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 >
QuoteIt seems to me that the simple solution would (for CL) to just install the NB effects (and content packs, etc) as a totally separate item so that they can be uninstalled INDEPENDENTLY from the version of PD, and when we upgrade to the next version, those fx/packs will stay and be usable by the newer version (as long as they are compatible, of course).
The only thing I can think of for why CL would do it the way they do is that perhaps it's part of the agreement they have with the fx makers (NewBlueFX or whoever) that the effects can ONLY be used with version x or y. Can't imagine why they would do this, though.
In order to get all of the effects, I've found the "best" way is to just not uninstall the previous versions. It's wasteful (of diskspace, etc), but at least it (sort of) works...
Russell1967
Hi,
I am installing Cyberlink PD 16, but I have an older PD 13, so this thread seems to make sense to me. Here are my thoughts regarding the content packs:
1) How about reinstalling your older version (PD 11) on the same computer and its content packs. Dont activate it, just install them, then copy their files into your newer version's directory?
2) How about reinstalling the older version and its content packs to a different computer. Dont activate it, just install them then copy their content pack files to the newer install's directory?
Now I dont know if this violate the agreement between content makers and PD, but we did pay for these content packs, so I dont see why we cannot use them on the same computer with our PD upgrade, specially if we are to retire the older version already.
Hi guys, the debate is over at last. My wife agreed to go with a new PC and Power Director over macbook with final cut pro. Thank you so much for your inputs. It looks like I'll be staying on these forums longer.
I use PD14 Ultra on a PC I made up myself, I'm very happy with it, anything I can think of that I want to do there will be a way to do it, in that respect it's very much like Ps.
As for its popularity I think a lot more people use it than the others you've seen on YT. I guess a lot of fancy software is a bit like Leica cameras, OK for the professionals who take 100's of pics everyday and mistreat the cameras in a way no ordinary person would do, but the results are no different from your bog standard DSLR. People who own the cameras but don't use them professionally love to tell you they've got one! : Does it make them better photographers, never!
Since January 2016 I have had 20 screenings of my videos (another in Feb coming up) all over the world all done in PD14. The most important thing is the content and if the software is easy to use (like PD14) then the person using it can forget about it and concentrate on the content.
Cheers
Thank you Jemra1D,
I agree on you 100% on the use of non-professional stuff! I hope to see your movie here soon too.
First off, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I really appreciate it.
Out of curiousity, I started reading through the forums of final cut pro... And guess what, they have the same clause in their software: "for personal use" or "for non-commercial use" is written somewhere in their EULA too for both the educational and the full versions, so this type of question also appears in their forum. However, one of the replies I read to the question was this:
"The term for non-commercial use applies to the software itself and not to the final product".
So the statement of the EULA on "non-commercial use" was interpreted by some to mean that we can sell the final product, or use it for something that is profitable. however, we cannot install the software on multiple computers and have the software rented out. If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legal for a movie studio to use PD.
Could this also be what Cyberlink had meant?
Re: the link on YouTube takedown, I read through it's link and it appears to me that the video in question was taken down not because Cyberlink was used to make that particular video, but rather because the video allegedly had links to illegal stuff like cracks or keys.
QuoteI use PowerDirector for all my videos, and have since MediaSuite 10 (2012?). In my YT description box I say that I use PD and have an affiliate link.
She probably does not watch my channel though... I am a retired expat from Texas, now living on a rice field in the Philippines. I do not do any makeup tutorials ha ha...
Hi Tito Tim,
I viewed your link and I like it very much. It's nice you are blogging about your life in the Philippines. I can relate with you as I live in Manila.
Btw,I read a bit from an egadget link (my browser won't let me paste the link here) on the h.264 licensing. It basically says that the owners of the h.264 format doesn't want it licensed for commercial use. So it says that even Final Cut Pro X and Avid have something in their Eula which prohibits users from using the software for commercial purposes. With this being said, it may appear that the problem will exist even if we were to change software.
Another article I found in tubularinsightals.com says that the consortium that owns the standard has announced "no licensing fees" for videos that are free to view on the internet. However, videos that are pay-to-view needs licenses.
Now, if the video is free to view, does it still qualify as "commercial use" as per cyberlink's EULA if it is monetized on YouTube?
Of course the question I post here is basically the question "what does commercial use" mean as per PD terminology. Then there is a question of what country's definition of "commercial use" do we use. I don't come from the USA,and a website I found described cyberlink as a taiwanese company... So beyond the basic legal jargon, we also have the international jargon to ask about. I am obviously overthinking out this one, hahaha.
My bottom line is "Let's just use PD and have fun!", I haven't heard of anyone getting into trouble or using PD for their projects before,let's support them. Man, my wife still wants a Mac,i might eventually give into that.
Quote... So why isn't it considered a professional product? ...
you're beating up a dead horse. if you want ot use it for commercial purposes, then it is on you. read again the CL EULA.
happy happy joy joy
PepsiMan
'garbage in garbage out'
Yes Pepsiman,
I agree with you. I read one of your posts that you have been asking cyberlink to come out with a professional product for years and they haven't made one. What does "commercial use" mean btw? Movies and TV commercials are obviously commercial, but Does YouTube qualify?
Another thought I had is that since the problem seems to be the licensing of the codecs ordile formats, some people in some threads have commented that we can try licensing those separately. In this case though, since we only need 1 type of file for most of our work, we will only need to license one format. That might come out quite cost-effective. I mean if I got another program which had licenses for several format, I would essentially be paying for the license sfor those formats, but in the end, I would most probably use only one format or file type for most of my output. So why not license only that particular format?
Unfortunately, I haven't found anyone in these threads who has successfully licensed a codecs or file type for commercial use. Btw, I do hope my terminology is right regarding codecs and file formats, should I be calling them something else?
Yes we are beating the dead horse. I suppose we could really be trying to because we love the horse. We in this forums love PD. It's why even if my wife wants a Mac, I am still trying to live with PD by opening this thread.
Maybe that John & Schneider Studios are not using PD for the final product but PD is being used in post production but it's still nice to know that PD is being used by professionals
Cheers
Its.rrally nice to know that PD is being used by professionals... So why isn't it considered a professional product?
QuoteTo OP:
The PD is home-use software with licensing only to that.That's what the End User License Agreement states.
Once you get to have a lot of videos and make money from that, you can be noticed, and you might get into trouble by using a non-professional product. On Windows side, there are products that are professional, but they cost also 4-6x the money. Part of that is the licenses to various video formats (containers) used.
Performance-vise the PD with a decent CPU and last generation video card is top-notch. Not even Final-Cut Pro on a Mac comes close. But the experience on a slower computer can be frustrating. A decent used workstation can be bought on eBay. Add SSD as boot drive, plenty of RAM and paired with a modern video card (nVidia or ATI) is all you need.
Now, if your wife thinks she needs a Mac, you won't win. It's the social status that she perceives that will provide in her little circle, that's all, and you can do nothing about that.
PS: My wife really wanted an ugly Kia Soul and she got it in the end. Now even if she might not be happy with it, it is not my fault
Hi Sonic,
Thanks for this. You are quite right that she will eventually get what she liked. I haven't purchased the Mac yet as I am still researching for he best deal.
What you mentioned in the end-user agreement that PD is a home product and cannot be used for videos that make money is something that concerns me. I actually started a new thread in the "previous versions of PD" category which asks the question "Why is PD not considered Professional". Your reply seems to answer my question quite well. It opens a few more questions though like why doesn't cyberljnk make a professional grade product for Hollywood and moviemakers? And of course, when you say "we can get into trouble if we use it on materials that make money", what does "trouble" and "make money" mean? Does YouTube monetezation qualify as "make money" or for wedding vdeographers, do their videos qualify, or is it when our product is launched as a commercial movie that qualifies? I suppose though these questions will have to go under a different thread. Then the definition of "trouble", are we going to be brought to court for copyright infringement for using a product that we are licensed to use? I don't know if any movie producer was ever brought to trouble for using a home camera to make his movie for instance. I really don't know, but looking at PD, it seems very powerful and could really be used for serious stuff.
Some news though... Since I haven't purchased a Mac yet,my wife downloaded PD for her Android and started using it. She seems to be warming up to the idea of PD . Does the Android version sync/link up to the PC version well? If they do, then it's another plus point for PD since she can start work on her phone and finish it on the PC.
QuoteI pretty much only use PowerDirector. I've even made a bunch of PowerDirector tutorials on my channel that you may have already come across. You can check them out at www.youtube.com/kevinvandytech if you want to see what the editing process on PowerDirector is like.
Hi Kevin,. I have watched a few power director tutorials as well as tutorials for final cut pro. Their processes look very similar. Although I got a bit more confused with the final cut pro one probably because Im not so familiar with the apple filesystem. With their similarities, it makes me really think that PD is a much better deal, from this stand point.
PD 16 advertises to have "intelligent color correcting". Basically, I was hoping to use color director to improve colors on my videos, not necessarily do special effects.
I am considering upgrading to PD 16 from an older version. I am thinking that if PD 16 already has his intelligent color correction thing. Will it be enough or do I still need to get color director. This decision will change what I need to purchase.
QuoteFinal cut has been a more intergrated product than Pd, until PD 16 came along. PD is getting better all the time, stilla ways to go but I've been with it since ver 11 !
QuoteHang on - is your wife into beauty and makeup as a subject OR video editors and their various benefits.
Seems a question that needs answering before making a potentially expensive system purchase decision.
I have certian genres of videos I like, but its the subject not the method of creation that entertains me.
Yes I have a decent camcorder and enjoy processing my videos using PD, but when watching others, their content far outweighs how they editied them!
I chose PD from reports views and reviews - not because my favourite videos were made using it. I think the quality of camcorder and the skill of the operator and post productive skills are far more contributive to the quality and interest of the final product - than the editor used in getting there.
And if you both run the same software on the same OS I think the benefits for you both would far outweigh any debateable benefits one piece of software would have over the other.
Yes, I agree with you. So the question here is, what hardware and software should we use? You are right that we will probably share the setup since having 2 computers will be expensive.
She would like to make the videos showing her reviewing some products. We will need the video setup including the cameras, lights, computer, and software.
So far, my cameras don't have microphone inputs, although I already have the mics. She would prefer the external mics to plug into the camera instead of having to record on a separate device and then syncing the sound. (One reason why I chose PD was for it's auto sound syncing feature, but she doesn't want to go through that route). So I might look for another camera... I've also built my own lights already. I own a copy of PD, but will need to purchase a faster computer (mine is terribly slow for video editing).
So my wife is requesting her equipment based on the equipment of people she watches (who are beauty product reviewers). These people she watches has influenced her, and is obviously her guide. Many of them use cameras with mic inputs, and many of them indicate using final cut pro x and Mac. She has the impression that the final cut pro x and Mac will be easiest to use for her.
Now, I already own PD (but cannot get a good user experience from it because of my slow computer). I've never used final cut pro x. Every website I looked to compares PD to Vegas and Premiere, but not to final cut pro x. So I can't figure out which one gives a superior experience.
So in conclusion, I will be spending some money either for a Mac and it's software or for a faster PC with PD. Money aside, the PC with PD is much cheaper. So the question is, how is the user experience between these 2 setup?
Now this is the PD forums (and yes I have PD), so I presume people here are PD users. I am hoping to find someone who has used both the Mac the final cut pro x and PD and can tell me why he/she prefers PD over the Mac and final cut pro x setup based on user experience (I presume he/she will prefer PD since this is the PD forums). Aside from being cheaper and running on Windows, what other advantages does PD offer over final cut pro x?
Now, for the title of my thread, I wanted to show her the channels of people who use PD. She tells me that no one seems to be using it to make their channels. For one, no one she follows indicates using PD on their channels, unlike those who use Final Cut Pro X, who really write it on their description boxes. I am hoping to find people whose channels are similar to those she watches (beauty reviewers), to help me convince her to try out the PC and PD solution instead of the Mac and Final Cut Pro X solution.
Lastly,I would like to encourage everyone to put PD into their YouTube description boxes. If we really like PD, doing so may encourage others to use PD. Putting final cut pro x in the description of the channels my wife follows certainly seems to have influenced her.
QuoteConsider the fact that Powerdirector software is designed for PCs, to use on a Mac, you have to use a Windows simulator .
On a Mac I think it is called 'Boot Camp'.
Yes, exactly my point. The investment to try out the other is much bigger than just simply downloading a trial version of another program. Its my dilemma. I can't simply install something and try it out, it needs a big investment to do so. So is the user experience of using a Mac and the mentioned software big enough a difference to justify such an investment? My wife is the end user.
Some comments I've heard is that for the mac,there will be less tweaking necessary and less problems arising from wrong drivers and all. This is because of the limited selection of hardware they offer and the single source manufacturer unlike in PC. The cost is exhorbitantly bigger though... So is it worth it?
If I had an extra million dollars lying around, I probably wouldn't mind purchasing the Mac and the software and trying it out, but I don't have that amount yet. So I have to decide whether it is really worth it to trade in my savings for that. My other option is to upgrade my PC and hopefully transfer PD to the new one (and/or upgrade my PD to latest version). The main difference in cost is that I have a wide choice of PC options to suit any budget, whereas in Mac, the choices available are few and all quite expensive. I think it is excessive to purchase both a PC upgrade and a Mac with it's software.
QuoteCan't you buy a Mac and dual boot? Not sure if you can dual boot a PC into a Mac.
Hi Barry, a PC which boots up to Mac is a hackintosh. Not ry recommended. Buying a Mac to dual boot will have the same investment as buying a Mac. Will it be worth it?
Quote... Which among the lines describes the rendering time? I can't help to notice that there are 1st Gen Core it's being compared to a 5th gen in the chart. That is so cool!
pc perf stats is when the PD & HA works together... if you look at the Duration (mm:ss) that is the total rendering time. if you look at mine then you can see that just changing the GPU in a same system made a lot of difference in rendering HEVC H.265.
HEVC H.265 column, GTX 960 rendered in 03:12 whereas GTX 750Ti did it at 17:01. look right of mine and you can see Julien had same GPU as me but with faster CPU, his rendered at 12:29.
AVC H.264 column, GTX 960 03:15 & GTX 750Ti 03:19 and Julien's faster AMD CPU at 01:42.
another difference is when the GPU supports the H.265, rendering H.265 and H.264 is similar but GTX 750Ti doesn't support HEVC H.265 so rendering time is longer due to CPU only... today's cpu that supports encode and decode HEVC H.265, will have shorter time, too...
i've experienced about 10% reduction in rendering time when i used SSD drive.
everyone had 12GB to 32GB memory but PD14 used max 8GB... so when your system has total 8GB then you'll feel the pain...
happy happy joy joy
PepsiMan
'garbage in garbage out'
Based on your findings, the video card does make a big difference if I use H.265. This sort of runs contrary to the stuff I read that the video card only helps in rendering effects and has little to do with rendering time. I suppose those things I read are only true if the video card isn't supported or optimized.
I plan to make a YouTube channel. Should I use H.265?
Quote... An estimated answer will also just be fine. ...
here's a poops and giggles, us, forum members did with PD14 and GTX 960. GTX960 Performance Comparisons after reading that click on this PC Perf Stats mine is last of the bunch in H.265 and mediocre in H.264 rendering.
happy happy joy joy
PepsiMan
'garbagein garbageout'
Hey Pepsiman,
Your PC Perf Stats file was really helpful! I need some help interpreting it though. Which among the lines describes the rendering time? I can't help to notice that there are 1st Gen Core it's being compared to a 5th gen in the chart. That is so cool!
As far as PCs are concerned, I have no doubt that PD is the best. It's why I purchased PD (and why I am here). It consistently has the fastest rendering time against other programs, and it's really user friendly.
I guess what I would like to compare it to would be final cut pro on a Mac. I don't have a mac, and I don't know anyone to try it out on. Is it worth investing on a Mac or will the investment be better to simply upgrade my PC and Power Director?
So the answer to this question would be user experience. In whatever video I watch or article I read, people play it safe by saying "in the end it depends on your personal preference"... It's a safe answer, but doesn't really help since I will need a big investment to experience the Mac. I was hoping someone tried out a Mac and shared what he liked about PD vs Mac and vice versa, if anyone had such experience.
Actually I haven't really worked in much material yet. My 2nd gen i3 is very slow even for smaller videos. So I am looking for my most cost-effective upgrade solution.
I intentionally didn't put the video resolution. It's hard enough to get the type of answer I would ideally like (like a head-to-head time comparison) because I presume very few people would work on both an i3 and an i7 on the same project. I think if I were to specify a type of file or resolution, it will be next to impossible to get an answer.
So I am leaving the file type open so that anyone who has had experience working on these systems may contribute irregardless of the type of file. I mean, I've watched videos comparing rendering time and video quality of PD vs Vegas vs Premier on YouTube for instance, and I just accept whatever resolution or type of material the author use, I can't impose it on the authors. What is important for me in terms of comparison is that the file types will be comparable (not necessarily the same), just to give me an idea of how much faster one will be over the other.
An estimated answer will also just be fine. Thanks so much. All replies are greatly appreciated.
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.
Does it make them better photographers, never!
