|
|
Quote
I wonder why nobody has mentioned the new blending tools, they where the reason for me upgrading from 14. They may seem like a small feature, but actually they offer great possibilites.
I only hope I won't be affected by performance issues. Importing large MOV files has already proven to be a problem, working with those makes PD freeze badly.
I really really like to join this oppinion! FINALLY, on 15th version CyberLink has added this long missing feature. Finally I can have all those light leaks and film burns look sort of professional! Thank You! I've been waiting for this feature since 9th version, when I started use PD.
|
|
|
I would like that there would be a lot more "film burn" or "lens flare" effects or transitions. They are widely used in many professional clips, but I never encountered any serious ones in PD. There aren't any good looking user generated content as well.
Really looking for!
|
|
|
Hello, I'm also using the trial version of PowerDirector 14 to see if it will suit my needs.
The thing I noticed is when producing same project to identical outputs from PD 12 and PD 14 the rendering time in PD 14 is quite longer. Output was 30 second clip with some transitions, video enhancment and reduced contrast - MPEG-4 1280x720/25p (16 Mbps), Hardware video encoder enabled. Results were 0:48 seconds in PD12 and 1:04 in PD14
I wonder is this also some sort of limitation to trial version or that's the way it is in PD 14?
|
|
|
|
I would like to test the integrated graphics HD4000 as well since I read somewhere that it provides even better results than discrete GPUs, but my geek level is too low for finding out how to switch beween two
|
|
|
Today I ran some tests with Hardware Accelertion on and off.
Test project was pretty simple - 1 min long, 6 clips, some transitions and 1 effect, 1 title - somewhat like it is usually in real life, just way shorter.
Rendering in different formats gave me different CPU and GPU usage levels, for example:
MPEG-4 Custom profile (1920x1080; Frame rate 50p; 13 Mbps bitrate, 100Mb output file size)
Fast video rendering technology - ON; Hardware acc - ON; - 42 seconds. CPU usage - approx. 30-90% GPU usage - none.
Fast video rendering technology - OFF; Hardware acc - OFF; - 1min13sec. CPU usage - approx. 90-99% GPU usage - none.
AVC (1920x1080; Frame rate 50i; 24 Mbps bitrate, 170Mb output file size)
Fast video rendering technology - ON; Hardware acc - ON; - 45 seconds. CPU usage - approx. 50% GPU usage - 15-30%.
Fast video rendering technology - OFF; Hardware acc - OFF; - 1min01sec. CPU usage - approx. 85-97% GPU usage - none.
WMV (1920x1080; Frame rate 25p; 10Mbps bitrate; 77Mb output file size)
Fast video rendering technology - grayed out, unable to switch on. Hardware acc - ON; 2min47sec. CPU usage - approx. 70-80% GPU usage - none
Fast video rendering technology - OFF; Hardware acc - OFF; same results 2min47sec
I tried other formats as well, and got very various results. Sometimes GPU usage was around 5-6%.
During tests with AVC, I found out that it doesn't matter whether you switch on or off hardware acceleration in settings menu. Results change only if you switch Fast video rendering technology (Hardware video encoder) in Produce screen. I didn't try this with others formats.
So all this thing called Hardware Acceleration in PDR 11 is still a little mysterious and puzzling for me.
I didn't notice any quality changes if Hardware acceleration were applied or not. Different story was unusable AVC videos which were rendered in interlaced mode - Windows media player crashed, VLC played with serious combing. But this isn't connected to hardware acc, like I said - different story.
Another reason for these tests was to find best quality/file size relationship. Of course everything looks excellent when 50p are used, but since mostly I upload my videos to YouTube, then its no big deal in the end, since YT downgrades videos to 30 FPS. And AVC format has better sound, since Dolby Digital 5.1 can be applied, bet same story with YT here - it downgrades it.
Hope there is some use from this. My rig specs are below.
|
|
|
Hello,
I have very similar questions, so making a new thread is unnecessary.
I planning to buy a new desktop PC and upgrade my PD 9 to 11.
Parts for PC are ordered already and the main are following:
- CPU: i7 3770
- GPU: GTX 660
- HDD: 2 TB 7200rpm (1x)
- SSD: 128 GB
- MB: Asus P8H77-V
- RAM: Kingston 8GB (kit of 2)
- OS: Win7
My question is can someone suggest me the best setup for optimum, stable and fast operation of the PD11 with this rig.
In particular - correct use of SSD and HDD. My general understanding is that software should be installed on SSD for "speeding things up" and every video/other media file - raw or produced - on HDD. In another thread I read that it is recommended to install PD in the same place as OS, but problem is that SSD doesn't have lots of free space (enough for OS and PD itself but not for all those page/swap files, my guess)
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20041.page
Also I wonder where does shadow files will be created in this setup and "who is responsible" for creating them at all - CPU, SSD or HDD?
|
|
|
