Announcement: Our new CyberLink Feedback Forum has arrived! Please transfer to our new forum to provide your feedback or to start a new discussion. The content on this CyberLink Community forum is now read only, but will continue to be available as a user resource. Thanks!
CyberLink Community Forum where the experts meet|Advanced Search >
I forgot to mention something else I came across right in these forums. One user posted a Windows version of the XDV-360 app. Don't know if that'll make it any better for you.
First up, I doubt I'll be much help. I've never heard of that camera before you posted & what I've learnt about it has been in the last 10 minutes or so.
This guy did an unboxing & showed how to use the XDV 360 app. One viewer asked if he could upload the video he was playing with in the app, but he hasn't done that yet.
My impression is that that camera would not be able to generate a 360° video. If you had two of them connected via the threaded "tripod" hole, you'd get a full 360° equirectangular video after stitching.
Anyway - I'm thinking that's why there's a "hole". Based on what the first guy was doing in the app, where there were various view options... none of which appeared to be actual 360. Interesting though.
Is the app you're using called XDV-360?
Yeh - I know - about as much help as an ashtray on a motor bike.
The other bit of good news about those .CUBE LUTs is that CL is onto it. That was one issue corrected in the most recent 2503 beta patch.
So, with the beta patch applied, the .CUBE LUTs from RocketStock (and others with capitalised extensions) will now work correctly in PDR16. The same cannot be said for CDR6
Until the fix is incorporated into a "proper" patch for PDR16 & CDR6, one of the workarounds is going to be needed.
Obviously, PDR isn't able to generate such a thing (aprt from the .pds project file Carl mentioned). If you just need lists of media assets used in a project, there are ways to do that outside PDR. I've used this to make lists of CD tracks or video titles on discs to save retyping every title name.
The first thing to do is pack your project materials, which creates a single folder containing all your media & the .pds file.
There are two apps I've used to generate the lists of files in the project folder. JR Directory Printer is very basic (and free) and just creates a .txt file. A more flexible option is Directory List & Print - it can be used free but the Pro version is $20. It has way more options, including level of detail & output format.
I've attached an example of each. Had to zip because forum wouldn't allow spreadsheet attachment.
Steve's almost certainly right - it's a limitation of the trial version. See here under Product Information.
The Xiaomi 360 records at 3456 x 1728 @ 30fps (40mbps or 55 mbps), 2304 x 1152 @ 60fps or 2048 x 512 @ 120fps (Bullet time), which puts it in the 2K-4K range.
I couldn't find an original sample clip to test, but I'd be confident it'd be compatible with the full version of PDR16.
Sorry - I should have been more clear when I wrote "I can easily replicate what you've observed here using 4K DJI clips". No - I didn't get the flickering/light shift, but there was some pixelation/artefacts.
Using your clip I produced a number of files. None of them showed the artefacts your YouTube "Test Flicker Clips" one has. Here are two of them. This one was done using the same split method you used. This one was done by applying the speed shift to a segment with Ease in/out added. Both were produced with the same profile I mentioned above.
You didn't perhaps upload that other sample through PDR, did you? That would have gone off as a WMV (which might explain the Minecraft thing).
Thanks for all the information. I don't know exactly what the answer is...
Your original clip is 29.97fps, but you've produced to 60fps. That's possibly a factor. There's definitely NO benefit in doing that.
Your original clip is 24.5Mbps, but you've produced to 54.9Mbps. No advantage there either, methinks.
So - the first thing I'd try is to produce to a profile that closely matches your original footage. AVC H.264 1920x1080 29.97fps 24Mbps. That may help clean it up.
Having said that, I can easily replicate what you've observed here using 4K DJI clips - 4096x2160 - even using a matching profile. During the speed changes, it's not quite "Minecraft" but there are artefacts. I do the same thing with UHD clips from my Yuneec Typhoon Q500 4K with no significant artefacts.
Just ignore that italicised bit - just me thinking.
Jeff - I was actually asking if you could upload an original clip to a shared file site, like Google Drive. YouTube processes uploaded videos so they're not entirely like the original. e.g. you uploaded 54.9Mbps. YouTube processed it to 6.2Mbps
We're totally up against it here because there are so many variables. First up, we are looking at a YouTube rendition (which is processed at ~6Mbps).
Jeff - when do you observe those flickering sections? In PDR's preview? In the produced video? On YouTube? All of the above?
I was starting to wonder if I was seeing things after reading Alan's, Robert's & Hatti's comments... but I'm convinced I am not. What I said earlier about "breaking up" is what I see in Jeff's "Test Flicker Clips". Seriously, parts of it (during speed changes) look like it was generated by a Minecraft animator! Here's a partial screenshot from 15:18
I know the DJI didn't shoot it like that!
Guys - have a look at the four screenshots (zip). They are taken from consecutive frames 00:00:13:21 & 00:00:13:22 and 00:00:15:20 & 00:00:15:21. Open them in your image editor & switch between the consecutive frames. That's what's happening in the video & that's the flickering Jeff is concerned about... but it's all tied in with the pixelated Minecraft issue!
So Jeff - could you please post:
The detailed properties of the original DJI clip in your Flicker Test - use MediaInfo
The detailed properties of the produced file
Also, if possible, could you upload one of your original DJI clips?
It looks like you haven't installed some of the Contents packs. They contain all the templates for titles, particles, overlays, menus etc.
If you put a title template in the timeline & (a) double click it or (b) click Designer, you'll be in Title Designer. That's where you modify it to be what you want.
In the meantime, here are three basic Scroll Up Credit templates. The third one is that clover one without the clover background.
Well that's a turn up for the books. Alan couldn't spot it but I did. It's a bit harder to spot in the Michigan Fall video, but in the DJI video it's obvious.
At about 1:25, the screen colour jumps as if a transition is breaking up.
Jeff - why does the screen look "split" during that overhead shot, starting at about 1:22? (probably not a related question). Is that colour glitch in the original clip?
Did you produce using hardware acceleration? If so, the first thing I'd try is turning that OFF.
Nice videos anyway, Jeff. It's well worth getting them right.
Aren't your photos already on your PC? or an external hard drive? or have you uploaded from other devices?
No - PDR cannot browse media stored online, like Google Photos. It can browse & import from your PC & connected drives & devices.
If you are going to download them, I hope they were uploaded at full resolution. There's a significant difference between 5472x3648 (original) and Google's scaled down upload of 690x420. For video work (or most things really) it's best to use full resolution images.
I'm not sure what CL could do to "correct" this. I just don't think it's a smart thing to do, given that the image is already distorted. Applying extreme backlight is just exaggerating the already present distortion artefacts.
The images/videos have already been stitched, prior to import, so there's a lot that can go wrong. If you have a look at the attached screenshot, you can see that the original tiny planet video already has significant artefacts even before extreme backlight is applied.
I tried applying the backlight before making the tiny planet - but it made no difference.
Are you talking about the picture quality around the edges of the tiny planet video? If so, I think that's probably just a fact of life because the actual image is being so grossly distorted. What I've found is that picture quality is good at the centre, & deteriorates as it gets further out.
If the orignal photo has a lot of plain space, like sky, it's not so noticeable.
The same thing occurs with 360° videos too (when they're "planetified").
Would you like to post some screenshots? or the original photo?
Cyberlink.com uses analytical cookies and other tracking technologies to offer you the best possible user experience. By using our website, you acknowledge and agree to our cookie policy. For more information on cookies or changing your cookies settings, read CyberLink’s Cookie Policy.
I saw that 
