|
|
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
|
|
|
Quote
I just recently installed PD 365 because the old version (12) I have wouldn't burn DVDs. The old version would detect my SOny 8mm video camera as a TV signal, but the new version doesn't. Is there a way to force it to see the camera or should i just reinstall the old version. Trying to save memories and I'm a total noob on using this!
When I did this many years ago, I was grabbing video from an old Hi8 camera.
I used a USB to S-Video connector like this one.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grabber-Capture-Convert-Digital-Converter/dp/B0772P5PNR/ref=asc_df_B0772P5PNR/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309841464204&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2015352675639403418&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046674&hvtargid=pla-452192942791&psc=1
I'm in the UK, but they're pretty much available everywhere quite cheaply. (Works for ordinary 8mm as well.)
I used this to grab the whole tape and didn't bother about editing.
I grabbed all the video and converted into mp4 using software that came with the USB connector.
ONLY THEN, did I think about turning the now digital video files into propper 'Edited' videos using PD.
You can now correct colour casts, add titles and the like very easily.
You can then burn dvd's should you wish.
A word of caution... If you've not watched these videos for a while, you may be disappointed by the lack of quality.
They're probably not as good as you remembered them !
My Hi8 was the bees knees when I bought it just before my 1st son was born and I probably spent the best part of £2000 on my kit back in 1991...
That said, it recorded less than 440 lines, so its resolution was below dvd quality - and also 4:3 aspect ratio.
I used PowerDirector to put the image inside a coloured border and produced 16:9 dvd quality video files.
Despite the poor quality - the video I now have stored has proved entertaining to my two sons, the oldest of which has just become a father himself. We watched some of them again quite recently, his reaction to seeing himself at his son's age was great.
I honestly cannot think of a better way of converting your 8mm tapes. The sooner, the better since I noted that some of my tapes had deteriorated and become even 'Noisier' over time.
Gerry
|
|
|
Hi mgonzard,
I feel your pain re things not quite right with PD18.
However, my GoPro 6 footage isn't one of the things I'm having a problem with !
Having read your post, I loaded up some GoPro 6 clips I'd recently used to make some videos in PD17.
I just trimmed the start and finish, then added a lens correction, and just for good measure I applied a LUT to bring out the clouds in the video...
The video seemed to produce correctly - then I went to look at the result in an independent viewer on the PC...
I was fearing the dreaded 'Sound no picture'... But Heh Presto !
All seemed fine with the video, lens correction and colour change as applied.
The video is great.
Now this doesn't help you at all, since I cannot replicate the problem.
I was using a clip copied straight from the camera - Hero 6 Black, recorded in 4K at 25 fps.
I was producing to 4K, h265, MP4 at 37Mbps
I applied lens correction and LUT.
I used hardware decoding activated.
I have a Ryzen 2700, nVidia 1070 8Gb (Correctly identified by PD 18), I have 32Gb RAM.
Are you using 50 fps ? - What resolution, fps and format are you rendering to ?
Gerry
|
|
|
Hi,
I've posted here just in case you were feeling ignored !
There does indeed seem to be a problem with PD 18 and *.avi files.
Some regular 'Senior Contributors' are reporting this...
They are very experienced PowerDirector users and I'd suggest keeping an eye on their posts.
If anyone can come up with a cure, they're the best bet.
Gerry
|
|
|
I have just moved over to PD 18 - 365.
Today I was just playing with my camera to see how the colour grading of PD18 compared with the different movie settings produced 'In-camera'.
I noticed some very strange behaviour and I wonder if anyone else has found this problem, or someone could come up with a possible reason/cure.
I was using a Fuji X-T3. This camera produces 'MOV' files. They load into PD18 no problem.
(Incidentally, PowerDVD will NOT play these 'Off-camera' files without stuttering, even when reading off a fast ssd - Though the standard windows player is totally fine with them - But that's not the issue here...)
I shot 3 clips, one in 'Standard', one in 'Eterna' and a final clip in HLG. This last clip caused the problems...
It was recorded 4K, 25fps, HLG, 'Long GOP', h265, 200mbps, 10bit, 4:2:0
I put the three clips together in the time-line. They played fine. All smooth.
I colour graded the HLG clip and 'Produced' all three together as a short movie.
During the production, I noticed a 'Freeze' when the final clip was reached, for say 7 seconds, then it blasted on to the end of production...
I played this in PowerDVD (Converted files play smoothly) and watched. The first 2 clips produced correctly, but the HLG colour graded clip was black... Sound, but no picture.
I tried again, this time JUST the HLG clip.
If I 'Produced' it with no colour grading, then it was visible and played... albeit looking washed out as un-graded HLG isn't great.
I tried three different LUTs on this clip and each time there was a delay in the production at the start, followed by a very fast render producing nothing but a black screen with sound.
I then tried one of the other clips - I chose 'Standard'... Recorded 4K, 25 fps, Long GOP, 200 mbps, 10 bit, 4:2:0
I ran this through 'Production' three times - each with one of the LUTs I'd tried on the HLG clip...
All three produced correctly ! - Though this time with far too vivid colours as I was applying a LUT to an already 'In-camera' graded video.
So - It's not the LUT or its use totally at fault, as this can be applied and 'Produced' - Where it's not required !
(At least I know I can use 'Gentle' LUTs to change the look of videos without a problem.)
The HLG clip could be 'Produced' as long as no LUT was applied - Which makes it sort of useless...
It seems to be the COMBINATION of using a LUT and an HLG file... ?
And when in PD18, the viewer had no problem playing the colour graded HLG...
Anyone any idea what's going on ?
I will see if I can have another play tomorrow and will also record in F-Log and see if these files will accept a LUT in PD18.
Maybe something about the Fuji X-T3 HLG format that PD18 production doesn't like ?
I wasn't using any shadow files or anything other than off-camera.
I had transfered the recorded MOV files from the sd card to my internal 'Video working' ssd.
The program itself is held on another ssd - where windows and all other programs live.
I was 'Producing' onto an 'old school' disc-based hard drive. It can write faster than PD18 can produce the video so never an issue before...
PC is a water-cooled Ryzen 2700 over-clocked to 4GHz, nVidia 1070 8Gb Graphics (Correctly identified by PD), 32 GB RAM.
Any suggestions welcome !
Gerry
|
|
|
I too have 'Noted' that the production abilities may be falling behind,
But that's not my biggest gripe with PD18...
I am currently shooting video with my Fuji X-T3, which, whilst it's predominately a 'Stills' camera, is the best video camera I have.
(Before anyone thinks "So buy a 'Real' video camera before you complain..." Please note that it can internally save 4K 50fps 10 bit HLG - albeit at 4:2:0 - It can output 4:2:2 to an external recorder - It's not too shabby)
I tend to record my video at 4K, 25fps, 10bit, 'Long GOP', 200mbps, HLG, 4:2:0
Now a month or so ago, I discovered that I could happliy drop one of these clips into PD17-365 and then play with it.
I didn't know it wasn't supposed to support this, but honestly, I had NOT pre-processed the clips before importing - they just worked.
No stutter in playing nor difficulty seeing a colour grade on the video.
-My water-cooled Ryzen 2700 over-clocked at 4GHz, nVidia1070 8Gb Graphics and 32Gb of RAM may be helping here, but I know others on the forum will now have far faster machines to play with.-
So... Seeing that PD18 specifically stated it could import these clips made me think - Great - it's going to be able to colour grade these better as well... But Alas, No.
When shooting HLG, the video must be colour graded before it's ready for public consumption - akin to shooting in RAW if anyone plays with a stills camera... But once colour graded, the final result can be better than a recording made 'as-is' by a camera.
PD18 has little to offer over PD17 here - What would have been a MAJOR improvement would have been the ability to apply a LUT to a clip with some control as to how much is applied... i.e. Offer a slider with percentages of implimentation.
What PD18 offers is the same as PD17 - The LUT is either ON/OFF so you can choose 100% or nothing.
Other video editors now offer complete control over LUTs.
I KNOW there's a work around - high-lighted in a great post from ynotfish a while ago.
This is where you place the clip twice, one below the other on the time-line...
Then apply the LUT to the lower clip.
Then play with the opacity of the lower clip to get the desired 'Effect'.
i.e. Say the opacity set at 50%, then it's like applying the LUT at 50%...
But that's a real pain.
(And in my experience it takes a while rendering the result as well !)
Now that PD18 - 365 has gone the annual subscription route, I reckon it's time that it offered the same as other subscription editors ? - Colour/Chroma - Wheels/Histograms and the like may follow, but give us at least the bare minimums for LUT implimentation NOW !
and to follow - wouldn't it be nice to output/produce in 10 bit as well... ?
I agree with you Pepsiman. You make yet another valid comment.
With PD17 I had started to record video no-longer in HLG or F-Log, but choosing one of the several in-camera options offered by the X-T3. I'm playing with the 'Standard' vs 'Eterna' at the moment.
It seems that I'm still of the same mind, PD18 has done nothing to help me with HLG.
|
|
|
Quote
Awesome! Ive been doing it a lot. I do exclusively use 1080p however wich slows it down. Its so simple to use this method. I tried the things you mentioned, none seem to make a difference. Im currently looking at buying a camera that can do a timelapse on the sd card. Thank you.
Hi 'DangerIndustries'
From the title, I had assumed you were attempting to make a time-lapse only from an existing video...
Then at the end you say you're looking to buy a camera that can shoot timelapse onto the sd card - hence, you're looking to make fresh timelapse projects...
I have never attempted to speed up a video so fast as to make a timelapse - I've always used a series of photographs taken at a precise interval.
Say you set a camera to take a photo every 2 seconds. You insert these photos onto your time line in PD15 (You can pick up and drop 1000 at a time so it doesn't take forever !) then set the duration of each photo to be 1/25th of a second (One frame assuming your project is 25 frames per second).
Bingo - One timelapse video is readily produced that is 50 x real time.
You will find that the most basic stills camera can shoot far higher resolution than the 1920x1080 required for your projects.
In fact, most will happily shoot over 3840x2160 so you can produce 4K videos as well (Future proofing ?)
You will find that many photo editing software programs will let you crop and process your captured images as a 'Batch' process, hence you can choose the video 'Area' from your captured images. (Or even pan across them)
Really good timelapse producers will shoot all their images in RAW format and then batch process them before using PD to produce the video at the end...
Don't limit your camera choice to one that can produce an automatic timelapse video on the card - choose a camera that can shoot precise intervals and play with that.
I find that the limit I hit is powering my digital SLR camera to take the 1000 or so shots I'm trying to capture ! (Batteries run out)
Incidentaly, if I was trying to make a timelapse from an existing video - I'd grab single images at set intervals from the video - Several photo editing programs can do this automatically for you. (You may have received one if you bought PD as part of a Cyberlink suite). Play with the images to get the look you like and then place into PD at the end...
|
|
|
Quote
You can do the lens correction manually yourself in post. Apparently, the author of that particular GoPro profile may have applied too much vignette removal to compensate for less exposure at the edges at full aperture. If you feel that this is not the case then you may want to report this to Cyberlink support.
Hi Tomasc,
YES ! - Many thanks for your reply.
I now understand why you could get a bleached out circle appearing around the periphery of a lens correction profile...
Shame that the Hero 6 doesn't really suffer that badly from vignetting and under exposure around it's edges - Well, not in my admittedly limited use of it (Only had since Christmas).
So it may be that the Rollei 7S profile has a similar mapping for a similar focal length lens - but has less vignetting correction applied - hence my preference.
Many thanks Tomasc - I hadn't thought of any reason to mess around with exposure, but reading your comment, I can see why it could happen.
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Hi GerryQ & James -
Gerry, I'm sure it's nothing you're missing or doing wrongly. I don't think that particular profile is built well at all. The same sort of thing happens with the GoPro Hero5 Black (Wide) profile. Lighter areas get blown out.
There's no reason a lens correction profile should be messing with colour like that.
Stick with a profile that does the job, I'd say.
Cheers - Tony
Hi Tony,
Many thanks for your reply.
This was my first attempt at lens correction.
I admit I was playing with a feature - 'Because it was there' .
I noticed a similar effect with the GoPro 5 profile, and other profiles - I tried them all !
I can't remember when I saw the comment re the Rollei 7S profile working with the Hero 6, but I can say I thought it was my favourite !
I'm going to use this for a while in editing my gravity racing clips - At least the start line looks straight (ish) as compared to a smiley face without any lens correction.
|
|
|
Quote
To clarify, did the change happen when you changed a setting on the camera or when you made corrections in the software? What settings are you using to compare?
The difference happened in editing - the camera work was all finished...
I was working with the same clip in PD15...
I was wondering why the lens correction profile for the GoPro Hero 6 wide (The correct one for my camera) seemed to bleach out the sky, but the lens correction profile for the Rollei 7S didn't...
???
|
|
|
I often edit videos shot using GoPro cameras. I've done this for years.
I've had many early versions of PD and used many GoPro's.
I'm currently using PD15 - May 2018 patch installed.
I'm currently using a GoPro Hero 6.
Now call me a heathen, but I've never before used lens correction - I didn't worry about the GoPro view of the world being slightly distorted. It is still a cracking action camera.
So just to see what lens correction would look like, I tried playing with the downloaded profile.
Hero 6 'Wide', and just for fun, I downloaded all other Hero profiles...
(Well, I've got the 4K camera, the uber-computer to play with 4K and a 4K telly - so why not produce like a 'pro' ?)
I noticed that as soon as I used the 'wide' profile (And any other GoPro for that matter), then the sky was suddenly 'Washed Out' - The clouds vanished in a blur of white...
Now they weren't so prominent anyway, but I prefered the exposure/contrast before appying the lens correction profile.
I hadn't expected the exposure/contrast to change at all ! ? !
I had noticed that some time ago - before the Hero 6 'Wide' profile was available - that another user had recommended using the Rollei 7S profile for the Hero 6...
So I gave this a bash...
OK - So the mapping is a little different, but the Rollei lens profile didn't wash out the sky at all.
It seemed an imperfect lens correction - but the clouds remained intact.
2 attached photos show the difference (Top Left)
So - What am I missing here ?
What am I doing wrong ?
Why do I prefer the footage using the Rollei 7S profile instead of the 'Correct' Hero 6 wide profile ?
Anyone else noticed this ?
Cheers for reading - sorry it's long !
Gerry
|
|
|
I'm guessing you've seen a website or promotional cd that let you do this...
In an earlier life designing websites for a living... And producing "Promotional cd's" for customers, I performed this feat in two ways...
Or at least gave the appearance of doing it.
I had to have a page that had 'Layers'.
Imagine having a transparent layer over the top of your video. Hence you only see the playing video.
Let this transparent layer be 'Mapped' with areas containing hyperlinks...
Now when the video is playing, any click on one of the mapped areas containg a hyperlink gives the appearance that you've clicked on the video and made it jump to another section of the site/promotional cd.
For the web - you'd have to see a web designer for a suitable template... (Browsers have changed since I did this)
For promotional cd's I used purchased software that was capable of doing this and 'producing' the cd at the end.
Both these methods are outside the scope of Power Director - which would indeed be capable of producing the 'Background' video most beautifully... (I think I was using a very early PD version back then !)
|
|
|
Quote
I can't find a thing that tells me how to make a 360 source into a focused "normal" perspective movie.
Hi Fifth Rider,
When you produce your 360 deg video from the Gear 360 Action Director software, do you end up with a 2:1 ratio 360 video ?
If so, then PD15 CAN turn this into 'normal' video - it even allows panning and zooming around the 360 view (Albeit in my case glitching 4 out of 5 times !) If I don't pan around it seems far happier !
Import your video clip into PD15 It should recognise it as 360 video...
It 'Should' ask if you want to work in 360 or normal view - My version does with my 360fly clips...
Put your 360 video onto the time-line
Highlight the clip on the time-line...
Look directly above the time-line and you'll see in white on black background a row of drop down options...
eg 'Designer', 'Fix/Enhance', 'Tools', 'Key Frame', 'Edit Audio'.
Once your clip is highlighted in the time-line, select the 'Designer' drop down.
The bottom of the three choices is 'View Designer'.
Choose this option and you'll see your clip in a new window, 16:9 view... You can select the view at any point and pan / move around... Have a play with it.
There's a pretty good tutorial on this available here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGh8yfoXlvU
|
|
|
Hi Steve,
Many thanks for your thoughts.
I've been playing with this and it still baffles me a little...
I was using 360 deg files already produced in PD15 - I should have thought that if there was any problem with the 'Director' software from 360fly, then it would have shown itself on the first trimming and editing.
I would have thought that the frame rate of the camera could have been an issue, but that's been corrected by PD15 already.
I can't see why it works 'Sometimes' and not others...
This PC seems to handle all other PD15 tasks fine first time, and generally blisteringly quickly, so I can't see that there's anything inherently wrong with the set-up or any conflicts that are affecting the normal performance... It's just the panning and zooming function used in the "View designer"... ? !
|
|
|
I've been using PD15 to edit some 360 video shot with a 360fly camera.
All well and good, no issues. The 360fly panders only to the USA market and hence only shoots in 30/60 or 24 frames per second.
It shoots natively in 2880 x 2880 and has a proprietary program that can convert this to 'Equi-rectangular' That is 3840 x 1920 the 2:1 ratio format that has become a standard for 360 video output.
Using this converted format there have been no issues with me making 25fps 360 videos for upload to facebook. PD15 takes all this frame rate nonesense in it's stride and all is well with the world...
However...
One of the many great features of PD15 is its ability to take a 360 video and then let you produce a 'Normal' HD video - say 1920x1080 whilst panning around the 360 deg video, producing smooth pans / zooms automatically using key frames - with the bonus of ease-in/out all auto... It's like producing a video when you've had several cameras all synched together facing every direction...
So what's the problem ?
I edit a 360 video... - I choose to use a previously Trimmed / 25 fps video previously produced in PD15.
I set the pans / zooms etc for a 90 second clip...
I hit 'Start' in the Produce area and ... The file starts to be 'produced' until... randomly... as some point in the proceedings it suddenly comes to a grinding halt... It slows r.i.g.h.t.d.o.w.n... And will take a few minutes to finish the file. (A normal 1920x1080 90 second clip production normally takes this PC literally seconds - it's quick.
When I look at what's been produced, there will be a glitch exactly where the slowing started... It can be a juddering of video, or freezing of video whilst the sound-track continues on un altered until the end of the file.
The mystery ?
I'll try again with the same editing set up and watch it fail somewhere completely different !
I'll close PD15, then open again and load the same project - to watch it fail at a completely different spot once again !
I've tried computer re-boots / incantations and everything...
And daftest of all... After about 10 attempts - heh presto, PD15 makes it to the end of the file - all working as it should have the first time !
Can anyone shed any light as to what's going on ?
Am I really doing something different the 10th time that makes it work ?
I've addressed the frame rate issue by only using 25fps PD15 produced clips...
|
|
|
Quote
Hi Gerry -
The process you're using is sound, & likely to yield solid results.
You've probably also seen the Yosemite Timelapse Documentary, which gives some insight into "the making of". Something to strive for, rather than judge yourself against!
Obviously, with timelapse, there's a difference between setting your timeline framerate to 25 or 50 fps & using the same framerate for output. If the images are set to 00:00:00:01 duration the 50fps version will run twice as fast as the 25fps one... unless you set the image duration to 00:00:00:02 for the 50fps version.
There's a file size/quality advantage with HEVC H.265 because of video bitrate, but it's less universally playable. For timelapse, I doubt the difference would be observable (haven't tested). I'd use AVC H.264.
Production output choices ought to be based on how the timelapse will be viewed. Any image sequence I produce will be UHD, because that's how it will be viewed (UHD TV or monitor).
Some time back, I did some fairly extensive comparisons with different software resizing images. At the start, I was convinced that dedicated image software like PhotoShop, PhotoDirector etc would resize photos better than PDR & therefore land a better result in the final video. My testing did not prove that at all, even when reviewed by people with much younger eyes.
I'm not sure I completely understand your question about fading between sequences. You could do it either way, as long as you stuck to the exact same output profile. There'd be very minimal quality loss in pre-producing segments.
Cheers - Tony
Hi Tony,
Many thanks for the advice.
"Obviously, with timelapse, there's a difference between setting your timeline framerate to 25 or 50 fps & using the same framerate for output. If the images are set to 00:00:00:01 duration the 50fps version will run twice as fast as the 25fps one... unless you set the image duration to 00:00:00:02 for the 50fps version."
I'd thought of that, but then holding the same image for two 'Counts' would effectively be changing the image every 25th of a second anyway - no benefit there ? !
It would be great to make a video time-line with a custom size of 4228 x 2848 (One of the cameras I use for time lapse.)
Naturally, I could then crop that to 3840x2160 and save a lot of messing around with thousands of images... I assume that can't be done ?
The fading of sequences is just to have one clip 'fade' into another rather than a hard cut. I've yet to produce a film with several sequences all put together, but as things progress I may start doing complete 'Short films'
Best regards,
Gerry
|
|
|
I've enjoyed watching some really good timelapse videos recently and decided I'd like to have a go myself.
Today, since even a smart phone takes photos in a larger resolution than is required for 4K video output, I have decided to future proof my clips by now producing all such videos in 4K.
I will also produce in 1080p as it is more universally shared. Not everyone has embraced 4K.
I believe (Though I've yet to develop the skill to prove it) , that a great time-lapse starts with a great series of photos.
Several have been linked to from this forum in the past - eg Project Yosemite (Google finds it). In such videos, the majority of the jpegs used would stand alone as fantastic single images.
I currently 'Batch' the photos to size (3840x2160), drop them into PD, set each to have a duration of one frame, then hit the start button. Am I missing any tricks here ?
I live in the UK, am I correct in thinking that 4K, H.264/50mbps/25p as mp4 is the best current output ? I could always convert this file to H.265 at a later date if so required - Or am I better going straight to H.265 to keep quality high ?
I confess I have experience with neither MKV (I believe it can carry sub-titles) nor M2TS. I note they can go to 50p, but is 25 fine for timelapse ?
When I produce the 1080p version, I simply leave the project where it is on the time-line, alter the PD output settings and hit start again. Thus I allow PD to re-size the video for me rather than 'Batch' the photos again. Is this correct ? - I'm reasoning that as I'm going far smaller, the quality of the PD output in 'HD' should be fine. Unless someone knows otherwise?
Now, let's say I want to have a fade from one 'clip/sequence' to another... say circa 1 second duration.
I had believed that I would have to take the 25 jpegs involved and produce an alternative set where the fade takes place (Program not PD) and replace those in the time-line...
My thinking being that I would maintain the quality. Naturally it would be easier to produce the first clip - then the second, finally put both side by side in the time-line and let PD put a fade between them.
Would this 'Double' production produce unwanted artifacts, or does it look fine ?
If any experienced time-lapser out there would like to suggest anything else helpful, that would be great !
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Quote
Sorry Jeff,
New to this forum - Though had PD for ages.
Gerry
I think perhaps you took my comment wrong, nothing to be sorry about, you can post what you want, if by chance a violation of some forum guideline or rule, the forum has both administrators and moderators for that, neither of those are me.
My comment was, hardware has many capabilities, the only thing relevant for editing and producing in PD is what of those features are exposed and truly utilized in the PD software. One can't base this applicability/functionality in PD on how another piece of software utilizes the same hardware.
Jeff
Cheers Jeff,
I'm about to open a new thread/question re time-lapse output settings - I know you have had some good suggestions in the past for people eg - use jpegs on seperate tracks to then modify 'Sets' individually...
Gerry
|
|
|
Quote
Quote
I had seen video suggesting that 4K encoding with the RX480 was OK for the price and had gone for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKh3GW0KoxY[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKh3GW0KoxY]
[/url]Albeit that the test was encoding in 4K H.264
Your linked clip is not PD and hence has no relevance. For editing with PD it only matters what technology CL has incorporated from the GPU. Many technologies offered in various GPU encoders that are not exposed via PD, for Nvidia, YUV 4:4:4, 10-bit color, various quality vs speed settings, on and on. List for AMD similar with H.265 encode support being only one item. One needs to discuss hardware functionality within the realms of what's exposed in the software, anything else is irrelevant for PD.
Jeff
Sorry Jeff,
New to this forum - Though had PD for ages.
Gerry
|
|
|
Just an update to the system...
A technician from the 'Actual build department' of the computer suppliers phoned me up
Apparently there's an issue with RAM speeds/problems with X370 Motherboards...
He's been having a nightmare with loads of builds and he requested that I let him fit and run the 32Gb RAM at 2400.
He reckons that the RAM could go faster in a couple of months when the bios software is more mature.
So just be aware should anyone out there be building one of these new Ryzen systems for themselves...
My confidence in AMD was failing a little - I'd noted on some AMD forums that some driver issues with the RX480 GPU were being pushed aside whilst the Ryzen was being rolled out and they sorted those first !
I had seen video suggesting that 4K encoding with the RX480 was OK for the price and had gone for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKh3GW0KoxY[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKh3GW0KoxY]
[/url]Albeit that the test was encoding in 4K H.264
However - Support for 'VCE', the AMD equivalent to NVidia's 'NVENC' for HEVC encoding using H.265 was a little slow in arriving.
Therefore, whilst the builder was on the phone, I transfered to sales and changed the new build's GPU card to a GTX1070.
There goes my free-sync compatibility, but I should be able to 'Produce' my videos using PD15 a little faster !
... And I'm a little poorer !
Gerry
|
|
|
Many thanks JL_JL,
Many thanks for the clarification - I had not realised that H.265 was unavailable for AMD cards when encoding...So I've been doing some reading... I hadn't even thought about the differences between the two standards - Except that the bitrate and file sizes were smaller when using H.265.
I've seen that H.265 encoding 'Should' be available on the RX480 'Soon'...
The omission may have put me off the card...But I'm wondering if it's a great hardship ? - Not really. (?)
I have been 'Producing' short clips in Both 4K H.265 and 1080p H.264 for a while now...
Afterall, if someone asked for a copy, they may well have no access to playing the 4K H.265 on their TV.
I'd always ask what resolution they wanted.
Following your comments, I've just had a play with a small time-lapse clip (Circa 2000 jpgs at 3840x2160 resolution)
I encoded it into 4K using H.264.
When encoded with H.264, the file size is 464Mb, whilst with H.265 it was 335Mb.
(Still very slow on my current PC, certainly NOT 1.05 x real-time, 10 minutes for a 92 seconds clip !)
Visually, the two files seem to play the same on my TV (65 inch LG 4K) - Just that the H.264 is the larger file.
I don't wish to stream files... I generally save them to a USB 3.0 hard drive and plug them into the TV.
I've found this preferable for watching video files.
(Yes, my TV can 'See' the computer upstairs, but I generally even show photo's off USB)
Memory isn't a great problem anymore, so I'll just have to use 4K H.264 for the time being.
Many thanks once again for your comments - I can see that I would have been pulling my hair out watching the new PC crawl and struggle trying to encode H.265 files.
All that said, I'm still wondering about the GPU card now... If PD15 can use a GTX 1070 card and 'Produce' a H.265 4K in half the time of the RX 480 'Producing' the same project as H.264 I'd be mad not to fit a GTX 1070 ??
Gerry
|
|
|
