|
|
I had PD8 and PD9. Skipped PD10. I'm the guy who threw a fit on these boards about a year ago because the deinterlacing was so shoddy when putting the video on Blu-ray, etc. On YouTube the videos looked fine overall which is why I was content for a while, but they just didn't hold up in other formats. I have been waiting patiently (ok ok, IMPATIENTLY) for Cyberlink to fix these issues because I do amatuer travel videos as a hobby and I already had a TON of work saved in their file format with detailed subtitles about historical sites, etc. It would be exceedingly difficult at this point for me to move to another product, so I just STOPPED editing altogether. I have made zero edited videos of last year's trip to Cambodia, Thailand, and South Korea. I just returned a few days ago from Scandinavia and Russia with a bunch of raw footage I also thought I'd be holding onto for a while...
Imagine my surprise when I found out PD11 had released and supposedly has vastly improved deinterlacing capabilities! I will be trying it out soon enough, but I JUST read the product summary about 10 minutes ago so I had to write something NOW. I don't know if my complaints played any part in this at all, though I did get a message some time ago from Dafydd Bevan which included this:
I have been contacted by CyberLink (I'm the forum Moderator) to see if you could provide some additional information regarding your forum posts.
Cyberlink wrote: We'd like to investigate the deinterlace issue.
1. the project file (the settings are important information for us to investigate)
2. the short clip used by the project
3. the step how the customer produced the video (it’s also important information)
Please can you provide the above data as attachments to a Forum post, here: http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/30/18614.page
or to a NEW topic.
I didn't see this message until months after the fact, and by then the videos in question were lost in the demise of the MegaUpload website. Still, what this says to me is that Cyberlink DOES listen and they do care about the concerns of their customers. This is probably a known fact to most of you here already, but I was more skeptical. Not anymore.
This won't prevent me from voicing my concerns in the future, and I really hope this upgrade solves my problem. At the moment though, I'm just thrilled and had to let everyone know. Thanks again to the Cyberlink team.
|
|
|
Apparently, a low star rating here is something to be celebrated. I came here with genuine concerns about a product I've used since PD8 and has been, overall, my favorite software for editing. Not only do I get no help, but I get a one star rating. Keep them coming because if honesty and concern are traits to be frowned upon here, I'll take it as a compliment. I guess when I start getting 5's I'll have to question when and why I transformed into a Cyberlink zombie.
However, I have a useful tip for others:
DON'T criticize Cyberlink products if you care at all about the silly star ratings on these forums.
|
|
|
|
This is absolutely all I care about, so I hope someone answers this question. I will buy Power Director 10 if the deinterlacing has improved OR if it allows users to choose among several algorithms OR of it allows better algorithm plug-ins. I loved PD8 and 9 except for the HORRIFIC "blending" deinterlacing algorithm they used. It turned all my clear, smooth camera pans into blurry messes. Practically EVERY competing software has, for years, given users options when it comes to deinterlacing. I'm not going to buy a product that should have been released back in the Stone Age, so I really hope this has been fixed in Power Director 10.
|
|
|
|
The poor deinterlacing is exactly why I have stopped using Power Director as well. The only way I'm coming back is if they fix it. I continually check to see if that will happen with Power Director 10. If not, I will probably close the door on Power Director forever (and I've been a loyal fan since PD7).
|
|
|
|
Quote:
How about some additional effects, such as Motion Blur
Motion Blur exists by default in PD9 until they add real deinterlacing options. The deinterlacer they currently use should just be called "Blur".
|
|
|
The #1 most important thing for me would be deinterlacing options, not just the horrific, terrible, awful default "blend fields" deinterlacer. Options to interpolate fields and so forth would be HUGE and is the only thing that would make me buy Power Director 10. Otherwise, I won't...simply because the software would then not be producing my videos in a satisfactory manner.
#2 most important would be greater user control over output in terms of bitrate. The software should not handicap users in such an arbitrary way...
|
|
|
Well, I tested this. Like you said, WITHOUT text it keeps the interlacing and everything fully intact so I can deinterlace in another program after producing in PD9. I actually got really excited for a second, thought this would solve my problem. Then I tried it with text (which all my videos have, for historical info mostly) and the whole video transforms into something impossible to deinterlace properly and even less possible to look at without vomiting....
Thank you VERY much for your suggestion though, and actually taking my original file and working with it to test. I really appreciate it.
If you have any other ideas, I would love to hear them because I WANT to come back to PD9 if it can meet my needs again.
|
|
|
|
PlayVideo, I have tried with SVRT3 enabled and disabled. I can't get anything to work. If you have made a non-blurry version of my video through PD9, can you please link me to the clip?
|
|
|
Flapperke, I don't see how you could avoid such trouble if you have scenes with motion because the issues, for me, seem to arise from PD9's "blending" deinterlacer. I get the same disgusting blurs when I pan the camera (it's magnified if people are moving in the opposite direction of the pan), regardless of framerate or any other setting. Bottom line: PD9 can not reproduce my footage in an effective manner.
What kills me about it is that I LOVED PD9. It's easier to use than any competing software, in my opinion. It's well made in so many areas, but then they go and leave out a decent deinterlacer. A SIMPLE little patch should be able to fix this, allowing users to choose a deinterlacing filter like "interpolating fields" or various others. It MUST be fixed by PD10, I mean...seriously. This one little issue (because it's really a GIGANTIC issue arising from a relatively "little" problem) has murdered my enthusiasm about the product. PD9, quite literally, ruins my work. When the same exact panning scenes look crystal clear after being produced through other editing software, how can I choose anything other than to abandon PD9? Cyberlink has tied my hands on this, they just don't want my business. Period.
They make other bizarre choices too, like setting maximum bitrates lower than what should be allowed. Why not give users a choice to raise the bitrate if they choose to? Every other editing program I've used allows this. It can get a bit frustrating, for sure.
These are such little issues that create such tremendous havoc... I wish Cyberlink would fix PD9, I REALLY do. I have months worth of editing work sunk into it.
|
|
|
As BarryTheCrab said...that's exactly why I "shrouded it in secrecy". Otherwise I would gladly tell everyone. It infuriates me to no end that I might have to start everything over (46 fully edited videos, up to about 30 minutes for some of them, with text descriptions including historical info, etc.) simply because Cyberlink wants to handicap their customers for no good reason.
There is NO EXCUSE for not allowing higher bitrate selections under WMV, for example. I had to go into .prx files and edit that myself. There is EVEN LESS EXCUSE for not allowing any other form of deinterlacing other than "blending", which creates horrendous ghosting. Furthermore, there is no excuse for not allowing projects to remain truly interlaced after production in PD9 so they can be properly deinterlaced by a product made by a company that actually gives a crap...
|
|
|
There's no tweak I can do in PD9? I thought of just working on my new videos in this other software while waiting on PD10, but...there's no guarantee PD10 will do things any better... ![]()
|
|
|
Hmmm... Does this mean I'm pretty much doomed? Power Director is incapable of creating a final result like that of the 2nd video I posted, and can only generate the embarrassing result of Video #1? ![]()
|
|
|
Hey guys, thanks for the responses and taking an interest in my problem. The original file is AVCHD 29.97 fps, 60i. I have used multiple formats (H.264 AVC, MPEG-4, MOV, AVI, WMV) and profiles (29.97 fps, 59.94 fps, Upper Field First, Progressive, 1080p, 720p, etc.), and many combinations thereof. Here are the videos.
The result with PD9 (59.94 fps, 20,000 kbps bitrate, 1280x720): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6M9PMXOC
The result with another program (same settings, with Deinterlacing - Interpolating Fields added): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CBFA3S9S
The ORIGINAL file (in case you guys can figure out a way to get a good result in PD9 and rescue me from all this re-editing I'm in for!): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V2X5IFY4
One more thing... As a "second best "option, I would be willing to produce my videos in PD9 as interlaced files and then post-process them in another program to 30p or 60p. I get stuck there too though! I have tried creating interlaced results in PD9, but PD9 significantly changes my original files, regardless. If you look at the original file in VLC player, you can CLEARLY see the interlacing when the camera pans. Select "Deinterlace On" and then "Linear" as the deinterlacing method. Now the video looks great! But produce my original video through an interlaced profile on PD9 and try the same thing. The interlacing is gone and the deinterlace filters don't work. Ugh....... I seem to be screwed at every turn, thus far.
|
|
|
I have been using Power Director for quite some time. I used PD8 to edit all my Europe trip videos from 2009, and then I used PD9 for the same purpose (going to more countries) in late 2010. I never realized the apparently IMMENSE shortcomings of Power Director until recently...
Originally, I was just producing them to go on YouTube. I used a standard WMV Profile in PD, either 720p or 1080p (all my videos are AVCHD 60i from a Canon HF-S11). On YouTube, they look great, especially if you don't blow them up to full screen, where they look a bit less impressive. Everything was fine.
Now I'm about to go to Cambodia and Thailand to film some more, and for whatever reason, I decided it's time to put all my edited videos on a format I can watch on my TV. The Playstation 3 seems to work perfect for this, with my files on a Seagate FreeAgent Go portable hard drive.
Problem #1 was that the ludicrous 10,000 kbps limit imposed by PD for WMV 1080p or 6,000 kbps for 720p doesn't look so good blown up on a TV. I found a workaround for this when I learned how to edit the .prx profiles manually. I can increase those levels, so that's all well and good.
The main problem (and it's HUGE for my videos) is the motion. Power Director seems content allowing users NO deinterlacing options whatsoever, and appears to use a "blend" deinterlacer which makes the simplest of camera pans turn into a complete BLURRY MESS. Nor can I keep my edited files interlaced upon producing, I've tried everything. I've even used interlaced profiles with other options, like MPEG-2. The files are NOT INTERLACED the same as before once they've gone through PD9, which means I can't deinterlace them after editing.
Now, I have tried the free trial of a competing software (similar price, etc.), and honestly...it's a PAINFUL thought, but it's so much better it may be worth REDOING all the editing I worked so hard on for so many hours, days, and weeks... This software has an option for deinterlacing that interpolates fields, and the result is incredible. That's ALL I WANT from PD9. A freakin' deinterlacing option that interpolates fields, otherwise it's useless to me. Is there ANY way I don't know about? I have to ask, at least, before making this huge decision to redo everything in another program.
I'm telling you...I ran the same video file (a panning shot on the Rue Augusta in Lisbon) through PD9 and this competing software, and the pan CAN NOT BE SAVED on PD9. I tried sooo many different things. It always transforms it into an ugly, indiscernable mess. In the competing software it looks fantastic. Absolutely clear, smooth, sharp, and it translates flawlessly to my PS3.
I DO NOT want to do all my editing over again, but for me, the enormous quality difference is worth the hassle. If anyone can rescue me from this hassle with a workaround in PD9, I would be very grateful.
|
|
|
Thanks Jaime. I really find that disappointing...maybe I'll just hold on to the PDS files until PowerDirector 10 comes out. Making the file claim to be progressive without actually LOOKING progressive isn't what I'm after. I tried it again doing like you said...took off the fast render options, set it to "Progressive" for the MP4, with the maximum bitrate. I see more interlacing artifacts in the final render than I do in the original files. Also, when I run these clips through programs with deinterlacing options, certain filters are BRILLIANT, like Yadif. It makes my video look like it was shot with full progressive frames. Is there no add-on or anything for PowerDirector that gives users a little control on the deinterlacing? ![]()
|
|
|
I have a bunch of 60i AVCHD that I'm trying to make 30p after I Produce in Power Director. There don't seem to be any deinterlacing options, am I missing something?
I tried using H.264 AVC and MPEG-4 when I produced, but the only option I can find is "Top Field First" or "Progressive". I've tried both and if those are in fact deinterlacing, then you can't tell in the video. Yadif is a much better option, but I guess I can't use it with Power Director.
Any tips or solutions? It's killing me that I've put so much time into editing these videos and getting the PDS files perfect, but now I can't find a way to Produce them to my liking.
Thanks.
|
|
|
