|
|
Hi, thanks for checking it out!
Yeah I had the same experience. I thought I had the problem pinned however after fiddling with the image back and forth the issue dissappeared. Perhaps some technocrats can figure these things out.
Anyways, somethimes it's the result that counts 
EDIT: Also noticed the artifacts appear during fancy transitions such as 'glow' that affect the screen in total.
|
|
|
Here's a visual:
|
|
|
|
It wasn't the background image that caused the problem but a second image I have in the project (not visible in the posted images above).
|
|
|
Hi peeps!
I've encountered an issue after upgrading from PD13 to 15 when it comes to the PiP Designer and I wonder if it's just me or global.
Whenever I blur border (or shadow) to an image that's positioned on top of another image, PD creates an artifact around the affected area shown in the project timeline preview and in the produced video. The images below show a triangle on top of a background image (grey/black bars) however the issue can be reproduced with any image (e.g. text) on top of any background (right-click and 'show' to enlarge):
 
I've updated to the latest patch (v2820), latest drivers (GTX 680 SLI). I run Windows 7 64-bit.
|
|
|
|
Thanks ynotfish!
|
|
|
Ugh, you know the most probable (only) explanation I have is that I must have by accident produced with the first default settings for mp4 (480p) multiple times when wanting to find out if the poor (Full HD quality) preview quality resulted in a poor production and then erroneously confirmed the problem. Sheesh, how embarracing.
At least I learned something new about shadow files. Sorry for wasting your time.
*I don't think this thread adds to the forum, a deletion would be in order (save me from the embarracement!).
Cheers
|
|
|
As I said, it's not only the preview window but also the result from the production.
As for shadow files I've never got into their function however, as of now I have 2 of the videos who's shadow file is generating, 1 is normal and the other is poor. The problem reoccurred today. Turning off shadow files doesn't do anything. Now I need to find out how the error came to be and how to fix it permanently. I've been using PD for years, producing countless of videos with 1080p 60fps mp4 files and have never run in to this problem.
*This time, re-starting PD with shadow files turned off fixed the problem. Turning shadow files back on doesn't re-produce the problem. From where I stand the problem looks to occur at random.
**Issue reappeared in mid-session but this time production is fine. Turned shadow files off again, problem solved.
|
|
|
Ok so I relocated the video files to a different folder, opened the project anew and had PD13 browse and find them in the new folder to build the project. So now things are back to normal. A random and desperate act on my part.
Would be nice if someone have any theories on what actually happened here. This has happened before some time ago.
|
|
|
Added a few screencaps to help. This is a weird one.
So I'm working on a project using multiple videofiles. Suddenly, out of the blue, 2 out of 3 videos loses video quality in the timeline. While I'm editing! When I produce the bad ones they actually en up as terrible as you can see on the preview window (regardless of what format I produce this in). All 3 videofiles have precisely the same properties. They all come from fraps - virtualdub from the same session. Playing the videos off VLC or WMP doesn't reveal any problems. Rebooting the computer and restarting the program did nothing.
one is fine: http://i.imgur.com/b6bNJZ6.png
the 2 others look like this: http://i.imgur.com/TC0v2cO.jpg
file properties: http://i.imgur.com/zY8SrYD.png
Graphic card and PD13 is up to date. This happened in midst of an editing session and nothing else was happening on the computer.
|
|
|
Just wanted to thank ynotfish for his help to me and others to render 16:9 1440p (2K) videos by editing the profile.ini.
I also would like to remind the developers to please add at least the 16:9 1440p option in the custom settings so that users can more easily configure their settings other than searching and editing long lines of texts in the profile.ini file. This is not just a GoPro profile but also a high demand 2K profile for youtube. There are way more users capable of rendering 1440p with their system than 2160p (4K).
Quote:
2k is just barely bigger than hd. Other than that I agree with your point.
A 33% increase in both with and height compared to HD is quite significant. I recently switched from a 24'' 1080p to a 27'' 1440p monitor. 1440p provided increased quality even on a bigger monitor.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
The non-standard resolution that you mentioned is a GoPro resolution, which is very popular right now, but I also am about to create a qHD profile since I now have a mobile device that supports the resolution. I think it is just not catching on that fast, so it is not be adopted by very many developers or manufacturers. You can get a 4k monitor for only a little more than qHD and I don't know of any qHD televisions.
People still watch television?
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Hi Jonas -
Yes - it is the case... if the resolution you're after doesn't appear in the drop-down box when you click the + button to make a custom profile.
The good news is that you only need to do it once & the profile will always be available.
Cheers - Tony
That's certainly good news. It's not available in any of the custom profiles. Thanks for your help!
I'm still baffled about the resolution not being available by default. Feels like it should be available in 2015 given the youtube 1440p support and availability with most new AAA PC games.
|
|
|
|
You can find obscure resolutions such as 2704x1524 and many other off-standard ones so why not 2560x1440 which is one of the most popular 2k resolution (16:9) today? I found a thread dated about 18 months (http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/31606.page) which suggested the user should edit a profile.ini file in order to make this happen. I'm hoping this is not the case. Any solutions?
|
|
|
|
Would be great with some feedback from users who updgraded to windows 10 with their PD13. I'm currently on windows 7 and I'm not risking anything until all hands gives the green light. Windows 10 looks great and I'm looking forward to the upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Thanks a billion!
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Update. Look for the next Nvidia beta driver to resolve the issue - April.
Forum Moderator
Awesome^^ Thanks
|
|
|
Bookmarking thread. I got the same problem.
I have the opposite question, Nick. How do I get it there?
For me it happened after a NVIDIA driver's update Feb 13th. I'll be notifying NVIDIA as well. I'm working on long videos so I really need this to be a temporary problem.
*also, without the hardware video encoder, filesizes are now 25-30% larger. not good.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Your clip attributes settings will do the job.
I'm more visual than anything else & prefer a visual approach. I just made the attached grid overlay, which would seem to meet your needs.
Concerning clip attribute settings I've posted a method above that deals with that. It's somewhat timeconsuming and doesn't guarantee a perfect result. For that you would still have to resort to editing your objects beforehand.
Your grid lines are a good approximation for some standard sizes. Thanks for sharing that.
One way of solving the problem altogether for all attribute values could be to enable the user to customize the gridlines on the preview screen. If this feature allowed you to construct gridlines in relation to a predifined resolution then you would merely have to use the 'snap to gridlines' feature to guarantee preserving an object's original attributes.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, you won't be able to just "remove your post & happily be on your way". Your post is completely valid because PD still functions in the same way. In fact, the other NLEs and presentation software I use ALL do the same thing.
I guess I wrote that partially because I felt I was on a rant
Thinking about this more closely I would imagine the previewer over the timeline would have to be pre-defined as to which attributes it would respond to in order to accommodate a 'retain original attributes' feature. I just wish something like this were already present as it would save me mountains of time.
Thank you for your quick response.
|
|
|
There's another method for retaining an approximation of a video/image's original attribute I learned recently:
1) Take note of the objects attributes. (E.g. a video clip say 700x320)
2) Take note on the resolution you want to produce your video with. (Say 1920x1080)
3) Put it on the timeline and go 'Keyframes' - 'Clip attributes'. You'll be looking at the H and W scales.
4) Bring in your calculator and divide the with and height attributes to get 2 factor numbers (700/1920 and 320/1080 gives 0.365... and 0.293...)
5) Make sure you're at the beginning of the clip timeline and insert the factors in the W and H scale boxes. W being 'with' and H 'height you obviously want the factor from 700/1920 in W and 320/1080 in H. Make sure you're plotting in the numbers for the keyframe at the end of the clip as well.
Why it works: The W and H correspond to a scale where the number '1.000' signifies the whole with/height in the previewer, '0.500' would be half and so on. If you're planning on making a 1920x1080 video with the 700x320 video within it with it's original attributes for whatever reason, you want to make sure the 700x320 video stays correct in relation to the 1920x1080 final product. Say your final product is a 1280x768 video then you would do the same steps as above and get a bigger factor number. On your preview screen the object would look bigger than the factor from 1920x1080 but it's attributes is retained when you produce your video.
Why would you do this: In projects where you use videos with different resolutions that demand they be viewed in it's original attributes to look their best, then you could use this method. However because the factors cannot be calculated beyond the third decimal (trust me it matters) then there's no guarantee you will get the perfect result. To get that you would have to use the first method described in the post.
|
