|
|
Hi Susan
Do you mean a HDDVD ie to play on a Toshi HDDVD player or do you mean a hybrid AVCHD DVD which can be played on a bu-ray player?
|
|
|
|
Try the trial download and see if it is right for you. 30 days to tinker and give it a good test then decide to buy or not.
|
|
|
Hi Robert,
when do you get this message?
I can burn a BD to folder which is 2hrs 50 mins with no errors.
I don't burn to disc as I have a media player.
|
|
|
Download the trial and see what you think.
PD has problems with AVCHD rendering and SVRT for AVCHD but is has great features and is easy to use. Two work arounds for AVCHD rendering quality is to use GPU rendering or render to Blu-ray mpeg2. These preserve good quality in my experience.
Unfortunately all the NLEs I have tried don't do a good job of downscaling to standard definition DVD.
PD also lets you make AVCHD DVDs which are playable on many Blu-ray players and is much cheaper than blu-ray media.
|
|
|
rename the pds.bak file to just pds then open ![]()
|
|
|
|
The first questions of course are what is the input file format and what format are you rendering to?
|
|
|
|
Under the "disc preferences" tab (bottom left of screen- spanner icon) there is an option to "auto menu timeout" - try unticking this option.
|
|
|
I have to make amendments. I did not have the latest drivers after all and now I can utilize GPU rendering.
For a 2 min clip: to default 1080i
No GPU = 4min 50sec
GPU enabled = 3min 40sec
|
|
|
I would like to add my latest results which again surprised me. I updated my NVIDIA drivers to 181.22 which has now enabled GPU rendering.
I would have thought that the quality of rendering was dependent on the rendering engine (powerdirector) not the processor used but this is not the case with my setup. I get different files if I have GPU rendering enabled compared with GPU disabled. The quality of the final product is dependent on the type of processing used.
Firstly I did multiple renders with GPU rendering disabled. Each time the file size was slightly different (only 40 KB or so) and the macroblocking effect was slightly different in the specific frame I am examining for comparison.
When GPU is enabled the file size is significantly larger (12%) and the file size is constant for multiple renders of the same clip.
Also when examining the resultant clip the field order is different with No GPU rendering file being flagged as MBAFF and the GPU rendered file being flagged as progressive. This is from an interlaced source file.
All a bit strange.
The end effect is that the GPU rendering gives a result much closer to the original in terms of definition. Attached is a jpeg with a cropped section of a frame for comparison.
http://www.4shared.com/file/87734087/c4c265da/Comparison.html
|
|
|
AVCHD is very complicated and there are heaps of parameters which can be adjusted depending on the profile.
Have a read here for an overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Is it because my last comment was "9 months later and yet another patch but this issue is still not resolved" ?
I wouldn't have thought so ![]()
|
|
|
|
How many are we up to?
|
|
|
|
mmm... more problems?
|
|
|
|
Seems to be a recurring theme here.
|
|
|
|
If you can be bothered you can PM Dafydd and upload some sample clips. I personally can't believe they(Cyberlink R&D) don't know about this but if it is the way we need to progress it well I will try to help.
|
|
|
|
Same here I'm afraid. If you use more than just a small amount of antishake the output is awful. It is a shame as the preview of the effect is great.
|
|
|
Hi William,
The last comment about the DV camera is spot on. I am reticent to produce DVDs of our trips for friends and family. When I put so much effort into producing a short film and it looks fantastic on my set-up (HD media player from HHD to plasma) then produce a DVD and on a nice upscaling DVD player attached to a similar screen it looks worse than my old Canon DV camcorder I get looks from the wife. The folks don't comment (I wonder whether they are being polite or just not noticing) but I cringe at the fuzzy footage when I know what it could be ![]() .
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Reading the comments about smart rendering and trimming existing AVCHD files, I think Cyberlink might do well to recheck some of the basic coding.
I bought a S1IS as soon as they arrived because of the great MJPEG video resolution. Canon certainly put a lot of effort into the video side of their still cameras.
I must agree with all of your post bit especially the encoding engine. I could do without SVRT if the AVCHD rendering was sorted (best to sort both really).
Sorry to assume you were not talking about the same problem - the stills didn't show the effect as well as the interlacing problem ![]() .
Anyway the more people who point it out the better so thanks for joining the cause.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
You might want to take another look at AVCHD in release 2519. I just re-ran a couple quick tests and got very nice results.
Nice results? ![]()
From what you said it means that SVRT only works if you don't edit the video (odd for an editing programme)
Creating DVD from AVCHD hasn't improved (I agree it is pretty awful).
And from my test there is no change in the poor AVCHD rendering.
Still no support for Panasonic AVCHD SVRT
My summary : no change since last patch.
|
|
|
Quote:
Secondly not all formats are compressed, AVI is not.
Cheers ! anyway ![]()
Without being pedantic, AVI is not a compression format but rather a container format and be used for several types of video formats. Most are compressed. Even DV type 1 & 2 are compressed.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
As on date all the editors which you have listed have trouble editing AVCHD.
pjc 's post shall also be noted.
PD7 doesn't have trouble editing AVCHD - it goes it very well. Rendering is another story.
One caveat though - I agree with others that if the project gets too big it becomes a little unstable. I limit to about 30 mins for each section and have no problems.
AVCHD is a compressed format
So is just about every other format.
|
