CyberLink Community Forum
where the experts meet
| Advanced Search >
Hi CJC, back again!

Quote: Ok trying to drill this down further.

With all audio muted, playback with full HD setting is very smooth.

With the audio enabled on the video track, on LOW preview resolution, the playback stutters on every clip transition (when i say transition i mean clip to clip.. no transition effects).

With separate music track added, but video track's audio disabled, on full HD playback, again, playback is smooth.

What's more odd, is that the music track is at 48kHz 320kbps, and the audio for the video tracks are actually lower at 256Kbps.

So for some reason I'm having my main issues when my video's audio is enabled, but not if I have a separate audio track playing.

This is interesting.
Have you tried extracting the audio from your clips and re-lay them on the time line?
Does it affect PD in the same way?

I've got some links to free HD footage here and here.
If you could test something from them and say if you still get the freezing that would be great.
This might be going off track but you might have stumbled on something to do with a setting for your recordings, only guessing.
Can you upload something of your own we could test to see if PD behaves the same way?

I use a much older Nvidia card and also had problems with the latest driver.
I rolled back to version 331.65 and things went back to normal.

For me at least!
Quote: Ok.. so I've gone through all of that. As for your test.. everything runs perfect on single clips. It's only during transitions that the video freezes.

When you say 'freezing' do you mean in PD's preview window? If so, lower the preview quality to a lower setting.
If it's freezing while playing back through Windows Media Player, the DVD player, etc. then it looks like your bit rates are still too high and you need to tweak them down even more. Otherwise, there's still a bottleneck with your GPU (read on, Intel Quick Sync).

I've been doing some research while you were gone. Some Intel based systems have something called 'Intel Quick Sync Video' nowadays which is built in. It might not be turned on with yours. If you have that on your computer, try it instead of your graphics card. Check the back of your computer to see if you have a free monitor port and check your BIOS to see if the option is switched on. My setup is old and doesn't have it, but according to some forum users here, PD shows it as an Intel logo on the effects and works well. That might help your video and effects rendering. If it does, you can retire your GPU.

Quote: For my setup, I'm not sure what you mean by networked to a server.. I'm mapped to a few network drives. I don't have MS office on here.

No problem. Sounds good. It sounds like you don't have any Office interference. Some places I've been to have a widget running in the background that kicks in each time the user logs off/shuts down and puts a lot of drag on the system while running just because it wants to copy files across from machine to machine. This can create 'freezes' like you described.

One thing I've been paying attention to. It seems playback is dead smooth even on full HD preview with my track volumes muted. Once I add in audio it can't keep up. Currently I'm using my GPU obviously for video and then my onboard for audio. Is there anything that is maybe causing this? Or is it simply the fact that audio also takes up a lot of resources and slows things down?

Let me know if the Intel Quick Sync Video made a difference. Your GPU is separate from the rest of the components. So think of it as a motorway/pipe which travels to your GPU and a separate motorway/pipe which travels to your sound card. Yes, you could have a bottle neck with audio as well (read on).

When you say 'it can't keep up' do you mean the video and audio are mismatched/out of sync (objects move but the sound is late/early) or is it choppy/stuttering?

If this is during playback, outside of PD, then it could be your sound/audio driver needs updating.
Video playback is much easier for a PC to handle than to make it, which is what you're trying to do.
Making video is more hardware intensive than playback because all the hard work has already been done.

If this is in PD, then check you're not using Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound (or similar) at a huge sample rate which your machine might be struggling with, in which case, yes the audio could be taking up the resources. First thing: check and update your audio drivers.

When you first record the original bit of speech, recording quality should be at the maximum setting you can afford.
When you then bring that same audio to a video you're making, many many times you will have to tweak it down for it to work alongside the video. So first try a lower sample rate from that audio recording you made...

WAV audio is the most reliable for video work on a PC. If your recording is just a 'speaking' voice and it's fairly clear/clean speech you don't need anything higher than 8bit audio. You also don't need a sample rate any higher than 96bits (per second / bps). You could even get away with 64bps for speech (especially male voices as they have more bass). These settings affect files sizes and sound quality. Anything higher than 128bps (more into music as it holds more range) is overkill and adds stress to the system. You want your production work flow to be as smooth as silk - no crashes, bangs or wallops. So keep things light. 99% of the time, you probably just need stereo, not Dolby 5.1.

In the end it all depends on the quality of your setup, how quiet the surrounding environment is, how close the microphone is to the mouth.

Ultimately, and this might sound obvious, listen to the audio sample before putting it in the video and check it for quality. Compare it to the original. If it's rubbish, sample it again. Find your sweet spot and eventually you'll get the hang of it. Things also tend to get better as you train your ear.

Once this is working smoothly, start increasing quality settings slowly (audio and video).
Make a note of each setting you change before applying a whole load in one go.
Build up from there and you will get to the point you want to be.

Let us know how you get on.
Hi Gisnar,

I too would like to know what you are using for 8mm scanning.
Could you tell us?

You're right. Since you're scanning film, that's different.
Targa was made for broadcast interlaced video, it's not so good for film (film is different, has no interlace and is better quality than broadcast tape).

Given the choice between JPG, PNG or TIF, JPEG is lossy (even when zero compression is applied) and degrades image quality.

If you want image quality, use either PNG or TIF (TIF is mostly for archiving or print-design, very high resolution work, and produces massive files which isn't what you want for video), PNG is good for loss-less compression and ideal for scanning film/negatives, you could also use it for archiving, but it's less popular if you want to print from them. PNG is also very good for video!

The traditional method of working with image sequences involves working with Targa files (.TGA). They hold on to frame size and pixel aspect ratios (4:7, 16:9, 1.33, etc) and is intended for video work.

You can also have interlaced or progressive and output in YUV spectrum or RGB, whatever takes your fancy.
Upgrading to 64bit isn't much of a hassle.
Most 32bit programs will work without problems.
What happens is that Win64 allocates 4gb of memory space to each 32bit program you launch.

FWIW: another poster here mentioned its best to remove the Nvidia 3D drivers as it can affect video work. I never had it (also using a very old Nvidia card) and never had problems.

The big difficulty is we don't know your computer setup.
We also don't know if there could be any malware baddies lurking under the hood interfering.

32bit PD is fine for Standard Definition work and lower but if you want to work with AVHCD video which is Hi Def then things change slightly because of the extra data and file sizes you're dealing with.

29.97 fps is for NTSC
25 fps is for PAL

Check the output options available.

What fps and frame size did you capture/record the footage at?
Hi SB5,

This is a tricky one.
The patch you tried to install, when you downloaded it, did it give you any choice for the version of Power Director as in 32bit or 64bit.

Something you might want to check: is your version of Windows really 32bit?
If so, you can only access 4gb of memory with it so you might have extra memory that isn't actually doing anything.
It's just how Windows is made. Take a look: link.

Some Intel machines come with something called "Intel Quick Sync Video".
It's part of the graphics chip that comes built in.
If you have it, try to render the video using that.
It's possible your monitor would plug straight into the back of the PC instead of the video card.
You could get different results with that.

It would also be helpful if you could post some info on your computer for everyone to see.
System specs, etc.
Yup. There's not much in it.
If you scaled that up to a 1hr clip you'd be 7 mins quicker for an MP4 but 11 mins slower for the AVC using the Radeon.

...and you're probably right. In the end it just comes down to what you need to get done.

File is 1440x1080 60i 25Mbps Total on timeline is 5:00;03

Output to two formats:
MP4 1920x1080 30p 16Mbps
AVC 1920x1080 60i 16Mbps

Intel HD4600:
MP4 97-100% GPU Load 3:10
AVC 92-99% GPU Load 2:36

AMD HD7870:
MP4 avg <10% load 2:35
AVC 0-25% load 3:31

Just check to make sure the transcoded/rendered files finished off with the same frame sizes you had in the tests above.
Here are the new timings.

MPEG2: very little change and beginning to show performance loss.
AVC: minimal change and beginning to show performance loss as resolution increases (frame size w x h)
MP4: more performance loss but consistent between resolutions unless the CPU either comes out of its dozy state (74%, 89% v 36%) or the resolution increases (double whammy: higher res = more stress = CPU steps up a gear).

I would run your HD7870 alone and forget the Quick Sync altogether.

Quote: I find it odd that cable TV (in my location) is still using MPEG 2 encoding when everything else seems to have moved to MPEG 4.

That could be because they haven't upgraded the transmitters in your area or they're trying to save money or it's the kind of setup where part of the transmitted bandwidth is shared among other services (like broadband, interactive TV, the NSA, or flying drones overhead! - take your pick, just kidding), purely business.

Quote: Other notes: Since I removed the HD7870, I noticed that the Intel HD4600 display on the same monitor is much sharper and fonts very clear. With the HD7870, the display appears 'soft' and fonts appear thicker. Strange

Check your Catalyst options to change that. Windows also has a "clear-type" widget which allows you to sharpen fonts on your monitor. I think it's built in to Windows, maybe in the control panel or it could be a free download from Microsoft.

Here goes:
See if it improves your rendering speed.
It could be a case of disabling the Intel Quick Sync Video through your BIOS and trying again.

I'm working on something similar on a different thread here.

Let me know how it goes, it's something I'm looking into with someone else on that thread.

Your card.
Only if you're using Home Basic edition.
It has a physical limit of 8Gb RAM.

Premium edition bumps that up to 16Gb.
So adding a 1Gb (or higher) graphics card to your machine with already 8Gb won't hurt anything.

Here is the info on that.

Leaving computers on over night is quite normal when working with videos.
Out of curiosity, how are you capturing/recording them to your Dell?

Check to see that your timeline settings match the same as the films you've recorded, eg: frame width/height, etc.

What if you don't quit and just start a new project after PD shows it all blurry, check the new project settings and match to the recordings.

Do your recordings look normal?
Have you checked them before importing?
They could be at a much smaller frame width/height so that when you bring them to the timeline they become strehced and blurry.

Just wondering!
Ok, I see what you're doing.

I'm posting the specs for those cards you mentioned: GT630 and Radeon R7 240.

There are three flavours of the GT630, the fastest is the GT 630 'G5' running at 50Gb/s on a 128bit bus like your GT8600, so it will be a marginally noticeable improvement on your current card. Both the Radeon and the GT630 run on a 128bit bus which, in my view, positions them as "entry level" cards.

IMHO 128bit is bare minimal for video editing of any sort using modern 64bit Windows, but the good news is it'll work ( ) for SD (Standard Definition/VHS) like you're doing. If you think you want to move up to High Definition then don't buy it, plus you're probably looking at a new machine too.

The Radeon seems to slightly outperform the GT 630 'G5' by saying 'up to' 71Gb/s (instead of 'is') but that's it.

I'd check with the DELL guy to make sure they will work on your computer as yours has the older PCIe 2.0 connection for earlier cards. Modern ones are PCIe 3.0 but to be honest, I don't think there's anything much to it. PCIe 3.0 is just faster than PCIe 2.0 and everything gears down now to work with older equipment. So it should be no big deal. Check with DELL though.

If you can find a GeForce GTX 580 you'd be cooking.

Quick question, which version of Windows 64bit are you using?
Is it Windows Home Basic 64bit?

Good luck.
I found the spec sheet for your card here.

The recommended minimum to edit Hi Def AVHCD video is 512Mb but most graphic cards on the market now start at 1Gb which is double. It doesn't only stop there. You should really look under the hood to see what you're buying. Your card is quite old now, with a memory bandwidth of 24Gb/s on a 128bit bus. New mid to top range cards run anything between 150Gb/s to 340Gb/s on buses of up to 384bits. This might sound like gobbledeegook to you but it's what basically amounts to how wide the pipe is that data has to run between CPU and GPU (graphics card). Too slow/small and you get bottlenecks/crashes.

I'm still using an Nvidia GTS 250 which is a GTX9600+ with extra bells and whistles.
It's got 512Mb and 70Gb/s bandwidth but it lets me edit in AVHCD without problems.

Yes, you need to use key frames on your text layer and create a path for it to follow the object behind it.

This can be hard to achieve if the object (your suitcase) swings too much. Do you have the patience to do all the keyframes needed for the effect by hand?

PDToots is a good source for tutorials.
I don't think the problem is the size of your files.

Frosty, have you watched your original source to make sure that pixelation isn't there?
Thank you both.

I'm uploading an edited version of your tests Russel scaled up to a 1 hour scenario using average times.
I've added info on time gains based on the two bits of data (combo Radeon-Intel and Radeon stand-alone).
Russel, if you'd like to add your Intel stand-alone data to it at some point, I would be glad to scale up the calculations and work out the gains/losses.

Where it says...
720x480 60i 8Mbps yes used on abt 2 clips 1:32/46:00 (m:s) ...these reds are the scaled up timings to 1hr.
The green (+m:s) are rendering gains (speed improvements).

Looking at your AVC and MP4 results you're managing to shave off up to 30mins off your render times using just the HD7870. That's amazing!!!! Wow! The only sluggishness comes when outputting to MPEG2 but even so I'd be happy having even 15minutes off my render times if I was working @1920x1080.

So far, I'd keep the HD7870 and disable the Intel!
Just depends if most of your work is MPEG based.
If you're still up for it, run an Intel only test and add it to the list.
Like I said, I'll work out the timings and post them back.

Here goes:
I think you're on the right track. If a project file becomes corrupted, a clean save-as won't always bring it back to life (sometimes it does).

It could well be the best option to rebuild it if other projects seem ok. It's a good tip to make a copy of the file first before opening it for work.

Worse case scenario: run a malware check to make sure your machine is clean.
Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team