|
|
Sweet ... thanks for the tip!
I am not saying PhotoDirector is not a good product. As you have stated it has MANY things that MediaShow does NOT have.
All I was saying is that PhotoDirector has tagging functionality for cataloging, grouping, organizing. It is almost a shame that "face me" was not included here too. At least this is my opinion ... for what it is worth.
There are a ga-zillion photo tweaking applications out there that can do similar tasks ... so I am more inclined to research other products accordingly. IF PhotoDirector had face me ... this would be a very distinguishing feature. Again, just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
I hope they do.
If PhotoDirector is a "dedicated photo workflow software, for cataloguing and editing phots" ... it would make sense if that was PhotoDirector's "mission statement" that face tagging would have been (should have been) added.
I hope they do.
Mind you ... MediaShow is now $15 ... which is real tempting.
Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
I believe MediaShow 5 has smart face tagging.
Essentially you identify a face and the application uses that face and tags other photos with that face.
Does PhotoDirector 2011 have such a feature?
It has been forever since MediaShow has had an update.
I was wondering if PhotoDirect was MediaShow's replacement and if PhotoDirector had face tagging.
Thanks ...
|
|
|
|
Correct ... everything is internal to the processor ... there is no external path from the graphics to the CPU that the older on board graphics needed. Very slick.
|
|
|
If memory serves, the next version of Intel on board graphics will also support DirectX 11.
Again ... on board graphics are catching up very nicely.
|
|
|
"I remember" when a "dedicated" graphics card with 1GB RAM would stutter and sputter on video files.
Current "on board" graphics cards can now play bluray without so much as breaking a sweat.
On board graphics has come A LONG WAY.
I agree ... dedicated video cards still has more "streams" and all the other buzz words ... in my opinion however ... if you want to save a few hundred bucks ... on board graphics are catching up REAL FAST these days and will probably do you good.
Of course do your research ... certain applications as noted REQUIRE dedicated graphics.
|
|
|
Mingy,
I assume you are using the HD3000 graphics?
I am drooling nonetheless ... PD9 seems to use these new CPUs quite nicely. 
|
|
|
|
Mingy ... I am eagerly waiting for your report on your new PC and the Sandybridge CPU!
|
|
|
HP is currently offering I7-2K based laptop offerings with HD 3000 graphics capabilities and bluray burners for under $2K.
Maybe tax return ... 
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Hi,
Have been using PD for some years currently on PD8 Ultra (3022). Since moving to new camera and HD it has become apparent I need a system upgrade to make use of HD files and PD9. (System too slow working with HD files) Current DXdiag attached.
What I am after is hints , comments, suggestions etc re new hardware
(The only thing I do with the PC other than basics is video production -home stuff , not professional - so want to keep the costs down)
I have in mind
Intel i7 (any speed) for the Hyperthread technology (Extra question here- if I go for i5 (no hyperthread) does PD9 still make use of the 4 available cores or does it need Hyperthread? ie if no hyperthread does PD9 only use one core?)
Win7 Home premium 64 bit
min 8Gb RAM
nvidia video card - not sure which yet but don't want to overspec hence overspend - thinking of the GT430 1GB as seems reasonably priced.
Any comments welcome as well around anything AMD Processor/ATI RADEON GPU as these also seem reasonably priced compared to INTEL/NVIDIA. Anyone with any issues on this hardware with PD9?
Thanks
The I5 is a dual core, 4 thread processor; hence, yes it does have hyperthreading.
With that being said ... I would go for a 4 core (plus) if you can afford it.
|
|
|
This update was released January 3, 2011.
FYI
Click Here
Edit:
Sorry ... should have clicked another page or two in the forum to see this was already posted 
I would delete the post if I could ...
|
|
|
|
Quote:
You mean 4 cores and 8 threads?
His sig states he has an I7-920 ... which is a quad core ... 8 thread CPU.
|
|
|
The issue is obvious ... its your machine name ... it needs to start with "CYBER"
I am now picking my jaw off the floor ... 12GB of RAM ... drool ... 
|
|
|
So if I understand the "tracks" correctly ...
The higher tracks have precedence.
Hence if I have a video on track 1 and place a picture on track 2, the picture will show over track 1 because the higher track wins.
Hence in this case.
Track 1: Video
Track 2: 16x9 Picture (or all black)
Track 3: 4x3 Picture
You can then have Track 2 and 3 fade in and out as desired with the video running in the background.
Do I understand things correctly?
|
|
|
I had a similar problem capturing from my Canon HV-20 HDV tape based video camera.
If I "locked" the HV-20 to "DV" ... I could capture without issues.
If I set the camera to "HDV" ... I would get these green ... blue lines/blocks that would show up via playback and would manifest themselves during recording also. So basically, I could not capture my HD footage. Totally sucked.
(The lines themselves would not show up on the camera's display or if I hooked the camera up via its HDMI to my TV. So it was not the source.)
However ... sometimes ... with HDV set, PD9 would play and record without issues; this is what made it so frustrating. It was basically I kept on trying until it worked. Once I got it to work, I could usually repeat it from that point forward. Turn the camera off though, or remove the cable, reboot the computer, and I was back to square one.
I am hoping it is my firewire cable. It has been forever since I have used this camera and the cable ... I have transferred my footage, so I am okay for now. To go through this again though ... would be a nitemare.
I have only experienced this during capture though. To "Produce" or "Make Disk" or "Edit" ... I have never seen it.
Sorry ... not much of a "solution" I know ... more of a ... "I feel your pain"
|
|
|
Having an I5-520M ... dual core, 4 threads ...
My next laptop is DEFINITELY going to have as many cores as my wallet can afford
I created an hour HQ DVD in about 35 minutes including burn.
Creating a WMV 9 HD HQ from the same project took 4 to 5 hours.
I am sure an I7-740/840 with 4 cores and 8 threads would have kicked in nicely there.
I would definitely consider a bluray burner as it is the future.
A graphics card supported by PowerDirector would obviously be a plus. PD does not seem to like my AMD 5470.
As much RAM as you can afford. With that being said ... RAM is EASY EASY EASY to upgrade later. If you have a choice of $100 for RAM or $100 for CPU ... I would evaluate and drop the money on the CPU first as you can't upgrade the CPU later.
Same thing with a hard drive. As far as laptops are concerned, they are EASY EASY EASY to upgrade later. 7200RPMs is REAL nice. Size though can be upgraded later if needs be ... or even the utliization of external drives too.
eSata interface is REALLY nice too for external drives ... super fast compared to USB 2.
I hear USB 3 is really slick too.
Edit:
The 17 inchers eat up the battery much faster than the 15 inchers. It might even be fair to say they last half as long as a 15 incher.
If you have it plugged in alot, then that is not too much of a big deal ... otherwise your mobility time will be reduced.
|
|
|
I just thought I would report that the actual folder created by PowerDirector 9 is indeed valid.
Using another product that I got with my laptop, I was able to burn the directory structure created my Power Director 9 successfully to DVD.
Perhaps Windows Explorer was not "closing" the DVD correctly? It is hard to say. The issue here is ... Microsoft
My point again, I was able to drag and drop the CyberLink created directories using another product, burn it to DVD, and my DVD players played just find.
FYI
|
|
|
|
You could try putting them on different tracks versus on the same track side by side. The flow moving from one to another may go better? Just an idea ...
|
|
|
Yes ... I am in the same boat ... mind you 2, 4GB sticks current are $120+- so to get by system to 8GB is not that bad.
With that being said ... my system with PD9 ran REALLY good with 4GB too ...
|
|
|
Good point ... I actually have 2, 2GB sticks of RAM in my laptop ... I could pop one out and see what happens
I was just curious especially considering with PowerDirector 9, CyberLink advertizes to the effect ... "XP can only use 1 byte of RAM ... with our 64bit build, in Windows 7 you can now use 999 billion gazillion bytes of RAM and get screaming performance!"
Some graphs are shown ... but they do not show the system stats ...
Thanks ...
|
