|
|
Quote
Quote
Quote
I have made a title template with Title Designer. When I insert the title into the time line, the default length is 10 min. How can I change this?
To change the Default value, Title
Preferences, Editing, Durations: Title
see the image
PD has no way to set the duration, for specific Title, saved.
drquark
Are you sure that you are looking at the timing correctly. The default title is ten seconds.
I was meant to write 10 sec !! Forgot all about this setting 8
|
|
|
|
I have made a title template with Title Designer. When I insert the title into the time line, the default length is 10 min. How can I change this?
|
|
|
So I was right with next year??!! 
It took my wife and me splice splice splicing (with cement, not tape) our 1:40hr S8 documentary of Australia with sound track, voice-over and animations in a room with clothes lines of film clips 3 (three) months to finish - so we've come a long way ...
(naughty of me to post this here - may be we should open a 'history' forum  )
|
|
|
I read most the material provided but I think my conclusion from my second test still holds - reversing clips seems really bad as it does not seem to give the CPU or GPU continous work (see the graphs!) so the rendering times are equally longer with or without HA. What other disruption could there be other than I/O related? But no, I won't be burning SSDs 
Most of the tests do not specify the exact properties of their test files regarding edting complexity. Maybe we should adopt a 'real live' or 'worst-case' scenario - editing is fun, PD provides so many features and effects, why shouldn't we be creative and apply colour corrections, sound editing, lot's of transitions, speed changes, cropping to name a few? Waiting ages for the finished product is no fun!
On a philosophical note: I am an IT fossil, having learned on IBMs with punch cards, programmed mainframe systems, encoded pre-PC personal computers and ... and ... and ... before ending up as a retired PC power user. I had a passion making Super 8 movies from the age of 13 and quickly adopted video cameras. In the analogue world editing was slow and expensive, using stacks of video recorders and tape formats. In the mid '90s (?) we were told "digital video editing is here!". I went through generations of expensive hardware plug-ins with expensive, proprietry and fault riddled software. Every time we were told "it's really working now" I found that the camera and display technology was outpacing editing technology. For me, HD is more than enough quality and inexpensive regarding hardware, after all most joy I derive from the content of a movie not the resolution.
Conclusion: why shouldn't the average video enthusiast be able to create a movie from filming to the finished product without replacing his computer every two years and spending hours dealing with vendors' support tickets or even certain forums ... now it's out, I just had to get this out of my system, hoping I haven't bored everyone! While I am sitting on my coffin and pondering I join pepsiman in 'happy happy joy joy' - I do enjoy chatting with you guys and thanks for all the help!
BTW, I've heard that next year digital video editing will really work flawlessly .... eehh do the Cyberlink guys read this stuff?
drquark
|
|
|
Thanks again for your detailed info - the performance chart is interesting but with my setup I cannot keep up - with H.264 I get HA only up to 1920x1080 16Mb/s - but that's fine as my camera only produces up to this format anyway.
However, I solved one mystery why users get such different rendering times and sometimes no speed advantage with HA! I did my own simple test: Test file was a 2:00min .MTS video composed of a few little clips without any effects applied. I rendered in H.264 AVC 1920x1080 16Mb/s both with and without HA and got 02:02min (no HA) & 01:03min (HA) which shows the GPU was working well. I took screenshots of Windows Resource Monitor (file attached). In the first case the CPU is working 100%, in the second a little less with the GPU halving rendering time!
However, the situation changed entirely when I applied heavy editing, in this case reversing every clip in the video. I then got rendering times of 06:30min (no HA) & 06:22min(HA)! This shows two things: editing can increase rendering times by several 100%! The fact that HA did not have any effect can be explained by looking at the CPU activity - it was intermittent in both cases and I also noticed a high disk activity. So the more effects are applied (especially ones that affect an entire clip) the HDD becomes the limiting factor, so much so that the GPU has literally no effect. It also means that a very fast HDD is equally important as the GPU - the system needs to be well balanced.
Before I spend big time on new hardware and software - does anybody know if PD 15 works well with the latest Nvidia GPUs using the Pascal architecture?
|
|
|
Thank you pepsiman for your valuable information - I now do have a benchmark as your machine is very similiar.
Quote:
yes. i have i7-2720QM(Dell XPS). it's great that your SVRT is working; however, what percentage does the PD has to re-render(red portion)??? if your SVRT is around 90% green then it'll be lickydsplit! if yours is around 30% green then, yup, go outside cut grass or make a coffee or...
FYI the original clips were in .mts format with HD resolution. I am running PD 13 and the movie was highly edited with scene reversals, speed changes, titles etc. so I gather most would have to be re-rendered (btw I can't see any red or green bits?!).
Quote:
PD14 will apply GPGPU acceleration(HA).
Are you suggesting PD 13 doesn't even though I can select it? As I got pretty much the same rendering times no matter whether I ticked 'SVRT', 'hardware encoding' or nothing it obviously doesn't ... can I do anything else for the GPU to kick in?
Anyway, if 5:1 is the truth for my rendering times I have to live with it or spend some money (sigh!). I probably should render some plain, short .mts clip to get the best possible time for comparison.
I downloaded your screen shots but I could not find the link to download the comparison chart
Apart from upgrading my hardware I wonder if upgrading to PD 15 would improve anything with my hardware configuration?
BTW what programs are you using to monitor your GPU and CPU performane?
cheers drquark
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
if you just have 40 5 minute clips butted together, it should have taken about 200 minutes or about 3 and 1/3 hours to render.
You might want to rethink that position/statement in the future. Encode/render time has nothing to do with playback time. Many editors desire and buy hardware for a much better than 1:1 ratio. PD encode/render time is simply based on PC equipment and complexity of the timeline.
Attached pic is for 40, 5 min clips simply butted together with full CPU encoding/rendering, H.264, 1920x1080 (24Mbps) and took 72min, far less than the playback time of 200min.
Jeff
I have found this valuable discussion a bit late, after taking months to work out how to restore the HW acceleration options (tick boxes) in PD 13 by re-installing an older Geforce driver (337.88 ) for my GTX460M adapter. However, I am confused about rendering times - for a 10m 39s clip (with lots of reversed scenes and speed changes) I tried different formats and methods:
Speed with 'HW encoding' ticked:
- H.264 AVC MP4 1920x1080 25fps 16Mb/s took 00:54:45, resulting size 1.2Gb
- H.264 AVC MP4 1280x720 25fps 10Mb/s took 00:54:20, file size 783Mb
Speed with 'SVRT' ticked:
- H.264 AVC MP4 1920x1080 25fps 16Mb/s took 00:56:18, resulting size 1.2Gb
Speed with HW acceleration OFF - no significant difference in rendering time!
My system: MSI GT680 with core i7 2630QM, Win 7 64bit, 16Gb RAM, Geforce GTX630M (with 337.88 driver), SSD for applications and plenty of HDD space.
Are these times to be expected with my CPU? Is HA not working despite turned on (boxes ticked)?
|
|
|
I have many .MOV clips from my photo camera. PowerDirector V6 does not seem to be able to import these clips. Am I missing something? Is there a work-around?
I am using Windows XP SP3.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
BERNIE
|
|
|
