Announcement: Our new CyberLink Feedback Forum has arrived! Please transfer to our new forum to provide your feedback or to start a new discussion. The content on this CyberLink Community forum is now read only, but will continue to be available as a user resource. Thanks!
CyberLink Community Forum where the experts meet|Advanced Search >
The simplest thing to do would be to split your talking head video at the points where you want to switch from masked PiP to full screen & back again.
Then just resize & mask the parts you want to be PiP.
An alternative approach would be to have duplicate copies of the talking head video on separate tracks. Resize & mask one & leave the other at full screen. Next, go through and split both talking head videos at the same points. Then just remove (leave gap) alternate sections of the talking head videos.
If you want the talking head video to zoom to full screen or back to the corner, that will take some keyframing in PiP Designer.
You could make your editing simpler by not using a mask, so all your resizing could be simply keyframed in PiP Designer.
The purpose is to test copyright claims when background music is posted on YouTube. When TessTing first started many tracks were being flagged for copyright infringement but, more recently, barely any of the tracks have been flagged at all.
Tracks from the recently released background music pack "Halloween" have been posted on YouTube. No tracks were flagged for copyright.
I just threw some GoPro7 clips (UHD, not 1080p) in the PDR19 timeline, split them up & added a mix of 1sec basic transitions plus a music bed to (sort of) replicate Grumpy Goat's scenario. Didn't have 1080 clips at hand, but I doubt that's related to the issue.
When produced using Best Profile Match to HEVC MP4 3840x2160 59.94fps @ 60Mbps, I couldn't replicate the lightening issue prior to transitions.
Agreed - an uploaded (shortened) project or some sample clips would help nail down the problem.
However, that screenshot is also 1990x1080 instead of 1920x1080, so there are 70 more pixels than on the Correct Edge image which throws off any direct comparison
I'd suggest the extra 70px on the left side of "Edge Issue.PNG" is a product of pasting the screenshot onto a white background then mis-cropping.
video123 - in the attached screenshot (cropped correctly) do the red arrows indicate the issue???
Man - it must have taken some digging to determine that the issue was related to the "Audio Samples per sec"!
I can confirm what you've stated. Best Matched Format for the Blackvue dashcam clip sets that value at 32 & production fails. When it's edited to 16 or below, production is successful.
Scrolling through the other profiles in my Profile.ini, I found that most have "<audio samplespersec="">1", but some have "<audio samplespersec="">64" (they're AVC H.264 MP4 with LPCM audio).
I produced your Blackvue clip successfully using those "64" profiles.
Anyway - it's pretty obvious it's an issue if PDR sets [Edit: a misplaced apostrophe! ] best matched profile & it fails to produce!
I'm not sure whether it's because you've "covered the content" in your screenshots, but I don't understand what your issue is.
You're saying that what appears is the produced file isn't what's seen in the preview screen when editing. Yes?
Your project is 16:9. Are the videos & pictures 16:9? or a mixture of aspect ratios? Are the images built into a slideshow template or is motion applied?
Whatever the "edge issue" is, does it only occur when the images are playing? or throughout the whole video?
Without revealing your content, you'll probably need to give some more information.
I don't think there should be any need for masking in your case, if all you wish to do is place your logo image on a background. Masking is best used when you want an image or video to appear "through" another image/video.
If you download this packed project (using your logo) you'll see the difference.
"Motion Tracking" sounds like what you want, but it's not the right PDR tool for your needs. What Motion Tracking does is track where the subject is moving within the frame, with the frame remaining constant.
What you're trying to do is change the frame i.e. you want the subject (grandmother) to remain at the centre of the frame (zoomed in) throughout the clip.
One of the best ways to achieve that is what you've already tried - using the Crop & Zoom tool. Like Maliek's suggestion of using PiP Designer, it takes a lot of keyframing etc.
Here's an example screen capture I did a few years back. The process hasn't changed much.
Though I have the mobile version installed, I rarely use it (just for context).
Background music in PDR Mobile is organised in genres and, although I haven't cross referenced every track, many/most tracks are common to PDR 365 & PDR Mobile. I have found quite a few mobile tracks that aren't included in PDR 365.
Then there's the Shutterstock music, included in both PDR 365 & PDR Mobile. PDR 365 cannot be sorted by Genre, which makes cross referencing challenging! To further complicate the process, genre names are not consistent in each version.
BUT...
There's no reason to think that any of that would make any difference to usage rights & copyright:
even though this thread has focussed on background music in PDR18/365, &
even though there's some variance in which tracks are available in each version of PDR, &
even though the tracks are organised slightly differently in each version
I don't think (happy to be corrected) there would be any difference in how the music is used on YouTube or other platforms.
SO...
The processes for disputing any copyright claims would be exactly the same, whether you're using PDR18/365 or PDR Mobile.
If you unsubscribe (& the music is theoretically still on your system) the music itself is still subject to potential flagging, but how you dispute claims is a matter for you... i.e. you may need to bend the truth a tad!
Don't worry about posing "basic" questions. This particular topic is a bit of a quagmire.
I think you're right. Even though I have shared projects via CL Clour previously (not often), there currently seems to be no obvious way to get a link for others to download the project.
This isn't consistent with photos, videos & templates which allow you to copy a link.
I may be missing something & I'd love to be corrected!
Since I first read your post, I've been mucking around here attempting to replicate what you've reported. I've tested using both PDR365 & PDR18 (2725 build), burning both DVD & BR discs & testing in multiple players.
Using the resources available to me, I can't replicate anything like "output too low on TV screen". The projects had titles deliberately placed at the extremities of the TV Safe Zone and the actual screen to highlight any issues.
From one test project I took screenshots of the discs (DVD & BR) being played back in PowerDVD20 & photos of the TV screen withe the discs being played back in a BR player (these photos are flawed, in a sense, because there are keystone & cropping inconsistencies).
Here is one of the zipped, packed projects I made for testing. It would be interesting to see what you get if you download the project & burn it to DVD/BR.
I don't have a clue why your Express Project templates wouldn't have installed correctly. I'm assuming you've used CL Application Manager when you tried to reinstall them. Under Effect Packs, each of the "PowerDirector Content Pack Premium" packs contain EP templates.
What do you find when you navigate to C:\Program Files (x86)\CyberLink\templates\PowerDirector Content Pack Premium 1\ExpressProject? or the other Content Pack Premium folders in templates? Are the folders populated?
I haven't done anything special with mine and the templates are present, as expected (see attached screenshot of library).
Regarding your workaround in 2... that would have worked OK if you had packed the project materials, rather than just saved it... but it still wouldn't install the template for future use.
P.S. Some of the Express Project templates can be found on DirectorZone. Have you tried that? (it really shouldn't be necessary)
Maybe you've resolved you image quality issues because you haven't yet posted what profile you used to produce the slideshow video.
You also didn't mention what slideshow templates were used. If you used the Motion slideshow template, there would be some zoom & pan involved. That may have an impact on image quality (especially if the zoom was a bit OTT).
Not sure what the source of your photos is, but 5472x3048 is a less common output size for cameras. A more common resolution is 5472x3648, which is 3:2 aspect ratio.
I took a bunch of 5472x3648 sample photos from a few different cameras & used them in a motion slideshow using the Pan & Zoom tool. I produced them to AVC MP4 1920x1080 & 3840x2160.
If you want, you can download the produced videos & original photos to see how they compare.
With the new Shutterstock audio tracks in PDR365, & without wanting to test the whole extensive collection (!), Tess Ting used a mixture of Shutterstock videos & photos, combined with (irrelevant) music to see whether YouTube would flag anything for copyright.
Only 5 tracks were tested - Blues Brothers, Dancing on the Moon, Lovely Summer, Meaning of Life, Vivid Dreams - but there were NO COPYRIGHT ISSUES.
I know 5 samples isn't very accurate, statistically, but 0/5 pretty good.
The basic way to do that is to create a mask to match your video. In PDR, you can make a brush mask so that colour changes only affect the river water...
BUT
That's fine if it's a static shot, with no panning or zooming. Obviously, the shoreline will shift as the camera pans/zooms so you need a mask that can track the shifting shore/river edge.
My first thought is that's more of a job for ColorDirector (motion tracking mask) but I'll try to get my brain into gear.
Update on Mega Mix Pack copyright claims: The claim on Stiletto (see above) lapsed after 30 days when the claimant took no action after it was disputed. So - bottom line - all tracks are clear of any copyright claims.
The tracks included in Wedding have been tested on YouTube...
Not a single track was flagged. Zero. None at all.
Without trying to pass myself off as a tech type, I'd say your hardware has a LOT to do with it, especially your GPU.
To show it's hardware related, here's a test I ran on 3 different PCs, using the same original clip & adjustments/effects. The original clip was 1920x1080 .MTS & was rendered to AVC MP4.
You can see in the i7 920 GTX 260 column, that it took 2 hours+ to render that 1 minute clip with an AI effect! Your PC, rendering a 7 minute clip in 8 hours is (at least) out-performing that one!
I didn't do any comparison of GPU/CPU usage, but it's obvious what processes the FX more efficiently.
Cyberlink.com uses analytical cookies and other tracking technologies to offer you the best possible user experience. By using our website, you acknowledge and agree to our cookie policy. For more information on cookies or changing your cookies settings, read CyberLink’s Cookie Policy.
] best matched profile & it fails to produce! 
