|
|
|
Will PD16 projects load properly in PD17?
|
|
|
Quote
I'm completely new to video production, and have downloaded the trial Windows 10 version of PD16 in order to self-educate.
I've just produced my first experiment, and the results are pretty well unviewable. The problem is that the .MOV file straight from my action camera is far smoother than the rendered MP4 when I run it in, say, Media Player, which is so rough it looks like 60% of the frames are missing. Thing is, on the clip in question, there are no effects or adjustments - I've just dropped it on the timeline, cut a few seconds off the front and back, and put an audio track under it.
I'm very prepared to accept that it's me, not the software, but haven't a clue where to start troubleshooting this. Any pointers will be gratefully received!
1. Apply the latest BETA patch for PD now currently available in this forum (GM6 3005). It fixes an EPIC bug that was producing poor quality video that made it look like jerky, stuttery 15fps output.
2. Make sure your timeline framerate setting matches the actual framerate of the video clip you are importing. Also very important.
I'm willng to bet that applying both of these will fix your problem.
|
|
|
Quote
I have set the preview all the way down.. and Shadow files are off because I semed to find a lot of talk all over the internet about how they can cause issues (what i'm not exactly sure) and that they really shouldnt be needed unless you have a pretty low-end system. Is that not right?
You are absoltuely right, especially with a CPU that hot.
What you are going to find is that the Threadripper caught everyone with their pants down and some software products are written witht the assumpotion that you're running an Intel CPU with no more than 6 cores, 8 max.
Just know that you are not alone. This forum is filled with Ryzen CPU owners complaining about PD's performance even though the Ryzen absoluely shreds most all other software products without any problems. So for now, the crickets are still chirping in here as far as the Ryzen goes. As soon as this changes, I'm buying myself a Threadripper 2990WX.
|
|
|
Quote
lol
We’re talking about 12% utilization across 8 cores and 16 threads.
The load is is spread across all cores. If the power isn’t needed it isn’t used. What will it be used for. There is nothing else......Only the AMDs are behaving this way. Seems to be a common issue.
There's no way that it can be argued that the more cores you throw at soemthing, the slower it's supposed to get.
Unlike video games, I would offer a challenge to explain why video processing doesn't need all the power it can get, and why video processing shouldn't happen at full CPU load or at least as fast as the hard drives can deliver. In fact, PowerDirector keeps the cores loaded up until about 6 cores. Anything above that is a gamble. It may smoke and keep all 8 or mroe cores maxed at 95% until the job is done or it may drop to a shocking 12% that makes absolutely no sense.
Now I will offer this: PowerDirector makes far greater use of the CPUs cores than Corel's VideoStudio product - but that just illustrates my point that CPU usage is determined by how the software is actually written.
Software development fact (my profession): Processing nearly anything today can be handled as fast as the hard drives can deliver unless the software application was not written as such. All processing is dictated by how the application was written, not because the CPU is "too awesome". An application can be written to keep a CPU so loaded that the computer becomes unresponsive until the task has completed if the developer so wishes. Funny - corporate database products don't have the problem we're discussing, they'll use as many cores as you can throw at them so the work gets done quicker. Shouldn't video processing be able to do this as well? Of course it should.
Take a look at this screen shot of the system that I personally use for video processing. PowerDirector keeps my AMD pegged on all 6 cores. And yet if I move to 8 cores, it's a total gamble if PowerDirector is going to drop to 10-50% of the CPU's capability and actually take LONGER to process the same video than the 6-core. NOW you start to see the problem.
|
|
|
I just posted on this in a different thread, same issue for the most part. I'm reading up because I'm about to buy a Ryzen 7 2700X.
A customer should be able to assume that all cores, no matter how many, are used to maximum level so the work gets done faster. That's the whole reason someone buys a CPU like that in the first place. Even worse for a Threadripper 1950X, it really makes no sense to have 16 cores only to have software that doesn't make effective use of any more than 6 cores, with the CPU just sitting there idle. This is what poorly written software looks like.
Quite honestly, I think it's pretty clear that the Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs have caught software vendors off guard and has revealed serious limitations in multi-core software. Hardware didn't finally catch up to software - it blew past it, catching a lot of software products with their pants down.
What really needs to be in any serious processing software is an option I've seen in few products - a checkbox option for CPU loading so the user themselves can set the performance level. Forexample:
-LIGHT (Around a 20% CPU load, the kind of processing level the OP is complaining about)
-MEDIUM (Average 50% CPU load)
-HEAVY (Average 80% CPU load)
-FULL (99% CPU load, computer laregely unresponsive until task completes - which is exactly where I'd leave mine set for video processing)
Any programmer knows that this is a very simple feature to incorporate into any software product's loop structures. So easily written and so obviously absent from most all software products. The user should have MUCH more control over the performance of the software/applications, not just the hardware. I personally think software performance should be left up to the user, not forced by the vendor.
|
|
|
A customer should be able to assume that all cores, no matter how many, are used to maximum level so the work gets done faster. That's the whole reason you buy a CPU like tha tin the first place. It really makes no sense to have 16 cores only to have software that doesn't make effective use of them so that the CPU just sits there idle.
Quite honestly, I think that the Threadripper CPU has caught software vendors off guard and has revealed serious limitations in multi-core software. Hardware didn't finally catch up to software - it blew past it, catching a lot of software products with its pants down.
A CPU like a Threadripper 1950 should have even 4K video processed in mere minutes with all HA turned off.
What really needs to be in any serious processing software is an option I've seen in few products - a checkbox option for CPU loading so the user themselves can set the performance level:
-LIGHT (Around a 20% CPU load, the kind of processing level the OP is complaining about)
-MEDIUM (Average 50% CPU load)
-HEAVY (Average 80% CPU load)
-FULL (99% CPU load, computer laregely unresponsive until task completes)
Any programmer knows that this is a very simple feature to add into any software product's processing loop structures.
|
|
|
I have the Samsung Gear 360 (2016 version) and the video it produces is fairly good when set to the 4K mode (actually just tandem 2K, but still good).
Using Samsung Gear 360 ActionDirector (by Cyberlink) for stitching, works ok though I wish it used the CPU to its fullest.
My problem is that when I load the output file sinto PowerDirector 16 to edit the video, the stabilization for 360 video that PD16 offers seems to be completely nonfunctional. When I enable it, I see no noticeable difference compared to unstabilized video.
What am I missing?
Thanks
|
|
|
Quote
DISREGARD
Found it nested and named video stabilization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry that I have such a simple question, but I can't take the blame as the help instructions in PD16 are inaccurate.
Instructions:
Select a media file on the timeline and then click the Fix/Enhance button to apply instant fixes, such as lighting adjustments, lens correction, video/audio denoise, video stabilization, and more. In the Fix section, the following options are available:
Searching on the web, the tutorial page and even within the forums here, one doesn't find anything other than that capability for 360 videos if at all.
Could I be mistaken in thinking that PD16 has convential video image stabilization when it doesn't?
PowerDirector does indeed have stabilization, though it is for video, not still images. The video stabilization feature works extremely well:
Just like the directions say, select a clip on the timeline so that it is highlighted, and then click on the "FIX/ENHANCE" option that appears just above the timeline. The window that pops up includes a check-able option in the upper left side called "Video Stabilizer". When you check on it, you can then select what level of stabilization you wish to achieve. Recommend using both additional options to further stabilize the video ("fix rotational shake" and "enhnaced stabilizer", which seems to fix what is known as roll effect).
Hope this helps
|
|
|
Quote
I tried that but it just slows down even more. No more CPU is used.
Hmm, well if you get it figured out, please post the solution here. I had planned on buying a Threadripper 1950X specifically for video editing.
|
|
|
Quote
I am new to Powerdirector and have found that when rendering my video, the cpu tops out at 12% usage.
I have:
- Windows 10
- Threadripper 1900X
- 32GB Ram
- 500Gb SSD
How do I maximise cpu usage?
Try disabling all hardware accelleration options in settings. This forces the CPU to be used for all rendering instead of the video card.
|
|
|
CyberLink tech support has addressed this problem and provided a fix. The user they provided the fix to posted it here.
https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/64952.page
The fix worked for me.
|
|
|
Ok, so I bit the bullet and pulled out an old camcorder and whipped up a project using 30p as my source video.
Using PowerDirector, and with no effects of any kind, and with project frame rates set correctly, and with HA disabled in all cases, I created an H.264 bluray at 60i.
No difference - flickery, jittery video running at what appears to be about 15-20fps. So it is defintiely not a source video issue.
PowerDirector's bluray authoring is definitely broken. So far I have tested:
60p bluray - appears to run smoothly, but only at about 30p visually, but sporadically creates discs that skip and freeze if 90+ min
60i H.264 bluray - broken (flickery/jittery blurays that look like 15-20fps)
60i MPEG-2 bluray - broken (flickery/jittery blurays that look like 15-20fps)
Creating plain ol' video files on the hard drive (non-bluray):
MPEG-2 60i: Flickery/jittery playback that looks like 15-20fps
H.264 60i: Flickery/jittery playback that looks like 15-20fps
H.264 60p: Appears to run smoothly, but should be clearer than it is. No flicker but still notably blurry during camera panning.
Then I loaded up Corel's VideoStudio Ultimate 2018 and ran the same tests.
ALL of these same tests conducted using Corel VideoStudio 9.5 and 2018 produced buttery smooth 60p/60i video files and 60i blurays in all cases on the same system that was used for the above tests for PowerDirector. This is a bona-fide fail for PowerDirector. Corel's VS product is PAINFULLY SLOW compared to PD, but who cares - it's the output that actually matters.
What this means to a paying customer: I can't even use PowerDirector to edit and render the video I intend to use in OTHER bluray authoring software, such as Vegas DVDA or Corel VS. It's that bad of a problem, and means that for my purposes, PowerDirector is utterly useless right now. I don't even consider the output quality worthy of a YouTube upload.
PD16 is clearly a broken product right now.
PS: Test system is a Win7x64 Ultimate system, AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black CPU, 8GB RAM, WD blue drives with 6TB of space. 100% processor rendering only - HA rendering disabled to rule out drivers and video cards controversies.
|
|
|
Quote
Has anyone noticed a serious bug in PD16?
There is something wrong when you create a BD disc, conforming (BDMV, 1080 60i). In all other Power Director versions, such as PD15, it is that a created BD disc in 1080 60i (interlaced), the result looks absolutely great. The playback on both the PC and all media players and Blu Ray players is wonderful and soft.
In contrast, the PD16-created BD movies in 1080 60i no longer look smooth. It looks as if every 3 picture is missing, or something similar. The playback is restless and the picture flickers.
I compared that, and for me it definitely looks like a bug in PD16.
You can take any x-arbitrary source material, eg AVCHD H.264 video clips in 60p, which were taken with Panasonic or Sony camcorders.
Likewise smartphone clips in 1080 60p.
Unfortunately, the result in PD16 always looks miserable, and is not acceptable, to say the least.
Just try it, and create a BD disc in PD15 and PD16 in 1080 60i and compare the Result.
The media info file does not really help here. There is definitely something wrong in PD16, because the MP4 or MKV production in 1080 60i Interlaced delivers the same result. But not in PD15, there's all good.
As long as progressive is being produced, as is BD disc creation, everything looks good in PD16.
But not in interlaced. But then you are not standard in the BD disc creation, in Progressiv. I have already written to the support, but so far received no answer. Wanted to ask if you have similar experiences here. Neither the operating system nor the PC hardware plays a role, because I tested it on 2 different systems (Windows 7, Windows 10, different Hardware).
The settings in PD16 can not be, these are exactly the same as in PD15. Also disabling and enabling any GPU support does not change the problem.
Yes, confirmed. PD16 produces 60i blurays that look like they're running at about 25fps. Definitely not even 30.
I pulled 60i blurays I created with older versions (14, 15) and they are glass smooth compared to PD16's flickery blurays.
Also confirmed that PD16 produces headache-inducing flickery blurays in both H.264 and MPEG-2. Specifically, it seems that PD16 is choking on 1080p60 source video when trying to convert it down to 30fps for 60i playback. I have not tested 30p source video. This is the 21st century, after all.
Definitely a bug, and a huge one considering all modern cell phones and camcorders shooting in 60p. No need to upload a bunch of things to CyberLink, I've already run too many tests on too many systems to know it's the software itself. All of you are just confirming the same thing.
If CyberLink doesn't fix this, then they just lost another customer. Lots of good competition out there.
This is a bug you actually see on the screen in the finished output, which is unacceptable.
|
|
|
For those having an absolute nightmare burning blurays, I have some information for you. First, you're not alone. Second, the solution to the mystery of bad blurays that skip and freeze is that PowerDirector's H.264 encoder is broken, particularly if your bluray is 60 to 90 minutes in length or longer, but can still happen if shorter. I have been able to create MPEG-2 blurays that can have the same problem as well, so it might not be limited to H.264.
PROBLEM
H.264 bluray burning will complete, either burn or ISO, but if your disc is longer than 60 minutes in length, your bluray will almost always stutter and skip, and potentially freeze. I have never produced a 90 minute bluray in PowerDirector that does not have this problem if H.264 was used. MPEG-2 blurays work just fine under all circumstances. H.264 blurays can start stuttering and freezing before or after 60 minutes, but the most common location in my discs is around 90 minute mark or after. This can fluctuate a lot, but it WILL happen if your BluRay is 90 minute sor longer. If seen this happen in BluRays shorter than 30 minutes.
Important: Using H.264 encoding to produce standalone video files that are not part of a bluray disc play just fine with no problems. it is the bluray disc image/data files that have problems.
TESTING:
Witth EXTENSIVE testing of many different hardware and software combinations, including different OS's and completely different systems (all full systems, none of them laptops), here is what has brought me to this conclusion, and before you crtiticize or disagree with the information below, read all of it first.
1. Creating a BuRay in MPEG-2 works msot of the time. It's safe, but the quality drops a bit as well as how much more of the disc is used up comapred to H.264.
2. This problem is not an issue with different brands of BluRay burners. Different bluray burners were tested.
3. This problem is not an issue with different brands of BluRay media. Different brands were tested.
4. This problem is not an issue of different recording speeds. Different speeds were tested.
5. This problem is not an issue of processing power, ram, hard drives, drivers, hardware, etc. Totally different systems wewre tested.
6. This problem is not an issue of graphics card usage or not. HA and Non-HA modes were tested.
7. This problem is not an issue of burning to hardware or creating ISO files. Both methods tested with different burning software.
8. This problem is not experienced when producing standalone video files that are not part of a bluray disc project - H.264 and MPEG-2 work fine in all cases of standalone video file production that are not part of a bluray disc authoring project. The problem is only experienced in bluray authoring.
FINDINGS:
1. PowerDirector.s H.264 is broken for BluRay creation, burned or ISO files. PowerDirector creates bluray discs and ISO files that burn and play just fine if MPEG-2 is used. It does not matter what settings you use, and it does not matter wht the length of the bluray disc winds up being.
2. PowerDirector will create stuttering, skipping or freezing BlURays no matter if burned to disc or if an ISO file is created if created in H.264. The data itself is bad, but usually if the length of the bluray is 30 minutes oir more. Somthing is going corrupt in the encoding process if it's encoding 30 minutes of video or more in H.264. MPEG-2 encoding does not have this problem.
3. It does not matter if you are creating standard 60i or the way cool super-awesome 60p blurays, nor did it matter if it was directly burned or creating an ISO file. If H.264 encoding was used, skipping stuttering or freezing is the result if created if the disc length exceeded 30 to 60 minutes. Always experienced if the disc length reached 90 minutes or longer.
4. Other software products were tested, such as Corel VideoStudio Pro. None of them had H.264 encoding problems, and the discs played fine no matter what settings wwre used, and it didn't matter if they were directly burned or burned later from an ISO file. The data itself was uncorrupted in all cases except PowerDirector. PowerDirector is the only software that creates bad H.264 blurays in every test.
5. These "bad spots" on the disc usually lasted anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes worth of footage on the disc and would eventually smooth back out. A disc may have one or many of these "bad spots" of corrupted data. In some cases, PowerDirector produced a few discs that skipped and stuttered and froze all the way through the disc after about 20 minutes or so.
6. The symptoms of the corrupt H.264 bluray is always the same: Skipping video, usually freezing solid, while audio continues. In the case of using a PlayStation 4 as a bluray player, a notably high quality player built to withstand the punishment of regular video gaming, the video and audio would skip for long periods, but would not freeze.
7. The discovery was made that this 1080p/60 bluray template is actually a manipulation of the AVCHD 2.0 standard, in that it simply allows the creation of an AVCHD 2.0 project to be burned to BluRay without the standard AVCHD 2.0 disc/stick/device size limitation, possibly just a re-work of the AVCHD 2.0 burn-to-hard-drive profile. This means it is not a true bluray, but a renamed AVCHD 2.0 project burned to a bluray disc.
I have been testing these things non stop for a week now, and has had me spending money on many different products to figure this out. Why? Because anything less than the 60p blurays that PowerDirector creates are undesirable, I hate MPEG-4. I don't want to have to return to Corel VideoStudio, but H.264 works everywhere else.
So ir is definitely the case that H.264 is broken in Powerdirector, and seems to go haywaire when creating blurays of any length beyond 30 minutes or so. This is tragic.
If H.264 gets fixed, PowerDirector will truly be the best bluray production software on the market. Until then, that's definitely not the case and I'm being forced to use Corel VideoStudio as long as H.264 remains broken in PD. PowerDirector does actually have fantastic competition, a fact I've re-awoken to over this last week.
WORKAROUND: Burn using MPEG-2. Even though it has some limitations and I have expereinced some skipping issues on a few discs, at least it's more stable and reliable than H.264.
I can reproduce this H.264 bug on any system, any drive, any brand, at any settings if H.264 is used and the bluray is 60-90 minutes or more. If 90 minutes or more, it's pretty much guarenteed. Note that if using H.264 to just create media files (without ISO or disc burning), the video plays fine with nio skipping. The problem is with bluray media format only in PowerDirector.
I will be working directly with tech support over this issue, and this post is really just a report and not a request for any help.
|
|
|
Quote
Respectively disagree. Laptop reduce CPU speed ONLY when on battery power and can even reduce display brightness to conserve battery power.
However when plugged into AC, NONE of that applies. I have a Sager 17" notebook with similiar specs. You may need to adjust Windows 10 power settings. With all that said, Power Director has NEVER fully utilized any CPU or GPU on my desktop or laptop. Even though PD does indeed have fast rendering at Produce, it doesn't seem to utilize the CPU or GPU efficiently during editing on the timeline.
Just MY opinion, that it is a software issue.
My laptop out performs my 4700k desktop with GTX1060. Some that can be attributed to the faster SSD in the laptop (M2). I would no problem replacing my desktop with it. Most desktop motherboards DO have a limit on RAM.
The limitations for laptops are very real compared to workstations, and it's based on what they are actually built to handle. It goes way beyond Windows power settings. One system is built for configuration variety and flexibility, sustained heavy load processing at enterprise levels, and long-term durability. The other is fragile, built for battery life, and not designed for any heavy loads other than short bursts of video gaming.
The desktop limit on RAM is ALWAYS vastly higher than a laptop, and greater selection of RAM brands and speeds. I won't even get into hard drve selection, let alone number of combined drives for RAID performence and capacity available to the workstation. With a 1080ti, a typical desktop can render 4Kp60 at near real-time without breaking a sweat, and that's BEFORE adding a desktop-only CPU like an i9 7960X or a 1950X Threadripper just to show off. No laptop is going to get anywhere near that no matter how much money is dumped into it.
It reminds me of some humor I once heard spoken by a friend: "True, the Germans can engineer that electric pencil sharpener so tight that it will produce 500 horsepower - but only for half a second before it explodes."
For what it's worth, of course. :
|
|
|
Quote
Shadow files, hidden folder.
Preferences, File, Export Folder
In my case and perhaps others, if it is not in your default location.
When updating PD, you need to reconfigure it.
If you do not, you will not have access to the old files.
From the update, Export Folder has returned to its default location. C: \ Users \ .......
If this is the case the files have not been deleted continues in the same place.
The problem is not that the files are hidden - it's that the files aren't being generated at all. PD let's you know if it's created them with indicators in the app itself. It's not even doing that, even though shadow is turned on in settings.
The bottom line is that once you add videos to the library, you must let PD create all shadow files before you start adding them to your timeline or it breaks the shadow file generation process and it never resumes. Also, do not close the project before all shadow files have been created, it will not resume creating them when you open the project back up.
This is one area where Corel's VideoStudio product really puts PD to shame - their shadow file management is absolutely outstanding.
|
|
|
PeterSue,
You're not alone, I have the same issue, and posted it here. Was told it was my problem and that nobody else could reproduce it.
Shadow files in PD16 definitely broken for many of us when it never used ot be a problem in previous versions.
|
|
|
Quote
I just bought an Asus Predator Helios 300 15.6 laptop(G3-571-77QK). Basic specs are i7-7700HQ, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, GTX1060-6GB. I've added a 2TB FireCuda SSHD for storage. OS is Win10 Home.
PD16 is installed on my SSD. Media files are on the SSHD.
Are there any settings I can change to improve performance? Any reasonable hardware improvements I can make?
"
For instance, while viewing previews I will see the timeline stall when it gets to a transition between clips. It seems I'm barely taking advantage of the available processing power, and yet it stalls for a very brief second while it "thinks".
Rendering times are excellent, at about 3X content length at 4K.
I don't recommend using laptops for video processing at all. Laptops, despite how "powerful" they may be advertized, are built with limited "mobile" processors specifically for preserving battery life. There are no exceptions because no laptop sells with a reputation for having short battery life.
Using a laptop, if you are producing 1080 video, you can get away with it if it's 30fps, but it's going to be sluggish, even with shadow files enabled. If you're processing 1080 at 60fps, your going to sit there listening to that cooling fan scream all night, but the work will eventually get done. If procesisng 4K video, your cooling fan will screem all night and the progress indicator will rarely move at all, and that's using a laptop with 8 cores. People truly over-estimate the capabilitires of laptops and usually get very surrised to find out how badly they choke on video processing, even if they are listed as "gaming" laptops.
I recommend avoiding laptops for doing video altogether and using a real PC with a real CPU that was built for serious processing. Full PC's allow for great features like CPU overclocking, serious cooling options, ultra-fast RAM upgrades (as much as you want) and super hot hard drives of insane capacity. The sky's the limit with a real PC. Laptops are extremely limited, built for battery efficiency, and have virtually no upgrade options.
|
|
|
Quote
Highwinder
To support Hatti I have tried all sorts of combinations, HA on, HA off, and all the different resolutions available with Shadow Files. I was unable to replicate your findings. In every case Shadow Files continued to generate.
Ok, I'll look further into this. Very annoying problem. PD15 didn't have this issue, this is new with PD16. Not sure if it was a patch issue, but it has certainly complicated my workflow and pipeline. I have to let PD generate all shadows before saving the project, which takes quite a while because I'm generating shadows for a whole bluray's worth of content, usually 250+ clips.
Thanks anyway for trying to verify on your end.
|
|
|
Never had these problems before with the shadow files:
1. When shadow files are being created, saving the project kills the shadow file creation process. CPU goes to zero and shadow file production halts. Shadow file creation does not resume, it's now unrecoverable to the saved project, even after a reboot.
2. Opening a project that was saved while shadow files were still being created used to resume shadow file creation where it left off (PD15 and prior). This no longer happens in PD16. Yellow shadow file indicators stay yellow, CPU remains at 0%. Even after reboot.
3. Shadow files are only created when files are freshly imported. You can't save the project if shadow files are still rendering. You just have to let it sit there in an unsaved project until all shadow files are created. THEN you can save the project. Saving the project before this completes will instantly kill shadow file creation process and is unrecoverable to the project, as mentioned above.
This is a freshly installed and fully patched version of PD 16. Previous versions of PD didn't have this problem.
Been using PD for years. Am I now suddenly doing something wrong?
|
|
|
Quote
Just remember that your SUBJECT needs to be brightly lit - lighting the green screen too brightly will create a green "halo" of reflection around your subject that you will not be able to get rid of and the background will eat into your subject's border. I actually light my green screen cooler so that no green refelction bounces off of my subject. Note that Hollywood does not use brightly lit green - they cool it down for the same reasons. This is how they are able to get realistic results.
Also good information, though I submit that a lighting team and $30,000 cameras may have some affect on the outcome. My best green screen attempt.
Looks great, but the "green halo" around your subject can be avoided by shooting with a cooler green screen. Super bright green is what causes that. I have softboxes that I light my screen with at about half power and I get better results. When I crank them up to full, I get green halos around my subjects that I can't clean up.
|
|
|
