD. HP Envy Phoenix/4thGen i7-4770(4@3.4GHz~turbo>3.9)
Nvidia GTX 960(4GB)/16GB DDR3/
Canon Vixia HV30/HF-M40/HF-M41/HF-G20/Olympus E-PL5.
Tape capture using 6 VCR, TBC-1000, Elite BVP4+, Sony D8 camcorder with TBC.
https://www.facebook.com/BarryAFTT

doublethr33, sounds like a really tough predicament. To ease your challenges, why don't you simply get a system as all your research and all these "professional" editors indicate is great for editing. Once you have it, you can always try this consumer editor, PD16, with CyberLink’s no risk offer for 30 days. https://www.cyberlink.com/support/purchase-faq-content.do?id=16356 If you don't like PD and PD’s performance on your system, then get your refund and switch to your other editor which is required to meet your editing needs and you have this “professional” recommended system for your editing platform.

Concerning CPU’s, I know it’s outdated, but in 2013 with PD12, I installed PD on 15 different CPU’s, my conclusion at the time was the PD user editing experience for tasks that are CPU intensive inside PD pretty much mimics basic CPU performance charts from passmark.com or the like. There is a forum thread discussing. Your comment regarding just comparison of core count can be highly misleading. Just for comparison, I pulled CPU’s with a passmark rating higher than 15000 and plotted performance vs cores, you can see a massive dispersion. If not interested in a iGPU CPU, simply use passmark.com and look at CPU ratings for your CPU price point would be a good indicator of end editing and CPU encoding satisfaction in PD.

Concerning effects. In my PD use I typically don’t find effects being on the nonprofessional level. To be honest, I use very few effects, as most professional editing I view. Sure, requirements maybe significantly different for others. I do find the supplied PIP’s, particles and titles, to be a little underwhelming. I can usually manually create things to suite my needs. Finding something of value on directorzone is probably an understatement as well as the new AI effects. AI didn’t appear to be a forum favorite here https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/76078.page#post_box_311131 but some marketing/sales must see the need and drive development for such features.

Concerning RAM. Other than OS requirements, an applications additional RAM requirement is really to handle what’s in a given timeline instantaneously. More than that implies no distinct advantage. So, if one’s instantaneous use of RAM at a given section of the timeline is 5GB in addition to OS, having 32GB or 64GB offers no editing improvement. I’ve never had a timeline instantaneous RAM requirement come close to 16GB, OS and application in PD. Yes, applied effects add a little, PIP a little, multiple tracks a little, I’ve just not come close to needing 32GB, let alone 64GB. It does not imply some shortfall of the app, it simply is not required. Again, different editors can require different resources, efficiently and inefficiently. Maybe view it the other way, if I need 64GB of RAM to edit a simple 20GB of timeline video for my BD, users would all be up in arms with the editors RAM requirements. VRAM comments are about the same, they depend heavily on GPU decoding of timeline and timeline content. One thing for certain, CUDA cores are not used significantly since PD transitioned to NVENC when Nvidia applied the sunset on the CUDA based encoder with 340.xx driver, although others codes may. I have several niche encoders that load CUDA cores entirely with their encoding suite and no ASIC (NVENC) load at all, 100% opposite of PD.

Concerning BD. I think if you read this forum you’d find BD menu creating is not really a PD strong suite. Most users struggle with the current implementation. My experience is most things within reason can be migrated around by the accomplished. If your need is really a strong BD menu creation package with strong creative flexibility, I wouldn’t suggest PD fits that need. For most however, I think it has suitable features, maybe not intuitive for most.

Jeff

In my view, the biggest difference between PD and a proffesional editor are the licensing terms in the EULA.
The lack of professional licenses for H264, H265 and MPEG formats means that those cannot be used legally in any commercial video.
This is typical for all the video editors in this price range. Those rules are always ignored by users (I am not judging ), but it is still worth noting.

Professional products, that cost several hunderd $, have those lincensing fees included in price.

See the exact wording here:
https://www.cyberlink.com/support/product-faq-content.do?id=17447&prodId=4

If you are going to use the SOFTWARE for commercial purposes then
additional licenses will be needed for the following non-exhaustive list
of third party technologies:


Technology Contract Name Licensing Agent/ Licensor

H.264/MPEG-4 AVC AVC Patent Portfolio License

MPEG-LA, LLC, 6312 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 400E Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA 80111

MPEG-1/2 Audio (Encoder) MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License

MPEG-2 Video MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License

MVC MVC Patent Portfolio License

Sensio 3D/2D Software Library License and Ancillary Services Agreement
Sensio Technologies, Inc., 1751, Richardson, Suite 4.206, Montreal
(Quebec), Canada, H3K 1G6

MPEG-2/4 AAC, 5.1-ch Decoder + 2-ch Encoder AAC Patent License Agreement
Via Licensing Corporation, 475 Brannan Street, Suite 320, San
Francisco, CA 94107-5420, USA

CyberLink does not license the above items for commercial use and you
are advised to approach the relevant licensing agents at the above
addresses for more information.

* MPEG DISTRIBUTION
ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT IN ANY MANNER
OTHER THAN PERSONAL USE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR
ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED
WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT
PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM MPEG-LA,LLC AT THE ADDRESS
ABOVE.

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO
LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i)
ENCODE VIDEO IN COMLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO" AND/OR (ii)
DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL
AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED
FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG-LA.


You also acknowledge that no rights are granted or may be extended to
you to use the SOFTWARE with MPEG-4 Video Content unless such MPEG-4
Content is sold or delivered to you by a content outlet licensed under
the MPEG-4 Essential Claims to make such sale or delivery.

PS: Commerically means making money derived from your videos. In my view, even youtube monetization is a commercial endeavour.

Thanks for all of the thorough replies, everyone.

I doubt I'd be professionally using this, ie selling discs I create. Anything is possible, though. I'd say if vegas pro were on soem very, very, very good sale, down at like $150, i'd maybe get that, but otherwise will ahve to get one of this tier. I am sure not getting the adobe one and paying the stupid monthly fee.... And someone told me their elements version of it doesn't allow BR burning anymore. (I think it allows you to create them in a certain format, just not what is thought of as a blu-ray by some).

Also, I likely won't use effects much. I just never know for sure. I indeed thought with all of those packs that come with ultimate it was odd they said the effects weren't professional. Either they weren't using ultimate or else maybe there is something wrong with PD's implemntation of the extra effects?

As for building the pc and then trying both via trials, I may do that. Only problem is the whole gpu decision. I am leanign towards selling the rx 580 and buing a nvidia 1060 or 1070 if a good deal pops up. Of course PD17 may fix the amd issues and maske me frustrated I go to the toruble of selling and rebuying a gpu...

Then on cpu I can't deicde whether o get current tech, wait 2 months and get intel 9th gen, or wait until next year. But I've bought most parts and their warranties are ticking away while I decide.

Also, I forget if I mentioned this or not, but when I tlak about RAM, I am talking about when working with 4k video. And besidfes that. when they make RAM recommendations, they also are likely assumign that a professional may have multiple programs open, such as this one, hitfilm (or filmhit, w/e it's called), possible photo editing software, browsers, etc... But even just the video editing program being open should get mighty clsoe to 16gb use on some 4k projects with most editing software.

Quote Also, I forget if I mentioned this or not, but when I tlak about RAM, I am talking about when working with 4k video. And besidfes that. when they make RAM recommendations, they also are likely assumign that a professional may have multiple programs open, such as this one, hitfilm (or filmhit, w/e it's called), possible photo editing software, browsers, etc... But even just the video editing program being open should get mighty clsoe to 16gb use on some 4k projects with most editing software.

doublethr33, maybe a small video will convince you that 32/64GB is not needed by PD16 to work with and playback 4K timeline content. Since you indicate 4K footage, I simply grabbed a sample from here: http://4ksamples.com/panasonic-gh4-4k-uhd-sample-footage/

I’ve copied the source 10 times with windows to simulate 10 random clips. I’ve created a simple PD project that has one of these clips playing in the full screen as a background and 9 PIP’s of the other 9 clips playing in small windows. So, ten, 4K source video’s in the timeline all playing back simultaneously. Probably pretty aggressive for typical editing timeline. In the top left PIP I’ve also applied a bizarre color adjustment so you could easily see something was done, likewise with the lower left PIP. I’ve shifted each clip on the timeline so they are all playing something different and added a basic title.

The full project load, timeline details, source video details, playback details, and memory usage are all captured in the uploaded screen capture.
Basically:
~3.2GB total memory used by my current OS prior to loading PD16
~6.6GB total memory used and stable usage during playback of ten 4K clips
~3.2GB total memory used by my current OS after shutting down PD16

So, ~3.4GB used by PD16 to load app and to playback ten 4K clips simultaneously. Yes, certainly one needs to adjust requirements for other applications running simultaneously, but that’s unique to every individual, so it’s probably best to simply discuss the RAM usage of the editor by itself, nothing near 16/32/64GB.

This forum service has been broken (timeout) all day for the wmv attach (a minor 20MB) so I'm simply providing a still from the screen capture which shows the RAM usage.

Jeff

Right now, multiple GB of RAM is being used for my pc to do almost nothing. Also, I have a feeling you have the feature enabled where it shows clips on the timeline at lower resolutions than whetat they really are.

https://www.cgdirector.com/ram-video-editing/

That is a good example of how almost "every" recommendation article is. That you'd need at least 16gb if you do much of anything and 32gb if you want to do a lot of background stuff. So all of the articles are wrong, when they all suggest the same thing? There's more to take into account than just the amount used from the program, as well, ie the other programs open at the same time and windows.

I'd for sure not go below 16gb, my only decision is on 16 vs. 32. But I already have the 32, so unless I want to lose a lot by resellling with ebay fees, I'm about stuckm, anyway. Otherwise, Id be tempted to get 16 gb of RAM designed for my cpu.

Was justr eading where even 32gb isn't enough for someone who uses premiere and after efects.... that he has to close one or thee other at times. So even just for futureproofing it sounds like you'd need 32 minimum.

Does cyberlink release info about the next version of this program before it releases, or not until release? I am waiting on PD17, hoping they fixed whatever gpu issues, or I may sell my rx 580 and buy a gtx 1060 or 1070.

Quote Also, I have a feeling you have the feature enabled where it shows clips on the timeline at lower resolutions than whetat they really are..

That would be another wrong feeling. I was not using PD16 "Enable HD video processing (shadow file)" setting in pref. I also had the playback preview quality set at "Full HD Preview Resolution" which is the highest playback setting that PD16 offers.

Quote I'd for sure not go below 16gb, my only decision is on 16 vs. 32. But I already have the 32, so unless I want to lose a lot by resellling with ebay fees, I'm about stuckm, anyway. Otherwise, Id be tempted to get 16 gb of RAM designed for my cpu.

Then it appears you have your answer there, you have 32GB. PD16 will never use that but as I indicated earlier, how you want to use the ~80+% that PD16's will never utilize is entirely up to you.

Quote Does cyberlink release info about the next version of this program before it releases, or not until release?.

Past experience has been not until release,

Jeff

Quote

That would be another wrong feeling. I was not using PD16 "Enable HD video processing (shadow file)" setting in pref. I also had the playback preview quality set at "Full HD Preview Resolution" which is the highest playback setting that PD16 offers.



Then it appears you have your answer there, you have 32GB. PD16 will never use that but as I indicated earlier, how you want to use the ~80+% that PD16's will never utilize is entirely up to you.



Past experience has been not until release,

Jeff

Again, I didn't say this prograsm does or doesn't use x amount. What I did say is "if" it isn't using above a few GB of RAM and it isn't using gpu acceleration, then it's cutting corners somewhere. Fact. If nothing was being lost, other programs (professional standard ones) wouldn't be using literally 10 times as much RAM. And i'd find it hard to believe that it's simply that cyberlink knows more about optimizing programs than the others, given those amd acceleration results and someone saying intel is better than amd processors, which is just flat not the case in any half way decent program if the amd cpu has more cores than the intel. That's the whole "point" in people buying up the latest amd cpus is that extra cores equals better video editing results.

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/guides/workstation-adobe-4k-guide.pdf

According to that, it says 32gb of RAM is a "minimum" needed for 4k video editing. Again, I find it hard to believe that one program could want a minimum of 32gb and another do just as good with 2gb.... It even claims you need a minimum of a 12 core processor, which is soc razy that there'd be no point in anyone doing editing if they aren't professionals when shelling out that much.

And notice with such good specs in their test it STILL takes more minutes than the length of their test clip to encode it. If you ened that crazy of specs to do anything half way decent, I might as well have just got a worse cpu, worse gpu, and forget editing.

Notice that last recommended one at the end of the document is TWO 24 core processors and 128gb ram. You'd be out thousands just from the cpus and RAM alone.

doublethr33, I'm well aware of other needs, but this forum pertains to what PD16 and it's users may need to edit effectively with this product. Are shortcuts being taken by PD, not really that I'm aware of other than stuff already mentioned in these threads. For instance, 4k source video is only displayed as Full HD resolution during timeline editing, but that's hardly a shortcut for editing. But yes, it does significantly lower compute requirements for a happy editor.

I've often taken 10,000-15,000 fps (no that's not a typo) video of high impact stuff, baseball hit, golf swing, ballistics, staged crash events, ..... so on over the years. I wouldn't think of working with those professional files on PD16, in fact it won't even read the RAW files. However, once processed to 30fps MP4, often some final work is done in PD16 with no issue at all. Yes PD16 plays back no problem as it's just supper slo mo, ~400x slow up compressed H.264 video at this stage at 30fps which PD16 works fine with.

And yes, those RAW files are processed on fairly high end systems, typically on one of two platforms. An SGI workstation with dual E5-2690 v3 (24 total procs) with dual Nvidia P5000's and 256GB of RAM and everything gets lit up during processing. The other typical system is Dual E5-2667 v4 (16 procs total) and Nvidia K6000's. And yes, again to your probable surprise, the 16proc system outperforms the 24proc system, big clock speed difference the reason why. Hence my graph earlier showing a metric is more like a passmark (or other performance) rating vs a simply proc count. All this GPU and RAM in these workstations is a need and great, just no advantage for consumer editor like PD16, nor would most home video enthusiasts be able to play in this arena if it was the case.

For what it's worth, I've tried the P5000 in my simple home editor box with PD16, performs the same as my GTX1070. $US2000 vs $US350 why no change, both have the same basic fourth generation NVENC implements for encoding that PD16 uses for hardware encoding. Again the CUDA capability is vastly different, 1920 vs 2560 cores but irrelevant for PD16 as has been mentioned many times and also mentioned, the NVENC hardware encoding will flatout encode faster than any similar CPU investment.

I’m afraid I can’t assist anymore with your configuration dilemma, happy editing with whatever way you go. PD16 is a very viable consumer editor for home use on many platforms, has quirks, short comings, deficiencies, but, everything does.

Jeff

Hi,

Firstly, thank you to all those who participated in this topic, and did so constructively and appropriately. The issues raised and the way members posed solutions and underpinned their arguments with a high level of knowledge was great.

The topic demonstrated several things and also highlights the problems that editors face when looking at the marketplace. Real life experience often shows the discrepancies between the market info and practical use.

Unless there are any strong objections, I would like to close off the topic. It is comprehensive and thorough but if it remains open it may become too long and varied to be easily followed and it would then lose its value.

Any side threads that folk might want to continue could be done as seperate topics, I can always post a link to them here if appropriate.

Feel free to PM me.

Cheers
PowerDirector Moderator

For customer support related issues, please contact:
- Customer service: https://membership.cyberlink.com/support/customer-services.do
- Technical support: https://membership.cyberlink.com/support/service/technical-support.do