Quote I wonder if PD17 will support the new nVidia RTX cards. Some of the demos are very impressive. From what I have read, the RTX2080, 2070, 2060 should be out by end of October or November.

I’m sure PD17 will, probably about the same support as PD16. The GPU is exciting, many exciting new features of little relevance to current PD though.

1. GPU will feature real-time playback of 8K, PD playback has been limited to Full HD playback and even then many report stutters/skips, in PD16 GPU decode not utilized effectively, say after splits/transitions/…., maybe PD17 will simply fix those bugs and any previous GPU would benefit too with consumer 4K and less.


2. NVENC has been improved again and achieves same quality with ~25% less bitrate, for PD17, or for that matter, any PD version that supports NVENC (PD terminology > Hardware video encoder), one should realize slightly improved quality at the same VBR which PD uses.


3. Seems like several users would like 10bit HEVC color, current GeForce 10 series GPU’s support that for 2+yrs, just not PD16 so that might finally become available in PD17.

Probably just have to wait for PD17 in a month or so and see what new dazzling features CL has implemented, my guess, nothing strictly relevant to the new Nvidia GPU lineup to be released.

Jeff

Quote

I’m sure PD17 will, probably about the same support as PD16. The GPU is exciting, many exciting new features of little relevance to current PD though.

1. GPU will feature real-time playback of 8K, PD playback has been limited to Full HD playback and even then many report stutters/skips, in PD16 GPU decode not utilized effectively, say after splits/transitions/…., maybe PD17 will simply fix those bugs and any previous GPU would benefit too with consumer 4K and less.


2. NVENC has been improved again and achieves same quality with ~25% less bitrate, for PD17, or for that matter, any PD version that supports NVENC (PD terminology > Hardware video encoder), one should realize slightly improved quality at the same VBR which PD uses.


3. Seems like several users would like 10bit HEVC color, current GeForce 10 series GPU’s support that for 2+yrs, just not PD16 so that might finally become available in PD17.

Probably just have to wait for PD17 in a month or so and see what new dazzling features CL has implemented, my guess, nothing strictly relevant to the new Nvidia GPU lineup to be released.

Jeff

Would be nice if PD17 (18?) could support all the new features in RTX cards like RT cores and AI cores. I'm sure someone could figure a way to utilizes these in video rendering. Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

Quote
Would be nice if PD17 (18?) could support all the new features in RTX cards like RT cores and AI cores. I'm sure someone could figure a way to utilizes these in video rendering.

To my knowledge, PD simply uses the API provided by Nvidia to access the encoder. I don’t see Nvidia as having any current interest going backward, they have the best of both worlds right now. An isolated GPU for all of gameplay features with no restrictions, and a totally isolated SIP core for recording the gameplay that is independent and does not affect gameplay GPU framerate performance.

You might see that PD's AI Styles plugin may utilize some aspect, I've never checked nor ever plan to use/purchase, at least the current "Styles" as I see no real function nor applicability to large chunks of a typical users timeline so performance rather irrelevant.

Yes, other CUDA/GPU based encoders, either CL would have to develop, I kind of doubt that, or license from a third party, possible, however often costly as these encoders are associated with much more higher end editing. No harm in PD feature dreaming though.

Jeff

https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/5723-red-uses-nvidia%E2%80%99s-new-turing-architecture-for-realtime-8k

Professional studio apps ready for REAL TIME 8K video editing. Just saying would be nice if Cyberlink could add at least some of this (or their own similar) technology into PD. I have always felt that PD has never been fully optimized to take advantage of GTX cores. Now we have new RTX cards to be released. Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

Quote Professional studio apps ready for REAL TIME 8K video editing. Just saying would be nice if Cyberlink could add at least some of this (or their own similar) technology into PD. I have always felt that PD has never been fully optimized to take advantage of GTX cores. Now we have new RTX cards to be released.

I get you, but PD really does not use the GTX cores for any decode or encode processing, period, except for a few isolated FX. So yes, the CUDA capable cores will always be idle or lightly loaded with this PD type of workflow. The decode and encode are handled by two entirely different and isolated blocks on the video card. So in my view, what you have here is really apples and oranges comparison. These are raw R3D files, so essentially output from the camera image sensor itself so they need to be overlaid with a color filter and then reconstructed to get an image. Very algorithm computationally intense process. It sounds like they offloaded this reconstruction to the GPU, the CUDA cores, so yes, full use of the RTX GPU to build the image from the RAW. Basically, for all consumer cameras, this same process with no user control is done by the camera firmware, hence the apples and oranges comparison. That's why you have a MOV, MTS, MP4 ..... or any other fully processed footage off a consumer camera that simply needs basic decoding to playback.

Jeff

Quote

I’m sure PD17 will, probably about the same support as PD16. The GPU is exciting, many exciting new features of little relevance to current PD though.

1. GPU will feature real-time playback of 8K, PD playback has been limited to Full HD playback and even then many report stutters/skips, in PD16 GPU decode not utilized effectively, say after splits/transitions/…., maybe PD17 will simply fix those bugs and any previous GPU would benefit too with consumer 4K and less.


2. NVENC has been improved again and achieves same quality with ~25% less bitrate, for PD17, or for that matter, any PD version that supports NVENC (PD terminology > Hardware video encoder), one should realize slightly improved quality at the same VBR which PD uses.


3. Seems like several users would like 10bit HEVC color, current GeForce 10 series GPU’s support that for 2+yrs, just not PD16 so that might finally become available in PD17.

Probably just have to wait for PD17 in a month or so and see what new dazzling features CL has implemented, my guess, nothing strictly relevant to the new Nvidia GPU lineup to be released.

Jeff

Honestly, I see no point in using PD on a machine with a GPU like that. Just use Resolve 15. It doesn’t cost anything and the free version has everything PD has and then some.

Consumer editors are are designed for mainstream hardware. Almost no one with a GPU like that will bother with this software.

They can ignore it because there will be almost no demand for it in their user base.

Quote Honestly, I see no point in using PD on a machine with a GPU like that.

The RTX2000 series will be replacing the GTX1000 series and should be on the market by Black Friday. I think the RTX2050 will start under $200US. The RTX2080 is already on the market for under $800. I'll probably buy the RTX2060 if it is uner $350.

RTX5000 ($2300US), 6000 and 8000 ($10000US) is the pro line. Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

Quote Honestly, I see no point in using PD on a machine with a GPU like that.

That's why it's all a personal choice.

When the 2070 is released in October timeframe or even when the 2060 is released with essentially the same SIP encoding and decoding cores as the 2080 for ~US$400 or so it can be a very effective way to get substantial encoding performance vs any high-end CPU purchase for those that need or desire encode performance. Particularly H.265 format.

Jeff

I don't know, but I'm really in a mess because of what people said here. they said that PD16 is pretty much broken with amd cards, after I bought a rx 580. So i then panicked and bought a gtx 1060, figuring I could sell my unopened rx 580, no problem. Nope, people started offering the most ridiculous low amounts of money for it, to where now i am either going to have to lose $50-$100 for something I didn't open or sell the nvidia one and lose whatever on that one and be stuck with the rx 580, with nobody knowing if PD17 would be fixing amd support r not. After all of that, they'll probably fix it and I wasted money for nothing. Jeff is who pretty much conviced me I'd need a different gpu, yet couldn't be bothered to answer a PM when I was in that situation figuring out what to do, so now I'll just lose a lot of money. That's the problem with people on forums is they usually just say you're wrong about something, but thenhvave no advice on rectifying it. The sad thing is if I knew I'd be stuck like this, I could have bought a gtx 1080 for the price of both of these combined cards I am now out on. If cyberlink would be more open on what gets fixed in upcoming versions at least I would have had a better idea on what to do. Had a competing product been good with amd cards, I would have just gone that way and never got the nvidia one, but I read that videostudio is known for having terrible gpu acceleration, to the point where it was almost not using the gpus at all.

Quote


Honestly, I see no point in using PD on a machine with a GPU like that. Just use Resolve 15. It doesn’t cost anything and the free version has everything PD has and then some.

Consumer editors are are designed for mainstream hardware. Almost no one with a GPU like that will bother with this software.

They can ignore it because there will be almost no demand for it in their user base.

From what I've read, it sounded like resolve is not only difficult to learn, but doesn't really have effects.

edit: wow, and after looking at the comparisons, the free version is lacking the most simple stuff that even cheap consumer software has. the free version has tons of missing effects and you can't even edit 4k video in the free version. So it's either use very simple features and 1080p video max, spend $300, or use something like PD, which doesn't make as much use out of the good specs of the pc. I've spent to get a 2700x cpu, 32gb ram, etc... and am not even going to ahve anything make much use of it, apparently.

Quote I don't know, but I'm really in a mess because of what people said here. they said that PD16 is pretty much broken with amd cards, after I bought a rx 580. So i then panicked and bought a gtx 1060, figuring I could sell my unopened rx 580, no problem. Nope, people started offering the most ridiculous low amounts of money for it, to where now i am either going to have to lose $50-$100 for something I didn't open or sell the nvidia one and lose whatever on that one and be stuck with the rx 580, with nobody knowing if PD17 would be fixing amd support r not. After all of that, they'll probably fix it and I wasted money for nothing. Jeff is who pretty much conviced me I'd need a different gpu, yet couldn't be bothered to answer a PM when I was in that situation figuring out what to do, so now I'll just lose a lot of money. That's the problem with people on forums is they usually just say you're wrong about something, but thenhvave no advice on rectifying it. The sad thing is if I knew I'd be stuck like this, I could have bought a gtx 1080 for the price of both of these combined cards I am now out on. If cyberlink would be more open on what gets fixed in upcoming versions at least I would have had a better idea on what to do. Had a competing product been good with amd cards, I would have just gone that way and never got the nvidia one, but I read that videostudio is known for having terrible gpu acceleration, to the point where it was almost not using the gpus at all.

Hi,
Just a reminder here for you and others who may read this in the future :

The forum is for members to ask other members for information, often to resolve a particular issue, or for guidance and opinion on more general matters.

No member has any obligation to respond or contribute to any particular topic, post or PM.
No member should expect that other members will automatically respond or contribute to their issue.

Members give their hard won expertise, information or opinion voluntarily, perhaps responding only to those posts that either interest them, or where they have something significant to contribute.

When a member posts with an issue, and other members respond appropriately, it is a matter for the original poster what the totality of the contributions mean for them and their own situation. It is quite rare for a general issue to have a single definitive answer, and so, having asked for, and received, information from other members you must reach your own decision.

So in your own case, if you feel you are in a "mess", it seems somewhat unfair to lay the blame on other members voluntarily giving you information that you sought.

The forum works best when all members appreciate the voluntary nature of the forum, act courteously and abide by the forum guidelines.

Thank you.
PowerDirector Moderator

@doublethr33

Quote I don't know, but I'm really in a mess because of what people said here. they said that PD16 is pretty much broken with amd cards, after I bought a rx 580.

And yet I can use my RX 580 without issues, because what's broken (H264 interlaced and H265 with ridiculous high bitrate) doesn't affect me. I have posted at that time.

Also, any high end (even medium end) card that you buy will loose instantly $50-70 when you click on "buy" button. They are bad "investements" from strictly finacial point of view.
That's why you need to think twice and press once. You did the other way around.

@JL_JL (Jeff)

Quote
I’m sure PD17 will, probably about the same support as PD16. The GPU is exciting, many exciting new features of little relevance to current PD though.

Jeff

I agree with that. People get trapped in the marketing about the Gigaflops and forget that the video editing software uses zero of those Gigaflops and computing cores.
The SIP core could be pachaged with zero cores and it would still work the same for video editing. Actually I am wondering how long intill that will be avail speratelly

Quote: the free version is lacking the most simple stuff that even cheap consumer software has. the free version has tons of missing effects and you can't even edit 4k video in the free version.

I know it's completely irrelevant to the core content of this thread, but that's not correct, if you're referring to DaVinci Resolve 15.

Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

Quote

Quote: the free version is lacking the most simple stuff that even cheap consumer software has. the free version has tons of missing effects and you can't even edit 4k video in the free version.

I know it's completely irrelevant to the core content of this thread, but that's not correct, if you're referring to DaVinci Resolve 15.

Cheers - Tony

That's what it says anywhere I've seen. And after reading it several places, I found some page where the company was describing their products and it said something like "and the studio version adds..." and listed what it adds above the free version and 4k video was one of the things it listed. So I'm just going by what I've read (and also that it has issues with various common consumer video file types, due to beign meant more for professional work, whereas PD is mroe for everyday consumers).

Quote


I agree with that. People get trapped in the marketing about the Gigaflops and forget that the video editing software uses zero of those Gigaflops and computing cores.
The SIP core could be pachaged with zero cores and it would still work the same for video editing. Actually I am wondering how long intill that will be avail speratelly

You're 100% wrong. I can't stress enough just how absolutely incorrect you are.

And only consumers care about NVEnc, because they don't tend to care about ripping out lower quality video renders to upload to a video site like YouTube or Facebook (which will destroy your quality, anyways). NVEnc isn't going to help you when you're a professional/freelancer and your client asks you to deliver in ProRes or DNxHR... It doesn't even support the CODECs that Professionals edit with; but CUDA based encoders in sofwtare like Premiere Pro CC (i.e. for DNxHR) will. NVDec won't help you decode or debayer your Cinema DNG 8K footage. It also won't make you not need a RAID of SSDs to be able to achieve the bandwidth needed to read those files. A low end GPU also doesn't have the VRAM for serious 4K editing, nevermind 5k or 8k.

You can "get NVEnc seperately" by simply getting an Intel CPU with QSV. It basically serves the same purpose. AMD GPUs and CPUs [with an iGPU] have their UVD/VCE SIPs which basically do the same things.

NVEnc is a bigger deal for gamers than video editors (aside from consumer market where people often are editing bad CODECs with low specs or old hardware). It allows them to record and stream gameplay off of the [actual] GPU and CPU, to avoid gameplay frame drops. For editing, it simply isn't that big of a deal. Software rendering is king, which is why CUDA-based Encoders/Decoders (i.e. Resolve Studio's H.264/5 Encoders) are a thing, and Threadripper CPUs actually have a target market.

8k H.264 is completely inviable for editing. HEVC at 8k would be the perfect storm within an editor's worst nightmare. You would need the IBM Watson supercomputer and a farm of 2080s to edit that, using an NLE with a CUDA-based Decoder/Encoder that scales properly to meet the task (like DaVinci Resolve).

And lastly, NVEnc doesn't do anything for editing. It only Encodes video. It's a hardware encoder.

1 2080 isn't going to be enough for 8k Video Editing. It's only somewhat faster than a 1080, and that certainly isn't enough. People who do 5-8k editing aren't doing it with one GPU in their machine. They're using 2-4 of them along with an NLE that properly scales with that kind of hardware. NVEnc and NVDec aren't doing anything for them.

There's a reason why PowerDirector (and many consumer NLEs) enforce lower resoluton previews, etc. Biasing to H.264/HEVC and using QSV, NVEnc/NVDec, and UVD/VCE can help offset load from weaker CPUs, as well.

Quote


From what I've read, it sounded like resolve is not only difficult to learn, but doesn't really have effects.

edit: wow, and after looking at the comparisons, the free version is lacking the most simple stuff that even cheap consumer software has. the free version has tons of missing effects and you can't even edit 4k video in the free version. So it's either use very simple features and 1080p video max, spend $300, or use something like PD, which doesn't make as much use out of the good specs of the pc. I've spent to get a 2700x cpu, 32gb ram, etc... and am not even going to ahve anything make much use of it, apparently.

Resolve 15 has all the basic effects you'd need. You can also get Ignite Express for Free. 80+ that work with Resolve. The only effect that Resolve restricts to Studio that I've found I needed was a Lens Flare, which Ignite gives away for free. Maybe you're confused by the lack of a distinct mention of things like Stabilization and basic Noise Reduction. That is actually in the Free Version. It's a Pro NLE. These are "basic" features in that market.

[Free] Resolve can ingest any resolution footage, and can output up to UHD @ 60 FPS. The free version of Resolve has a feature set that far outpaces the feature set of the entire Director Suite - by a very long way. The comparison between Free and Studio versions is here.

18 Resolve FX are limited to the Studio Version. There are dozens in the free version. 50 in Total. 18 of them will watermark in the Free Version (Reserved for Studio). That's ignoring "Presets" (which Consumer Editors use to add together and arrive at ridiculous numbers like "1,500+ Effects!").

Please, cite to me the things on that chart that Resolve Free Restricts which are "consumer editor features." Maybe the "Lens Distortion Correction" and Cinema 4K resolution (slightly taller than UHD, but same width)? Some of that chart is misleading. Free Resolve Decodes HEVC on Windows, for example, despite what it says in the comparison. It just uses the System CODECs and not their CUDA-based Decoders (which are in Studio).

Complaining about the limitations in Resolve [Free] has to be one of the most illogical things one can do. It's free, so it's not like one cannot just... download it and see for themselves. That software is as feature rich as Premiere Pro and Avid - even in the free version - and they have done this deliberately. The Studio edition is completely unnecessary unless you're a serious content creator or professional. Blackmagic is, fundamentally, a hardware company; so they can afford to give away their software like this.

Resolve Studio used to cost $999+. They dropped the price to $299 and are giving 95% of it away for free.

Additionally, BMD have never charged an upgrade fee since they acquired the product several years ago. So, the long terms costs are actually cheaper than PowerDirector (and especially Director Suite); even if the initial purchase is higher. The base price for a Pro NLE is now $0. You only learn how to use software once ;

If you need to learn how to use it, go to Amazon and buy the tutorial eBook for $5.99. It was just updated for Resolve 15. That will teach you the basics. The Resolve Reference Manual is also amazingly well written. Probably the best user guide I've ever seen (post 2000, at least).

Encoding and decoding take 90% of the time, that's why the ASIC is important.

The rest, the effects that can be accelerated vis GPU cores... who uses those? If you use effects on more than 5% of the video, it gooks bad. Plus, not all of those effects can be properly multithreaded, so using a GPU is out of question.
A good CPU is a much more useful investment than buckets of GPU cores that will sit idle.