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 >
Any reason the "Batch Produce..." feature does not work for that?

Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know that option existed. It should be displayed on screen.

I tried it out and I can suggest a few improvements.
1) You can only produce full movies. If you want to make several partial clips of a video, you are out of luck.
2) The render with or without GPU seems to be a global setting for the whole batch. Many times I render both a GPU and CPU version.
3) You can not expand the size of the window. It is not tiny but the option would be nice.

With this said, this batch feature is great if you want to produce the movie in several different formats/sizes but features like range/section production and the GPU/CPU options would also be nice. I think an "add to produce queue" option on the produce page would be an easy way to solve this
I am aware this thread may not get seen by Cyberlink but I am curious as to what features others would like to added/fixed in future versions. Most my main requests are features seen in other editors which would be relatively easy to add to PowerDirector.

1) Render (Produce) queue - I produce several sizes of each video and it would be nice if I could just queue all the jobs rather than babysitting the "Produce" module.
2) Detailed wav graphs - the current ones on the time line are very low resolution and lack so much detail. Makes it very hard to sync up pictures with the sound track.
3) Better organization of time line - I am not a fan of the way the time line organization works. You can not get rid of track 1, 2, FX, music and voice track to make it look cleaner. You can name the tracks but no one does that because the title is to the right of the icons and it takes up too much real estate. The name should be under the icons to make this feature useable. Also, I'd love to
see the option to color each track.
4) Titler Pro does not work with AMD RX series video cards (and possibly others). You get this green strobe effect. The software works fine on Intel and NVIDIA GPUs.
5) Backwards/rewind scrubbing - the common J K L implementation that other editors have. Makes navigating the time line much faster.
The issues you have with the new blue titles are definitely the video card you have. I've tried it on the Intel GPU and you see nothing. New blue also works just fine with nvidia cards. The problem has been around forever and probably won't be fixed until Cyberlink bundles a non ancient version of that plugin.

As said above, the only way you will be able to get around this with your current setup is to set your timeline and export settings to ultra HD 4k.
I have an Intel CPU but an AMD RX580. I've never had problems with collage windows (except maybe the preview window is very slow unless you set it to 720p). Where there is a problem is with the Titler Pro plugin. If rendered by these GPUs, the text has this glitchy green hue over it. It is hard to describe. I do use a text sequence from that plugin and I can use one of two options to get around the glitches. 1) I plug the video out into the Intel video or 2) if I render in a higher resolution than 1080p (with the RX580), the glitches mysteriously disappear from the render. Likewise, you can render the timeline at ultra HD (4K) and all will be fine (but might be slow).
Scrubbing is usually a single thread activity so I wouldn't be surprised the CPU isn't maxed out. But you are correct, other editors are faster at doing it than PD. Many editors render a shadow render of the time line every time you modify it. It is both good and bad. Faster for scrubbing but it takes time to process every change. PD can do that if you tick the pre render ultra HD version of timeline in the options. I wish it had it for lower resolutions too.

Since you have the task manager over your library, I can't tell if you are using shadow files (or if PD can even make a shadow file of a 120fps video). Shadow files of library clips speed things up.

You did point out something that annoys me, no where in recent versions of PD does it say the version number. If you like me have 365, you definitely do not have the latest version since it would display your account name in the upper right hand corner. Running the manager should check your version against the latest and notify you of upgrades but it would be nice to be able to verify that.
This is an interesting topic.

I produce videos in HEVC. I have a 6 Core i5 8600K (no hyperthreading). I like to do my final render (produce) with CPU only because the quality and more importantly, the file size comes out better (it can be a world of difference in size if most the video is static images). But it can take 10x as long as rendering with my video card (AMD RX580).

When producing on CPU only, all six cores are maxed at 100% from the begining of the render till the end.

If you produce with assistance from the video card, the CPU never hits 100%.It mostly sits at 30% while the video decode is at 100% most if not the whole time. This is when using AVC as the source and HEVC as the output. Video encode according to the Windows task manager is not touched much if even at all.

I find this topic interesting because a faster CPU won't mean that much to a lot of people where a GPU will but in my case, gaining another few cores could help.
If it means anything, I recently bought a Hero 8 and can not get anything (including the GoPro Windows app) to import from it so I just take out the tiny card and insert it into a USB card reader. Funny thing is the GoPro app for Windows launches immediately upon insertion as if I plugged the camera directly into the PC.,
The HP you pointed out is a decent PC. You can always upgrade the RAM after you get it. 8GB is the minimum I'd ever recommend anyone ever get. 8GB is ok for most people but for video editing, 16GB is recommended. The CPU with quick sync and this video card should be so much faster at "producing."
I am glad I am not the only one who finds the waveforms unacceptable in PD. I thought I was the only one. On top of them not being very accurate, they are pixelated and not well visiable unless you zoom in very very close (like 1 second spans the whole length of your screen). They are much better in every similarly priced video editor.

i was impatient and stopped waiting after 10 mins, and downloaded the application manager directly, which was done in no time, after which it took (me) > 2 hours to download and implemented the software....

Well that worked. Updating PD now. Downloading fast.
I think the App Manager was stuck and I am not sure it ever would have come out had I not reinstalled it.
Quote >2. hours for the whole package.

Package updates usually take forever so I am not surprised. I am stuck on a screen that says updating Cyberlink Application Manager. I will try again later if this goes on.
Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team