|
|
I can confirm what CubbyHouseFilms says about burning at the slowest speed available. Doing so makes my MPEG-2 DVD footage look "crisper" when played back on a DVD Player.
People on professional video editing forums say that burn speed doesn't matter much, but with PD9 it's now obvious to me that slower is better. In fact, after I installed Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 two weeks ago, any burn speed above the slowest causes my PD9 burns to fail with error EB130581. Very strange.
-Allen
|
|
|
Do you have the box check-marked in the GENERAL tab of PD9 Preferences to "Automatically Check For Updates"? I have mine checked, but no PD9 update notifications have ever appeared. Although I do get pop-up notifications from the System Tray from time to time urging me to upgrade to specific Cyberlink software bundles. Perhaps you'll have better luck and get PD9 update notifications if you ensure your box is check-marked. Good luck Jerrys!
-Allen
|
|
|
|
Quote:
I don't think there is a limit on the number of installs (if on the same computer), but there is a limit on downloads.
For that reason, it is best to burn a CD or DVD of the downloaded files.
Keep your email of the serial number on that same CD.
For some reason, the forum moderators removed my question, but thanks Carl for answering it so thoroughly. Burning a DVD is far safer than keeping the downloaded PD9 on the hard drive. I'll write the Activation Code on the DVD as well. Thankyou sir!
-Allen
|
|
|
HDEdit, thanks for also confirming that Build 2702 contains all previous fixes/enhancements. Shouldn't each Patch be larger than the previous patch, since each one is an aggregation of prior releases? I guess this is the aspect that has me perplexed.
I removed PD9 Build 2702 and then reinstalled PD9 without any of the updates to eliminate my burning issues. Is there a limit to the number of PD9 Reinstalls, like there is with Microsoft Office, which limits you to three? I'm tempted to add patch/build 2702 back to PD9, but don't want to end up with no PD9 at all if the patch causes the burning errors to re-occur and PD9 doesn't let me reinstall it again.
-Allen
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing this tip with your Cyberlink family, Hans121! Even though you have a newer Personal Computer, the video card, also known as the GPU, that came with the computer might not be one of the the "supported" cards shown at this Cyberlink support page:
http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/requirements_en_US.html
I ran into similar "issues" when first learning how to use Power Director.
Cheers!
-Allen in Chicago
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that those purchasing Power Director 9 Ultra today are purchasing PD9 Build 2702? No need for them to apply any patches since the Build is cumulative.. Right?
|
|
|
When I first upgraded from PD8 to PD9, I complained because PD9 was no faster on this 2.6ghz/Quad-Core/8GB/Win7-64bit machine than PD8 was. It takes 45 minutes to author a Non-Edited 55 minute AVCHD hi-def video to mpeg2 in PD8/PD9. I thought that was slow, but after reading this thread, I don't feel so bad.
I went to forums for some of the other video editing programs, thinking that I might had purchased a "lemon" product, but it turns out that even the expensive programs like Adobe movie editor generate wide ranging results across the user spectrum. I suppose we're still a decade away from speedy/flawless productions with home PC's?
-Allen
|
|
|
You're most welcome Bubba. I'm now up to 18 problem-free burns since reverting back to the original PD9-Ultra with no patches/updates installed. Aim High! ![]()
-Allen
|
|
|
Thank-you JL_JL for the reply. My license key was not mailed to me, but it was printed on the online purchase confirmation screen, which I thankfully printed out for safe keeping last fall.
It's good to know that the key is also available within the Membership area! Maybe you can have this info posted in the "TIPS" area of the general Cyberlink forum?
Cheers!
-Allen
|
|
|
UPDATE - Final Report I hope.
I Uninstalled PD9 Build/Patch 2702 and Reinstalled the original Power Director 9 Ultra that I purchased in November of last year. I believe this is the original stable release build.
Since doing this, I have burned 7 DVD's of various lengths and have encountered NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.
Maybe the latest PD9 patch 2702 was a good thing for most of you, but for me it brought many hours of frustration and problem solving.
I'm going to stick with the original PD9 release for awhile. My editing needs are very simple and modest.
-Allen
|
|
|
The "READ ME" file says that the License Key for activating PD9 was e-mailed to the purchaser after purchasing. I've checked through the "Welcome" and "Purchase Confirmation" e-mails that Cyberlink sent me when I upgraded from PD8 to PD9, but I don't see the license key listed anywhere therein.
I did a remove/reinstall of PD9 to revert back to the original program (due to burning issues with latest patch) and now the installation program is asking me for the license key. Is it true what the post-installation READ ME file stated about the License Key being e-mailed to us? Perhaps we get our key some other way after purchase??? I don't remember. Can anyone help my recallection here? Thanks in advance..
-Allen in Chicago
|
|
|
GARIOCH7: Thanks for relating your experience of an "Unsuccessful Burn EB130581 (or) EB020B9C. I'm glad yours was only a one time occurance and that you found it was user-caused.
Unfortunately, what I THOUGHT was the remedy of simply burning S-L-O-W-E-R didn't work for me. After writing my last post in this thread, I started burning a smaller project that was only 3.2Gig. Wouldn't you know that even after setting my burn speed to the lowest available for the DVD-R, that ugly EB020B9C BURNING NOT COMPLETE error struck again, just after the Authoring had completed and before the burn process started. Argh!
As before, I inserted a DVD-R/W and chose "2" as the number of dvd's to burn. This time, the DVD-HQ .mpg-produced file authored (quickly of course) and burned without a hitch to the DVD-RW. After it completed, PD9 prompted me for the next DVD. I inserted the same DVD-R that caused the error and VIOLA...it burned without a hitch this time.
This particular error started after I upgraded PD9 to the 2702 version/patch earlier this week. I'll search the forums and see how to roll back an update and then report the findings to this thread.
-Allen
|
|
|
Jeff, you're one smart hombre! Those were my thoughts exactly, so I set the PD9 burner to create 3 DVD's. The first one was the DVD-RW, which burned fine, as it did before. When it finished and PD9 asked me to put in the next DVD, I inserted the standard DVD-R. IT BURNED GREAT! I then inserted the third DVD-R when prompted and it burned perfectly as well. After the 3 successful burns, I looked and saw that PD9 has set the burn speed to x5.0 for the DVD-Rs. I was encountering the Burning Error when attempting to burn at x8.0.
Apparently when the file you're going to burn is really close to the 4.38gigabyte ceiling of useful burn space, something in PD9 doesn't want to even attempt the burn unless the requested burn speed is slow enough.
But, I wonder why the SMART FIT burn option didn't allow the DVD to burn at speed x8.0?? Doesn't SMART FIT reduce the size of the file? PD9 did use a lot more CPU during the Authoring stage when SMART FIT was requested, so the program was doing something shrink the 4.2gig file down to 3.6gig. Maybe some key component in the PD9 burner software wasn't informed that the file was now smaller after authoring for SMART FIT?? I wonder why SMART FIT chose 3.6gig as the magic file size?
Anyway..MAJOR THANKS to each of you who continue to help those of us learning our way! One thing that was apparent during my Internet research into these Cyberlink/PD/DVDMaker Error Codes is that the responses and guidance you provide in this forum reach around the world and are even translated into various languages! Without this forum, Cyberlink would have to develop a meaningful customer support infrastructure, or crash and burn.
Cheers!
-Allen in Chicagoland
|
|
|
Hello Mr. Bevan,
Thanks for responding. I did Google the error code prior to posting my "help" request. All the matches are conversations here in various, older version PD forums, which is why it seems the error code is specific to Cyberlink software.
Now, I'm getting error code EB020B9C just when the burning process starts within Power Director.
This is a 4.2Gig MPEG2 file that I produced from HD Canon HG10 clips. I can burn this file to a DVD-RW disk with no problem, but not a DVD-R. Am pulling my hair out over this!
I'm thinking that 4.2gig is too large for a 4.7 capacity DVD? But then, why would it burn successfully to a DVD-RW? Is there less overhead (that's the best word I can come up with) required to burn to a -RW vs. a -R?
I'll produce a smaller .mpg file and try burning it to the DVD-R. Tried using the "Smart Fit" option with the 4.2gig .mpg file, but it cancelled with EB020B9C before reaching 1% of the burn, just like when I used Best Quality. Wish me luck!
-Allen in Chicago
|
|
|
Since updating PD9 to the latest build #2504, I've encountered this EB130581 Power Director Error Code on 3 random occasions. PD9 simply stops converting the clips to HQ-DVD in preparation for burning to DVD. For some reason, the DVD itself is useless after this, even though the converting process is never beyond the 20% mark when the error occurs.
What I would like to know is WHERE in the Cyberlink Support section can I find a definition of what caused the EB130581 error and (hopefully) some clues on how to prevent it from happening.
I see lots of posts in the PD6 and PD7 forum about this error, but noone was able to explain what caused it, or how to prevent it. I'm hopeful that one of our experts in this forum will be able to tell me where I can find a list of Power Director error codes in Cyberlink documentation. Thanks in advance!
-Allen in Chicagoland
|
|
|
Dafydd Bevan-SoftDeko, Thanks for giving some insight into how the Customer Support functions are structured at Cyberlink and the varied reasons why these forums are rife with complaints about Customer Service responses, lack of, etc..
Were it not for you and other helpful souls in these Cyberlink forums, Cyberlink's direct-to-consumer arm of distribution would be very tarnished. I hope the company understands this enough to at least say "Thank-you" to the many volunteers who add vital support functions and value to the company's product line. After 13 months in this PD9 forum, I'm still in awe at how selfless so many members are with their time and patience.. KUDOS to each of you!
Appreciatively,
-Allen
|
|
|
|
After visiting this page ( http://www.cyberlink.com/stat/company/enu/cyberlink-offices.jsp ), I now understand why Customer Support does not respond thoroughly, in a personable manner, to help requests that are written in the English language. The company Headquarters and Customer Service are in Taiwan. For some reason, I thought it was an Australian or American company. -Allen
|
|
|
NINE Days ago..LOL. Anyway, there was something in this ATI 11.2 driver update that is enabling my PD9 to burn DVD's flawlessly now. I used to get one or two out of every 10 that had some "stuttering" of the video during playback. But since installing the latest ATI drivers last week, not a single playback issue.
Perhaps PD9 was too advanced for the prior ATI drivers, but now they're catching up to PD9's capabilities?
-Allen
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Additional note: I have recently tested release 2504 against 2330a using multiple AVC HD (1080i-24Mbps in and out) files on the same timeline with video correction applied to all files and 2330a is noticeably faster at it than 2504 with less use of the CPU and a bit more of the ATI GPU, memory remaining the same.
Unfortunately, I just "upgraded?" from 2330 to 2504 PD9 Ultra two days ago. HDedit, you're saying that this upgrade isn't really an upgrade in the traditional sense? I hope you've let Cyberlink know this so they can take your experiences/findings and put out an upgrade that restores the pre-2504 level of PD9 performance.
-Allen
|
|
|
|
Quote:
FYI - the ATI 4350 cannot do hardware acceleration. Check out the ATI site : no APT (accelerated processing technology).
As for monitoring your system resources ATI has a new application found on the same page as the Catalyst drivers, called AMD System Monitor. It shows in real time your CPU, ATI and memory activity.
HDedit,
Please look at this ATI/AMD 4350HD card specification page...
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-4000/hd-4350/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-4300-specifications.aspx
Doesn't it say under the AVIVO section that Acceleration IS supported?
This page at the Cyberlink PD9 Product site ( http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/requirements_en_US.html )indicates that only a FEW of the ATI/AMD and NVIDA graphics cards are "supported" by PD9. I would assume that the word "Supported" means that PD9 will accelerate decoding if these cards are used. To me, it's really strange that video cards can be so different from each other, from PD9's point a view. Why would an AMD "2600 series and above" be Supported, yet a 4300 isn't?? If you look at the listing, there's no logic to what cards are supported and which ones are omitted from the list and, therefore, not supported.
Based on what I've been reading in this and other articles, I can do without the GPU acceleration, because I don't do any editing. Just simple offloading from the Canon HG10 and burning of DVDs for 6/7/8th grade basketball coaches.
BUT..what is very annoying (and perplexing) is that PD9 doesn't do anything faster than PD8 did. I have a Windows 7 / 64-bit HP Pavilion. The most trumpeted feature of PD9 at the Cyberlink site and in the advertisements spread across the web is the "Power Director 9 TRUE VELOCITY Rendering Engine".
REF: http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/truevelocity_en_US.html
Wouldn't you think that on modern 64-bit Windows 7 machine, PD9 would be faster than PD8, thanks to the True Velocity technology? Perhaps I don't have some Windows setting enabled? PD8 was OK, but I expected PD9 to be even better. Oh well... the $71.00 upgrade cost won't break the bank. Hopefully, Cyberlink won't stop working on improvements to PD9, while developing PD10.
-Allen
|
|
|
Tonight I finally got around to updating PD9 to the latest build by installing patch 2504. To my dismay, the basketball game DVD I produced with this latest build looks horrible! Everything looks like it's "bent" when the camera moves..like looking in a funhouse mirror.
I remember reading this thread a few days ago, so I immediately suspected that it was the ATI/AMD Hardware Acceleration bug that PD9 Build-2504 is purported to have.
I unchecked the "Enable Hardware Acceleration" box in PD9 settings, burned another DVD and it looks great.. as usual. It took about 25% longer to decode/burn, but the quality improvement is well worth it.
Apparently, before Build 2504, Hardware Acceleration was not working on my computer, even though the box was checked to enable the capability.
PD9 Build 2504 corrected this, but my guess is that the ATI 4350HD card is not up to the task.
With Hardware Acceleration enabled, my Quad CPU varies from 22% to 24%. (10 min clip burns in 4 minutes)
With Hardeare Acceleration disabled, it varies from 53% to 57%. (10 min clip burns in 6 minutes)
The video being burned to the DVD has no effects, it's just raw footage shot in High-Def and burned straight to DVD in HD-Mpeg-2 4:3 ratio.
GPU-assisted acceleration works great with my 4350 card when it comes to making the latest browsers like IE-9 and Firefox-4 surf the web faster, but it looks like Video Decoding is not its cup of tea.
I've read in other threads that some of you are decoding 10 minute clips in less than 2 minutes. I'll make sure my next computer is a powerhouse like yours! ![]()
-Allen in Chicago
HP Pavillion e9220y
8mb RAM
Win 7
Quad Core 2.6mhz cpu
ATI 4350-HD
|
