|
|
Quote
You realize that every laptop or PC monitor and every tablet or phone in the world will render that video at 60p? And any HDTV is more than able to process the 60p too, since they are nothing more than huge screen tablets, running a version or another of Android-derived OS.
I don't understand why peope are still hang up on shooting in 50Hz standard. Unless you're technical backwards like BBC, you should use 60Hz today. Especially on fast moving subjects like the one above.
...And if you're wanting to have a file that can be displayed on the old equipment that grannie likes in her front room ??
I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is falling behind in its broadcasting of HD content to several areas of the UK - Though I am in a position to actually experience the frustration !
So the BBC is technically backwards, they still produce some decent looking TV though ('Peaky Blinders' would be a visual example.)
Just this Sunday, I almost fell foul of the sin of assuming "Everything is compatible" When I went to the wife's parents and tried to play some 4K USB content on their 60 inch Samsung... It didn't handle h265 ! - Luckily I had some h264 HD versions with me...
I suppose it's easy to say we should all finally change to 60fps, since the electronics and standards are independent of mains frequency. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that years of having to put up with NTSC makes the USA able to shout "Now, you should use our standard !"
I actually notice very little between 60 and 50 fps on my home TVs, if indeed anything.
(As long as I keep everything the same throughout production.)
Though, just don't get me started on having people tell me that 24fps is more 'Cinematic' !
Argh !
I'm in the UK and have recently decided that all my future projects will be shot at 50fps rather than my former 'Mostly 25fps' stance. I may well double this for action shots. This move has just followed the price of memory and the fact that I can carry multiple spare batteries / power-packs very easily. The argument for 25fps is fading away as its cost benefit declines.
Why multiples of 25 and not 30 ? ? ?
- First line of the comment... Let's keep grannie happy ! - If I was living in the USA I'd run at 60fps without hesitation.
|
|
|
Hi,
I would throw in a word of caution on graphics cards at the moment...
I have a desktop PC, so the Laptop problem faced by Alexba doesn't apply (Very well documented elsewhere).
I have a Ryzen 2700X, over-clocked to 4GHz and water-cooled.
I run windows and all programs from a fast SSD - Just makes the PC generally quicker to boot and work with.
I have a 'Working files' drive - also SSD - Just to keep my working files away from the main archive drive. (Not really needed).
I tend to write rendered files directly to a 'Spinny disc based' large hard drive.
As SoNic67 advises, there's no problem with writing to a modern hard drive - they're capable of writing faster than the files will be rendered. They slow nothing down.
I have 32 Gb RAM, though I reckon I'd see no real-world problems if I only had 16Gb - even if running PD in the background, letting it render as I work on other stuff - which I tend to do.
One problem that's just popped up - documented in another post and currently under investigation.
I have a Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 8Gb graphics card. (I think mine is an ASUS, but I'm going back a couple of years since built).
This runs like the clappers in PD18, it is correctly 'Optimised' in the preferences/Hardware acceleration window.
However - I'm noticing some glitches with regard to smooth movement when utilising the power of the card. Switching it off and rendering far slower is giving me better finished videos...
I'm hopeful that there will be an update soon that will fix this (Very common card) as just now, I couldn't recommend such an expensive card for use with PD-18.
Gerry
|
|
|
Many thanks for your inputs.
I did indeed re-visit the previous few projects and re-rendered with the 'FVRT' box un-checked.
All produced videos with a marked improvement.
I hadn't even picked up on the audio change from the helicopter clip - after all, the noise of a 'Robinson R44' is hardly one for the discerning audiophile !
There was a 'Video' composed from the stills taken on the trip. I had added transitions and a sound track.
The only actual 'Movement' was the transitions themselves and there was requirement for neither lens correction nor colour enhancement as all this had been taken care of with the original photos.
I confirm I rendered this one in high speed - and all looked fine with the result.
The final project was actually 14 minutes long. There were lens corrections (GoPro) and some clips had LUTs applied (Shot under-water). I confess that I used high speed rendering for the HD version. (I don't personally use these ! ), but the 4K h265 version was rendered by the cpu alone. This took an age ! - I left it running when I went to bed.
Checking the result this morning I was pleased as to how it had turned out.
I can confirm that the judder error was independent of the use of the GoPro Hero 6. I have video recorded with my Fuji X-T3.
This camera alows a myriad of choices for the recording format, the clips were Long GOP, 4K, 25fps, 200mbps, 4:2:0 10 bit.
These clips behave in an identical way with regard to exhibiting 'Judder' when the Nvidia graphics are used to speed things up.
Over to CyberLink to explain why PD18 seems to not like playing and sharing its Fast rendering toys with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card. It's pretty much a standard choice ?
Gerry
|
|
|
And so I have a solution...
All I had to do was simply 'Un-tick' the "Fast video rendering technology" check box...
Bottom left on the 'Produce' window.
I had earlier tried playing with the settings in the "Edit/Preferences" area to no avail. ( ! ? ! )
The take-off clip rendered in 24 seconds on my machine - still quicker than PD15 (26 seconds), but nearly 5 times slower than when using it (5 seconds).
The 'Produced' clip exhibited no judder in the movement !
File size was 67.2Mb against the faster rendering's 66.1Mb.
To correct my earlier projects, all I have to do is re-open them (I still have the pds files) and re-render.
OK, they'll be slower, but the longest is only 7 minutes...
Now this DOES still pose a question for the CyberLink team in as much that it means the "Fast video rendering Technology" is effectively useless on my machine with the Nvidia 1070 8Gb graphics card. This glitch seems to have only been introduced with PD18.
I note that I don't play games on this PC, the graphics card was chosen over offerings from AMD as it was better with PowerDirector when I purchased it a couple of years ago. I cannot use it with the program for the time being.
Please fix this CyberLink, as it wasn't a cheap component in the build !
Many thanks once again to Tomasc and optodata.
Gerry
|
|
|
Ye gods !
I am amazed, gob-smacked and totally impressed by the work and analysis undertaken by both tomasc and optodata in the pursuit of improving PD-18...
Both of you have my most heart-felt and sincerest thanks for the generosity of your time.
If either of you would like to raise this issue with CyberLink, then I'd be most grateful.
You are both avid contributors to this forum with vastly more experience than I.
(I do read far more than I post and recognise your previous inputs)
It would seem that I should pursue the route of removing the Nvidia's speed enhancement and see what I can 'Produce' without it.
The speed reduction may not fall that far behind PD-15 anyway.
I will have a play and advise as to what I discover on my machine.
I'm still shocked that you could actually diagnose the 4th/5th frame repeat so quickly !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
It would really help to have more details, such as screenshots or screen recordings showing the problem. Better yet, actual copies of the source and produced clips, and even the actual project (if you're comfortable sharing them).
You can use Pack Project Materials... from PD's File menu and send everything to a cloud folder (Google Drive, OneDrive, etc.) and then paste the link to it here. That way, other people can try producing your exact project and see if the issues show up on other systems or if it might just be an issue with your setup.
It would also help to follow the steps listed in the Read Me Before Posting sticky thread so we can see what kind of shape your computer is in. The more info and specifics you can provide, the more likely it is that your fellow forum users be able to figure out what's going on.
Hi optodata,
Many thanks for the reply.
To illustrate the problem, I am currently uploading some files to google cloud... Then I'll find out how to share them !
I have uploaded the raw clip taken via the GoPro Hero 6 Black - in 4K. Whilst short, it's still quite a large file at 658Mb
I have uploaded two rendered clips... One from PD15 and the other from PD18.
I have uploaded pds files - One from each program...
The GoPro clip was added to the time-line.
It was trimmed at the start and finish to the same length - around 36 seconds.
A lens correction was added - GoPro Hero 6 superview. (From downloaded library of such profiles)
The two rendered clips were both produced as h264 - 1920x1080 - 25fps - mpg files.
PD 15 version = 67.4Mb, PD 18 version = 66.1Mb (No great difference here)
Hardware acceleration was allowed with both programs.
Here's a notable feature.
My copy of PD15 took 26 seconds to render the clip.
My copy of PD18 took a mere 5 seconds ! (PD18 seems to recognise all hardware correctly and 'Optimise' quite well !)
My PC runs Win 10.
Ryzen 2700X, over-clocked to 4GHz, water-cooled.
Nvidia 1070 Graphics card. 8Gb
32 Gb RAM
Project files on SSD, Win 10 and program files run on alternative SSD, I tend to write my renders to a spinny disc archive drive...
Link to all files...
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AafXncyJyCAOptTcBrIKYtrhkgk4Sg_q?usp=sharing
Now whilst I applaud the awsome speed of the render from PD18 - the clip doesn't look that good - Not to me anyway !
Video shot from the back of a tiny helicopter by my better half - it's not BBC quality, but this isn't her day job !
Thanks for looking.
Gerry
|
|
|
Hi Brett,
Whilst all comments regarding frame rates etc are valid...
I've just noted some awfull choppy rendering of pans on video clips that were perfectly smooth on the raw files from the camera...
And I'm 'Producing' at the exactly the same frame rate as the original recording.
Worse still - I've just rendered the exact same clips using PD-15 instead of PD-18 - and guess what ?
The PD-15 versions are rendered perfectly smoothly...
Something is going on here !
Gerry
|
|
|
Hi,
I've just been playing with a short video shot with a GoPro Hero 6.
The camera was facing out of the side window of a small helicopter...
I cut a 35 minute flight down to 3 minutes.
Files from the GoPro all mpeg PAL 4K 25fps
(I'm in the UK, and produce videos for old kit as well as new !)
Now, all looked great in the preview window - all smooth.
I 'Produced' into HD using h264. - again 25 fps...
However, upon watching the video, I noticed that the scene during take-off definitely has some issues. It seems to 'Jerk' the movement several times a second - as though movement was in steps.
Not massive, but noticeable and I wasn't happy...
I tried again with lens correction removed. - Same story.
I noticed that the video played fine in both timeline viewer and on the 'Produce' windows player...
Things to try...
I 'Produced' the same clip in h265 4K 25fps.
Now to my eyes at least, this was slightly better ! - Or was it a slightly faster 'Stepping' that was less annoying ? !
So now I turned off any hardware acceleration and tried again.
This time, the video produced far slower (No surprise, but now HD took much longer than 'Accelerated' 4K rendering).
I noted that whilst the HD versions with either lens correction applied or not had both been 324Mb in size, the resultant video was now 336Mb... (Hardware acceleration off produced a larger produced file size)
However, whilst marginally better, the 'Step movement' was still there ! - Seen as the view from the helicopter panned across the airport buildings.
I tried several viewers, not just PowerDVD to see if this was an issue - but it was there all the time.
The only viewer playing smoothly was from within PowerDirector 18 itself !
Yes, I checked... When I look at the file shot directly from the GoPro using PowerDVD, then everything is smooth as it should be, it is the 'Producing' that is causing the issue.
Playing around, I switched hardware acceleration back on and this time 'Produced' into mpeg2 (1920x1080 - still 25fps).
Now surprisingly, the 'Step movement' had gone !! - The video movement looked far better...
But naturally the file size was now much larger at 544Mb.
Now for the REALLY ANNOYING part...
I have a stand-alone version of PD-15 on my computer.
I could not import the pds file from PD-18 as not compatible, but I just loaded the take-off clip and 'Produced' it.
h264, 1920 x 1080 , 25fps exactly as before...
BINGO ! - Smooth video with no 'Step-movement' at all...
Anyone any idea as to what's going on ?
I had seen all the negative forum comments regarding PD-18, though not experienced any before today...
It would seem that PD-15 works better with my GoPro Hero 6 Black.
Why am I paying a subscription for an inferior product ?
I'm now going to have to trim all the the 35 minutes down to 3 mins once again this time in PD-15 to produce a video.
I've lost confidence in PD-18 for future work.
- I suppose I'm lucky that this is only 35 minutes of footage to work through...
But as I reached this point in writing the post...
I've just re-visited my previous projects from PD-18 to see what they look like - There are panning errors here as well - just that the helicopter pan highlighted the problem... The previous 'Hand-held' pans also have the same problem - Just that I'd thought them to be 'Operator error'. (The raw camera files are perfectly smooth whilst panning, the produced files judder whilst panning - I was better with the camera than I thought)
I'm 'Mightily Miffed ! ' - Thanks CyberLink - I've hours of work to re-do with an old program that you haven't 'Improved' !
|
|
|
Quote
Yes, This is with the Win10-supplied drivers. This is my first tryout of any capture device, and I'll see what happens when I load the supplied drivers. Thanks very much for the detailed feedback!
I've tried several settings to get PD to see my capture device directly, but all to no avail...
(Hi8 camera using the 'S' socket, audio via phonos )
Incidentally, I've tried several 'Modern' editing software packages (I installed quite a few to play with them)
The ONLY one that would see the USB video grabber instantly was 'Corel VideoStudio Pro 2019'
Now this is a fairly rubbishy editor compared with PD - It can't handle 10 bit files and is limited as to how it captures the video from the USB device (Seems to be in mpeg-2, ) - But it does see it and grab video...
If I could get PD to perform this task, I'd be a happy man !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Barry, I'm going to upend your apple cart, because I think there's a way to do pretty much everything you want inside PD. All of the extra steps you've been doing these past years have been because PD can't do what you want with your capture hardware, not because PD can't do it all.
As I wrote in this post, I bought a cheap capture device, and it works natively in PD18. It captures to 640x480 or 1024x768 4:2:2 lossless progressive AVI (YUY2 codec), and also to 720x480 4:2:0 H.264. The only downside is no 720x480 AVI.
Right there, in one step, this device has eliminated your need to capture using VDub and then do de-interlacing in Hybrid. You can capture in PD and can immediately get to work on it without any additional preparation. It's that simple 
Here's a OneDrive folder with the 2 sample clips, made from a commercial VHS tape with composite video. I'd like to know how well the capture quality compares with what you're used to seeing.
I also produced both to 640x480 30p to see how PD downscaled the 1024x768 AVI clip. Take a look at everything and let me know what you think!
Hi, Optodata,
I used to use a device looking identical to the one you posted, but no mater how I tried, I couldn't get it to work in Windows 10 64bit... I searched everywhere for drivers, but ultimately gave up and bought another that claimed to come with windows 10 drivers and had positive reviews saying as much...
I bought it - cost a whole £19 here in the UK - And BINGO ! - it works...
However, I am most intrigued as to how to get it working within PD-365...
I get as far as a window "Initialising analogue device" - Then nothing but flashing black/white bars in the window...
Going up/down the 'Channels' does nothing.
I tried this in both PD-365 and a standalone PD15 I have installed...
Nada on both.
Other far older / cheaper / rubbishy editors can see the Hi8 capture device...
And I'm then going through the same route as Barry
Info on direct capture would really help shorten my work flow through grabbing these clips.
Gerry
|
|
|
Cheers Barry,
Great advice as ever.
I've 'Edited' for years, but very rarely produced a dvd from my videos. (Methinks never from a 4:3 file !)
Gerry
|
|
|
Hi SoNic67 - Naturally, I've only ever captured Hi8 with the use of high quality 'S' cables. I still have these, and they appear to be working far better than the player !
As for PAL, I had always believed that it had been developed later than NTSC and was a little superior as a broadcast standard (Higher resolution) - with SECAM being almost the same. (SECAM had never become a dvd standard though)...
All long since resigned to history as we've entered the digital domain. That is of course until idiots like me try to dig up old tapes and drag them (Or perhaps more correctly, the memories they contain) into this century.
Just a slight extra I'm looking at - I know it must have been discussed at great length on these pages somewhere - but is there a difinitive 'Best Way' of getting the 4:3 image and placing it in the middle of a 16:9 image frame, such that when a 16:9 dvd is produced, you have the 4:3 signal in the middle of picture, seen as well produced as possible ?
I don't normally produce dvd's. When I play a 4:3 file on my TV it just bangs it down the middle exactly as it should.
Perhaps a link to the best forum posting that answered this... ?
Has anyone played successfully with replacing 'Black' as the border ?
(I was thinking about some form of shadings sympathetic to the pallet of the playing 4:3 video).
Or is this a practice to be avoided?
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
With all due respect, Barry, we're capturing video from 8mm analog. That's not even standard 720x480 resolution. (It's more like 400x300 px.) I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble of capturing lossless AVI.
With all due respect, Steven, I'm not capturing from 'Standard' 8mm analogue, but Hi8mm... 'Standard' 8mm was probably lower than 400 x 300 - Hi8 was around 400 horizontal. I used to capture it using 640 x 480 avi.
Quote
An MP4 will give him resolution and picture quality that's at least as good as the original with a much more manageable and easily editable file.
I've yet to see copy of anything that was "at least as good as the original" ? !
I reckon I'll take your advice Barry, I'll investigate Virtualdub - Now is that the same as Virtualdub2 ??
I'm running the latest Windows 10. I have a USB capture dongle that has the correct drivers and runs correctly, so as long as the software can play nicely with it, I'll be good to go.
I don't have a 'Digital 8' Camera - Never had one of those - Back in the day, one of my ancient PC's did have a firewire socket that I used when capturing from my DV camera. I loved controlling the camera from within the software. I no longer have a firewire socket.
These tapes hark back to a time before then.
Early 1990's - in the EU, there was indeed a levy of circa £50 on any equipment capable of recording a video signal - Hence in the UK we had cameras with neither a 'video-in' facility, nor even 'line-audio-in' facility.
Later on... Some 'Digital 8' cameras were capable of playing Hi8 tapes, though by no means anything like as many as claim this ability on the UK Ebay ! (Which is all of them - they're often wrong !) The DCR-TRV480 was indeed camera capable of this feat, (Even in the UK).
In fact, I'm about to plunge into the Ebay pool looking for a replacement player for these tapes.
My 1991 Hi8mm player is audibly failing and now fails to recognise a tape has been inserted unless 'Tapped heavily'... It has twice now ejected tapes with a couple of feet of tape being 'Out of the cassette'... It's had it.
Looks like the cheapest option is an old Hi8 camera from an posting that looks the most honest ! The old failed player had facilities and capabilities no longer required in today's PC editing world.
Seems they're around £70 - we'll see.
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
I do analog captures all the time, via USB dongle. Maybe the fact it’s digital when it gets to PD is what you mean.
Regarding lack of quality...some of it is perception, we are quite spoilt with hidef, super hidef, superduper hi...etc, some of it is capturing in compressed codecs, then compressing again if you “fix” it. S-video connection for analog is highly recommended.
Hi Barry,
And as if by some weird twist of fate....
I've just been tasked with turning a load of old Hi8 tapes into 'Modern' digital files... !
I loaded my old dongle, to find that it won't work with Windows 10. I spent too many hours searching for correct drivers before realising that buying a new one for £20 would be the better option.
I bought a new dongle and heh presto it works really well !
Now it came with some awful ancient software to 'Grab' the video - But it could only produce some nasty codec mpg very lossy looking images. I've played around with alternatives and started getting better results.
However - this is your thing... Could I ask what software is YOUR choice for grabbing Hi8 ??
I still have PD15 installed as a stand alone, so avi files should not be an issue.
Once 'Edited' I will then produce a dvd from the clips. (Requested)
Many thanks,
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
As a side note, there is no more PAL or NTSC. Those were analog only standards, in UK you did away with that in 2012.
BBC is run by a bunch of older technical guys. At this point they could throw anything on the air, 24 ,50 or 60 FPS, the DVB-T2 digital systems can display all, it's just like a computer video stream - MPEG4. Your computer screen runs at 60 Hz, the phone screen dis 60Hz, why keep the jerkiness resulted at run time from conversion? Even your TV can do 60Hz!
All true. - Though both my monitor and TV can do more than 60Hz if required.
I dare say I could record and produce at higher fps - Though some people do have older stuff they want to play back on.
My own TV is 65 inch, 4K and can play just about any format I throw at it - (Though it looks better in 'Native' 4K).
I play my home videos on it via a usb hard drive.
I always produce alternative 'HD' versions of all my clips as they're more universally acceptable to friends/family.
Hell, I've been known to resort to still burning dvd's for some of my family ! - Curiously they've never asked for a blu-ray... I have a burner capable of producing them that I've never used for this purpose.
I have been playing with some ancient 'Analogue' stuff this very week though. - Hi8 videos shot in the early 1990's in PAL at 25fps.
I've been transfering them into loss-less avi files. I hear the latest PD-365 doesn't play nicely with these - but luckily still have a 'Stand alone' version of PD15 installed on my computer.
As I write I'm scouring Ebay for a working Hi8 player as mine is playing up - (Audibly suffering and glitching all too often)
I can't risk it chewing up another tape ! - Current machine is my 'Original' circa 1991, I think it's objecting to having been in the loft for too many years. Now, do I get another old Sony 'Deck' player, or just get an old camcorder - these are very much choices I'm debating - at least I have no requirements for jog shuttle controls etc any more - I'm just transfering the tapes and using the PC for editing. Hence my brain is currently still in PAL mode !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Why is that? Is your PC display or the phone display working at 50Hz?
Here in the UK that's pretty normal...
We even have the audacity to watch TV using PAL instead of NTSC.
My 'Home Movie' clips aren't much better to watch at 50fps if I'm honest !
The only filming I do at 50fps is from my GoPro 6 Black, mounted to my soapbox racer.
I generally produce these clips to make 25fps final versions, but if anything 'Interesting' happens, then I can slow things down a tad.
I was thinking just how fast these renerding times are compared to when I first tried to start editing...
OK, in 1991, there was no home PC capable of editing was there ?
These were the days of feeding my Hi8 camera through a magic box that could play with the colour a little, into my SVHS recorder that could 'Insert edit' onto a blacked tape... (This set up cost a mint, far more in 'Real' terms than my current system !)
The first computer I used to play with video was the humble Commodore Amiga 500 with its 'Genlock' adding titles.
I didn't 'Edit' on a home PC until Windows 98 worked with USB and I aquired a video card capable of capturing video.
Back then, producing 640 x 480 files took an age !
The idea of 'Producing' a dvd file at well over 10x speed was incomprehensible.
And yet we now moan when our editing production slows down below real time !
My current PC was bought with video editing in mind.
(My old 2nd generation i7 with 8Gb RAM was getting a little overawed by 4K files.)
It currently has a Ryzen 2700 sitting on a 470X motherboard.
(It started life as 1700 on a 370X, but the combo 'Failed' and was replaced under waranty)
The processor is over-clocked to 4GHz and is water cooled.
Graphics card is nVidia 1070 8Gb (Truly ridiculous idea back in the 1990's ! )
I have 32 Gb RAM.
2 ssd's, one in the M2 socket and a disc based hard drive to store 'Produced' work.
I only use one monitor, LG 32 inch 4K. It works.
Sound from USB connected AudioEngine 2 speakers.
My software has always been upgraded only when I saw the need, so I've missed out on several PD versions since first getting Version 5 very cheap. I had PD10, then 13. I upgraded to 15 when I played with 360deg video for the first time and now I have PD365 as it allows me to import 10 bit 4K files from my Fuji X-T3.
(Just so long as I don't want to apply a LUT to my HLG files... For some reason I can't manage that yet, I produce black screens with sound only...)
I accept that the limiting factor on producing masterpieces is ME !
I simply don't have the ability to justify anything better for quite some time.
I dream that in ten years time, I'll live somewhere that is geographically suitable for producing day to night, astro-photography time-lapse masterpieces... Yet I know that in the correct hands, I have the kit capable of this right now.
On the subject of LUTs - Please Mrs CyberLink, can we have the ability to apply LUTs with a degree of control ?
Yes, I have tried ynotfish's opacity trick on a lower track of a time-line... Fantastic tip, Many thanks. It works.
But then the rendering times take a real hit then don't they ? !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Maybe add 10x in the timeline the video with the skater and apply same LUT file? Encode in 1080p then, H264 and H265 (the encoding part uses GPU, so that would affect some degree the results too).
So just to compare the rendering times...
I placed 'Skateboarder' onto the timeline 10 times resulting in a 'Movie' that was 2:38:20 long.
I 'Produced' this 4 times.
I produced this twice with no Lut applied...
I also applied the 'Color Enhance' LUT supplied with the program and produced another two times.
I produced all the clips at 1080p 25 fps. 16Mbps for h264, 11Mbps for h265.
Times to 'Produce' were as follows...
h.264 - No Lut - Render Time = 12 seconds - File size 283,892 Kb
h.264 - 'Color Enhance' applied - Render Time= 3 mins 16 seconds - File size 308,073 Kb
h.265 - No Lut - Render Time = 14 seconds - File size177,894 Kb
h.265 - 'Color Enhance' applied - Render Time= 3 mins 14 seconds - File size 184,406 Kb
Interesting that h264 won the the 'No LUT' race and lost the 'LUT applied' race !
However, on my machine they were so close as to go un-noticed when 'Producing' in the real world.
Let's say average time for 'No LUT' = 13 seconds, average time for 'Color Enhance' applied = 195 seconds...
The 'Movie' length was 158.8 seconds long.
So when producing 1080p movies, my machine renders at 12 x faster than real time... (Feels about right, I'd've said 10x )
When 'Producing 1080p movies with a LUT applied, my machine renders at 0.8 x real time.
When I render in 4K, my render times are far slower - but they are not so dramatic...
More like (Guessing here) - 0.75x for no LUT, but circa 0.3x when a LUT applied - ie 15 mins to render a 5 minute clip with a LUT.
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
The topic heading says it all really.
I like the use of the LUTS files. They are often used to give clips from different cameras or different times a more uniform look.
Or just to create a certain 'mood'.
however in PWD once you apply a LUTS to your video, the rendering time goes out of the window. A 1 hour video will then take over 3 hours to render. Without the LUTS it would just about take just under an hour on my system.
I had hoped this would be improved in version 18 but it has not been.
so I am wondering is this something that can be fixed?
I do understand color matching etc but I am referring specifically to the situation where you apply a specific LUTS to the whole video.
A colour lift for example.
Hi Loe,
I'm fairly new to applying LUTs , and I agree that they really slow down the rendering process.
I reckoned it was because you're then asking the computer to perform a change to every single frame of the video in the time-line.
In making time-lapse videos, I've often asked a graphics package to batch process over 1000 images to get them all looking the same. That can take a while to complete as well.
I rarely attempt to edit videos one hour in length, but if I convert my 5 minute shorts to the same degree, I reckon that my computer would take about that long as well...
You don't say what resolution you're working at - I always produce two copies, one at 3840 x 2160 h.265
and another version at 1940 x 1080 h.264 as more universally viewable. (My machine blasts through these much, much faster).
I have a Ryzen 2700 over-clocked to 4GHz, an Nvidia 1070 8Gb graphics card and 32 Gb RAM.
(No slouch, but many users of PD18 will be editing on faster, more capable machines.)
I will add however, that in the search of finding a program with better capabilities in the implimentation of LUTs, I started playing with a few alternative software packages last week... (The 'Usual suspects' when you google for "Best video editing software")
Without exception, their rendering times proved to be totally abysmal compared to the speeds I was getting from PD18 !
(Around 25 - 30 minutes to render a 5 minute clip ? ! ? )
This experience has re-affirmed my belief that for the moment, PD18 is still the best program for me.
Now if I could just get my 10 bit HLG files to play nice with a LUT, then I'll be happy.
(My HLG files just 'Produce' a black screen - I've no no idea why, ALL my other 10 bit files work great ! )
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
My camera only has an analog output, but running it through the USB dongle that came with PD 12 it was working in that program, but was detected as a TV signal. It doesn't do that in PD 365.
I guess I'll just reinstall PD 12 and try again. I only have 4 more tapes to record, so its a bummer that it's not working now.
When I was using analogue systems, I always kept the two processes of getting the video onto a computer and then editing as two separate operations. I've used PowerDirector for many years - I don't think I ever had it arrive with a dongle, so perhaps you bought a package deal. Back in the day, you got a good deal having a genuine editor.
I only ever got a means of producing a digital file for an editor to play with. The good capturing programs would be so kind as to let you know how many frames had been 'missed' or failed ! This was so 'Last century' ! It didn't help that many of my tapes were already eight years old.
As for editing, the computers I had, running windows 98, took a pretty long time to knock out a 640 x 480 file and if graphics or titles added ??? - Then you waited forever !
I've never had to import with composite video (The yellow socket). My 1st camera was Hi8 and I used the S-Socket as it is vastly superior to the yellow phono method. You say your camera is 8mm, If I remember correctly, they often only had the phono output available. If you do have an 'S' socket, then you should definitely use it.
I believe PowerDirector 12 came out circa 2013, I was using firewire controlling on DV cameras long before then so I've no experience of direct import of analogue to PowerDirector.
I was initially surprised by your comment that PD12 wouldn't burn dvd's...
I've checked, PD12 Does include a facility to not only produce a dvd, but also produce a menu system with pictures and chapters for your various clips.
This is highlighted at 12:30 of this instructional video on you tube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7h4jhrtQv4
Do you have an earlier version ?
If PD12 can capture your 8mm video, it has the facility to go through the whole process of producing your required dvd's...
I would always produce and keep a copy of the final video - backed-up to the cloud for safe keeping.
Gerry
|
|
|
Addition...
Should anyone else 'Find' this post whilst looking for an answer to the same problem and discover that there seems to be no answer...
Transfering in/out of ColorDirector will result in the same black screen.
'Producing' the file without LUT and then putting this file back on the timeline did accept the LUT and 'Produce' - Though the result was full of compression artifacts due to the double rendering - Not acceptable.
The only way I found to change the colour of the HLG file easily within PD18 was to use the 'Match Color' option under 'Fix / Enhance'
Find a clip that you like the colours of and place it on a track under your HLG clip on your timeline.
Select this as the source for the matching of colours...
Once the colour match has been undertaken, you can remove the source clip.
The resulting 'Colour-graded' HLG clip will now 'Produce' and render correctly.
I also discovered that if I converted the *.mov file from the camera into a mp4 file using 'Handbrake' (Could be one of many programs, just the one handy). Then this file accepted a LUT and produced an acceptable result.
I set 'Deblock' to 15, converted it to h.265 with RF set to zero (Ignore warning of this now being loss-less)
It took 10 minutes to reproduce a clip only 1min 20 secs long. (That's an age for my machine)
The resulting file was 1.3Gb, where the off-camera *.mov file was 2.2Gb.
For reference the file 'Produced' by PowerDirector was only 339Mb.
For the time being, I'm now setting my X-T3 to record in the 'Eterna' setting.
I will wait to see if I can easily apply a LUT to an HLG file with PD19 !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
"
Regarding lack of quality...some of it is perception, we are quite spoilt with hidef, super hidef, superduper hi...etc, some of it is capturing in compressed codecs, then compressing again if you “fix” it. S-video connection for analog is highly recommended.
"
I would say the lack of quality is far more than simply 'Perception'.
My 1991 Hi8 recordings were pretty good back in 1991, when I watched TV on a 28 inch set and 'SD' was what everyone watched.
Even my VHS recorder was acceptable back then.
Nowadays, I watch my recordings on a 65 inch 4K TV. (And I still want a bigger one - possibly circa 85 inch !).
It is best with a 4K video, but still pretty good with a 1920 x 1080 image. DVD starts to look slightly ropey, but the old Hi8 couldn't really be anything more than 640 x 480. 'Standard' 8mm was only rated as recording 240 lines compared to Hi8's 400.
If I'm watching today's recordings from my GoPro Hero 6 (3840 x 2160), they are massively superior to the old 'Converted' footage I captured back in 1991. My Fuji X-T3 makes even better recordings. (Yes, it's supposed to be a 'Stills' camera, but it makes a mean video camera as well.)
Mike, there's an area of caution regarding the transfer of old analogue tapes. For the time being I would avoid using the .avi format - with PD18 that is... Barry will tell you what a nightmare they may present with the brand new version of PD18 - 365.
This is a shame, all my old videos became avi files prior to being edited in earlier versions of PowerDirector.
I'm sure a work around is just around the corner, and Barry is very experienced and certainly on the case as it affects his working.
If you have PD17 - Great, this is the way to go.
Gerry
|
|
|
