|
|
This form post http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20306.page says "Be aware that the new Powerdirector 10 requires a very powerful computer to use."
I am currently running PD9.3305, and would like to upgrade to PD10.12. Does Cyberlink provide a performance test tool to test if PD10 will run successfully on a given computer? If not, what is the minimum system configuration for PD10 to run successfully? Alternately, can a "guru" here look at my attached DXDIAG and say with confidence Yes or No to PD10. Note: I built this PC a few years back, and would like to squeeze a few more years of useful life out of it.
I'm not used to having to configure the hardware to the software. Usually it is the other way around -- the software configures itself to the available hardware, usually evidenced by the performance of the software (runs slowly). However, experience has shown that PD starts tripping over itself (abends, hangs, error messages, incorrect output, unreliable/inconsistent output, etc.) if the hardware running it isn't just so-so. My question is, how does one know before installing the product if it will be usable/reliable or not?
Some games use to run a performance test before installing to insure the computer was usable. Lacking that, I guess we are into a trial and error situation with PowerDirector. It would be nice to avoid unnecessary grief/hassle/cost if possible.
I have used "Performance Test" (http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm) for many years when comparing upgraded or newly built PC's. It is inexpensive and works great. It gives you a single number score on your PC. It would be great if Cyberlink would say "Needs a Performance Test" score of 300 to run successfully". Or they could use the similar Microsoft performance scoring method built into Windows Vista and up.
Thanks for whatever info you can provide in helping me determine if I can successfully upgrade to PD10 BEFORE investing time and money.
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback!
What are the "show stoppers" in PD 10/12 (or is there a bug list somewhere on this forum)? Does the "tracks get out of sync" issue still exisit in PD10/12? Has the processing of transitions been streamlined (both in editing and rendering)?
Also, Barry, I'm not familiar with NLE. Is "PD 3305 is a killer NLE" a good thing or a bad thing?
Thanks!
|
|
|
I'm getting ready to do eight major video projects with PowerDirector. I have PD 9 with the 6th upgrade - 3305. I want to maximize my time working on the videos versus fighting with PowerDirector (who doesn't). The videos will have multiple video tracks + text + sound overlays, but no 3D. Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/v/EAdJ-ui1SOM. Which version of PD will optimize my time (or to put it another way, which is worse) -- PD9/3305 or PD10/12? (excluding a gob of "work arounds")
Thanks! 
|
|
|
After upgrading to Windows 7 (full fresh install) this problem disappeared for me also. Although "save" in the menu is still greyed out, returning to PD forces a save and changes appear in PD now. Now if we can just get them to add "volume leveling" to WE...
|
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
|
How does one make a "Self Running" DVD with PD9? It needs to start and run a single video never ending until the DVD player is manually stopped.
I can do this with Windows DVD Maker, but can't find a way to do it with PD9. I could render an intermediate file and feed that into DVD Maker, but then it will re-render it, loosing quality, and taking extra time.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
10-4
|
|
|
I did experiment with transition favorites, but did not find a solution to the issue of apply/propogating an OVERLAP transition to multiple elements. Did I miss something?
|
|
|
FYI FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH...
After considerable testing and research it appears that the answer to the original question is -- no. There is no way to apply the overlap transiton to the whole track, or to a selection of elements in a track.
Here is a shareing of what the experimentation revealed. See attached visual aid.
CROSS
+ Does not shorten the track duration.
+ Sometimes results in "stop action" (jerky) transitions. Kind of a freeze-frame thing at the end of the first element. Example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZK7tUrXqg
+ Sometimes get partial black screen for duration of transition
+ Can be applied to entire track (but not to a selection)
OVERLAP
+ Shortens the track duration. Good news - shorter YouTube videos. Bad news - PD sometimes looses it's mind keeping other tracks (like text) in sync with main track.
+ Can not be applied globally like OVERLAP. Must drag-drop each transition.
+ Renders smoothly without "stop action" affect.
NOTES
+ "Prefix" = beginning of first element in track
+ "Postfix" = end of last element in track
+ To get "apply all" buttons to appear, must select a transition, even though that transition is not used -- fade is the "apply all" transition.
+ The default transition type CROSS or OVERLAP is chosen in the the Preferences/Editing dialogue. The is the transition type that will be used when you drag-drop a transition between two elements.
+ Transition type can be swithced to the other type by right-clicking the transition. This can only be done individually, not en masse to more than one transition.
Perhaps someday CL will add OVERLAP to the drop-down apply-all transition button, along with CROSS. Until then the most productive (least time consuming) transition for tracks containing lots of elements is CROSS - FADE, as you can apply it in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
All the preferences does is give you an overlay transition when you drag the fade between two elements. I'm looking for a way to do an overlay fade betweem all the elements in the main track, without having to drag fade between every element. Doing an apply fade to all gives the choice of pre, post, or cross. Overlay is not an available option that I can find. Would be delighted to be proven wrong however. 
|
|
|
|
When using the Magic Motion Designer, is there a way to do a "fit to the screen" of the selection box? Trying to manually fit the selection box to the entire image is a time consuming and frustrating process. A "fit selection to image" button would be very productive.
|
|
|
|
In a project with mixed photos and video in one timeline, is there a way to apply the OVERLAP fade transition to all?
|
|
|
Yes indeed. Of the 3 other "consumer" video editors I own, all have usage issues. Albeit not to the degree of PD9 (production limiting), and they are more or less "documented" (acknowledged). Knowing this is not the place to have a philosophical discussion about marketing a software product, will exit with the following rhetorical questions...
Should a person who buys a software product expect all the advertised features to work on their computer (assuming meets manufacturer's minimums)? If not, how will user know what won't work? Must each user go through this discovery process?
Out...
|
|
|
10-4. I'll consider this a dead issue and not flog it any more.
The hidden agenda behind such a list would be the "wishfull thinking" hope that it might influence CL to not release a product 6 months prematurely again. Five major updates to a product within months of releasing does not speak well for CL's quality control. But then I joust at windmills too.
Regarding the philosopy of having to have the right hardware to run an "open use" software product -- sorry, but I can't buy into that. A product like PowerDirector should be able do every function on any computer that meets the published hardware requirement. So often over the many years of dealing with technical support on products, the message communicated to the user is "get the right hardware and our product runs fine". This is a cop out. I've even had vendors tell me I need to have a dual boot system with their product on a specially configured OS, untill I reverse engineered the machine code, developed my own patch, and showed them it now runs on any machine. No, what vendors need to do is develop their code so that it works on the "lowest common denominator". The big negative that, of course, being to not exploit the special features of some systems to optimize performance. I give CL credit for trying to push the edges of the envelope of PC hardware, including "rendering" video cards. Their attempt to milk the optimum performance out of our machines is admirable. In CL's case, I don't think their programming staff was prepared for the nuances of coding for multi-threading CPU's, and the timing issues they present. They should have held off releasing products during their learning curve (resulting in happier customers). I suspect most of the "hardware dependent" bugs have more to do with this than 32 bit vs 64 bit. Just a guess mind you.
 Hasta la vista...
|
|
|
..."unfortunately it would be a monumental task"
I'll take your word for it, not knowing how many actual bugs are in level 2930. What I had in mind was something like this. Let's say there are a dozen known bugs that have been vetted by CL as needing to be fixed. By "bug" I mean it can be reproduced on any system (not internittent and not system dependent). An example would be the one where if you insert a text block in the text track, text to the right stays put. But if you delete a block from the text track, text to the right shifts left (should stay put). The list would not necessarilly include problems/issues reported on this forum, which as you say can be "monumental". People could then search the list of known problems being worked on by CL, use any circumventions in the list and/or wait for the next update release. If they don't find their problem on the list, they could make a post here and/or submit a trouble ticket.
Just a thought...
|
|
|
Would it be possible for one of the senior forum persons to maintain a downloadable spreadsheet of known bugs in PD9/2930, with one of the columns being the workaround/circumvention if it is known? Ideally it would have a "fixed in next release" column, but doubt if there's anyway for anybody to know that, given the historic two-way communications with CL support services.
I'm getting ready to do 5 major projects using level 2930. Given the history of PD, I'm anticipating hitting roadblocks caused by bugs in the code. It would be great if I didn't have to spend a lot of time searching this forum, but could reference a list of known confirmed bugs, with maybe a way to get around it. Also would save a redundant trouble ticket being opened with support.
Having done video editing for over 5 years, using just about every video editor out there, and having used PD for over 3 years, I think I can discern a bug from a user error. Also, having been a programmer for over 25 years, supporting products from both the customer and provider side, and having lived through the horror years of PC products where the end user debugged the product for the vendor, I am familiar with the associated issues. I promise not to use a "bug list" as a hammer, but merely for reseraching usage issues (saving time and minimize reinventing the wheel).
THANKS!
P.S. Also, perhaps one of the senior forum person would like to post a blurb here, saying "Try it now using update 2930" or something to that affect.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372982,00.asp?tab=Reviews
|
|
|
There is a sample of this problem in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55cW9VtP5G4
at 12:27 into the video (go to about 12:20 and hit play).
It happens in both preview mode and with rendering the output. It is very random usually, but in this project it always occurs at this point in the video (solid failure). Degree of which depends on resolution of preview. Small preview gives random black transitions at this point every time. "Launch media viewer" and previewing in full screen results in the blue screen of death on my PC. I have not test it, but I doubt if this problem would occur rendering to say WMV, which does not use hardware acceleration.
It might be related to video driver and/or multi cpu cores (multi threading). Turning off hardware acceleration seems to prevent the problem (has not occured on this test video with acceleration turned off).
I'm about to upgrade to Windows 7 on a new hard drive, and will test this failure again afterward. My version is PD 9.0.0.2702
I have opened 14 trouble tickets on PD since 08/2009, none of which have resulted in a resolution. CB supports assumes their product is perfect, so if you are submitting a problem report it must be user error. Having even pressed some of these tickets up to 2nd level phone support, and never getting a "you're right, we must have a problem" attitude back from CB, I don't think I'll bother jousting at this windmill.
To CB's credit, I own Sony Vegas, Pinnacle VideoStudio, and Corel VideoStudio X3 in addition to PowerDirector, and even though PD is the buggiest of the four product by far, it's what I always turn to for "post production". Why? In spite of having to use a crowbar to get through a project, a better end product can be created in less time.
|
|
|
Cyberlink response to this trouble ticket...
Customer Support Response
2011/06/01 21:57
Dear xxx,
Thank you for writing back.
I take your query as a suggestion and feedback and will forward your concern to the appropriate department for further analysis. I appreciate your comments and suggestions and will use them to help improve our products and services when making future decisions.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Please feel free to contact us back for any further clarification or for any assistance related to CyberLink Products. Use the below mentioned link to get back to us for your further queries:
https://membership.cyberlink.com/prog/support/cs/support-login.jsp
Thanks and Regards,
Saba
CyberLink Technical Support
|
|
|
Cyberlink response to this trouble ticket...
Customer Support Response
2011/06/01 21:56
Dear xxx,
Thank you for contacting CyberLink Technical Support.
I understand your concern related with PowerDirector 9 Ultra64 bit software.
Regarding your concern, I would suggest you to use the Cross transitions function to apply the facing to all the transitions.
Please feel free to contact us back for any further clarification or for any assistance related to CyberLink Products. Use the below mentioned link to get back to us for your further queries:
https://membership.cyberlink.com/prog/support/cs/support-login.jsp
Thanks and Regards,
Saba
CyberLink Technical Support
|
|
|
Cyberlink response for this trouble ticket follows...
Customer Support Response
2011/06/01 21:55
Dear xxx,
Thank you for contacting CyberLink Technical Support.
I understand your concern related with PowerDirector 9 Ultra64 bit software.
Regarding your concern, I would suggest you to elongate the text box or increase the duration of the titles and check whether it fixes the issues. Make sure that the size of the clip and the title are same.
Please feel free to contact us back for any further clarification or for any assistance related to CyberLink Products. Use the below mentioned link to get back to us for your further queries:
https://membership.cyberlink.com/prog/support/cs/support-login.jsp
Thanks and Regards,
Saba
CyberLink Technical Support
|
|
|
10-4.
Keep in mind also that this post was not to the user community, but merely an FYI copy of a trouble ticket submitted to CL. The comments were directed to CL, not to anyone on the forum. Although redundant to converstions here, this trouble ticket was submitted in the hopes that the more TT's they get, the more likely the problem will get fixed. Probably wishful thinking on my part. It is my habit with other vendor forums to post the trouble ticket and the resolution as an FYI to product users. I didn't make my intent clear when I made this posting, hence the confusion. For that I apologize.
Later...
|
