|
|
I did the trial version of PD12 and found that the WTV file conversion for 720p formatted videos still has that 2 second per hour sync drift between the audio and video tracks that has existed at least since PD8. Other programs do just fine.
Scrolling along the timeline is quite jerky, and it appears as if there is some kind of 'prefetch' activity going as flashes of frames several seconds ahead/behind the cursor location appears as the cursor moves. It is rather difficult to get to a specific frame. Other programs scroll so much more smoothly. (It has been this way since PD9, and numerous video driver updates and program updates has somewhat improved, but not remedied these artifacts. PD8 by comparison was quite good.)
A function that would be useful for me is a 'save file same as clip format' - an expanded use of SVRT or other means to minimize rendering when trying to save a clip in the same format as the original. SVRT does work on some, but not too many formats. Other programs do a very nice job at preserving the video integrity with a 'non rendering' file save across a wider range of formats.
As an owner of PD8, 9 10, and 11, I will bypass PD12.
I didn't check, but PD12, like the previous version, may still do some unwanted companding and equalization of the sound track that cannot be turned off.
PD has such a friendly format and is easy to use. Hopefully some of these items might get some attention in future releases. And thank you to the PD folks for offering up a trial version.
System - Intel i7 2700, HD3000, 256G SSD boot drive and 300GB Raptor HDD running clean install of Win8/64 with no other programs installed
PD8 thru 11 have been tried with various NVidia and AMD video cards and versions of Windows OS's on multiple 'higher end Intel CPU' systems - all with same results noted as above.
|
|
|
Stevek,
Thanks for the response.
There is a couple hundred gig free on the SSD boot drive - very frequently trimmed via win8. And well over a TB free on the data drive, frequently optimized via Win8. And 16Gb of ram, which Win8 reports not much more than 4-5Gb used even with PD11 active and a clip on the timeline.
It is an interesting anomaly - the audio offset happens with windows set to output via digital out, and is OK with windows set to output via the analog out. It is a repeatable observation with no other changes to the system.
|
|
|
HDMI Digital audio speaker output - Has anyone else seen this happen?
I had a number of audio sync problems. (Win8/64Pro, 3770k, NO video card - running quicksync, PD11v2516, latest intel video driver).
What I discovered is that PD11 gets rather confused if I select the audio output via digital output via HDMI or Displayport on the motherboard. I found 2 sec to 1 min delays in audio after rendering, even though the clip played fine in the timeline preview. The delay was not constant over the entire clip either. And sometimes, also I had no audio when previewing the clips on the timeline. I even bothered to adjust a rendered clip in the timeline to re-align the audio, and then re-render, and the audio sync problem re-appeared!
I tried disabling the motherboard on-board realtek audio via windows device manager, thinking that there might be a driver conflict, but that resulted in files rendered with that deep, slow 1/2 or less speed sound like a record playing wayyy too slow.
What I did was to set the speaker output to the analog out on the onboard audio so that the audio was NOT being directed thru the HDMI/Dport output. ( I am referring to the windows icon usually at the lower right of the screen where you can select the output for the speakers - I used that tool to choose the output for the speakers - I chose 'playback devices - speakers, - - and did NOT select anything digital audio. I now use headphones plugged in to the motherboard audio output jack to listen.)
Audio sync is GOOD now. I do not know why, but PD11 does get confused during rendering on my setup if I select audio out via HDMI/Dport.
Is there a way to get output via digital out and still maintain audio sync?
|
|
|
Jaime-esque
Thanks for the reply....
I took it on as a 'hobby' to try to get PD9 and 10 working as smoothly as PD8. Clean installs of Windows, with SSD's or, with all magnetic drives, several driver (video and system) changes back and forth and adjusting the check marks on the PD option menus, and rechecking how things are doing with each released PD update.
In total, I have dozens of hours trying to get things to work as well as PD8 - and in all of these cases there was only one editing program ever installed on the system so a conflict of drivers or codecs or such would not be an issue.
The responsiveness and other differences of PD8 vs PD9/10 are not slight, they are profound.
A constant for me though, is an intel platform and Nvidia graphics cards. Although over the couple of years, there have been changes of both CPU/motherboards and graphics cards. But it could be that another platform might work better with PD9 and 10.
It is just that I have found a combination of programs that seems to do most of what I need, and the learning process above showed me where each program's capabilites are.
And to the point of the thread, I am indeed hoping PD11, when it arrives, solves some of the problems I have with PD9/10 and expands the range of use for my needs!
|
|
|
Currently there are 3 editing programs on the computer - two of them are PD8 and PD10
The 'other' one gets by far most of the use, PD8 next for some specific needs, and then PD10 only for specific needs such as 59.94fps rendering where it does a better job than the other two. PDxx support for surround sound is a big plus and is one key reason they are purchased and installed.
I would like to see PD8 morph in to a 32 bit only Win8 compatible PD-11 lite - don't break it, just adjust it to work on new platforms. (It is running now for me on Win8 release preview on a trial basis on a second older computer.) PD8, compared to PD10 or PD9 runs so smoothly and responsively and is such a less stressful experience.
I would like to see PD11 be a 64bit only platform capable of playing well with Win8/64 and modern hardware (ie SSD's and have much less sensitivity to the particular flavor of video driver, etc).
Along the way, for this new full featured PD11, let timeline scrubbing be as smooth and responsive as PD8 (or better to match the other programs available) and ixnay on the audio track companding and equalization that happens ALWAYS. New features are good, but, mainly pay attention to speed, responsiveness, reliability, and high quality rendering vs lots of new features that sorta work.
I suspect that PD11 is essentially or completely 'done', but ahhh perhaps for PD12! Then I could only buy ONE program!
Win 7 Ultimate
TWO 256gb SSD's - one for data and one for the boot drive
Z77 with i7 2700k
16gb RAM
Nvidia 560Ti
|
|
|
Jaggies and zigzag edges to moving images in SD (480) files in PD is a longstanding and common problem.
I think it has something to do with interlacing management.. I know it looks just awful.
I have also seen the effect where a stationary image does not look bad.. then when the image moves the effects become awful.
For PD8, one workaround is to first render/save the video as a custom profile using a 480 progressive template - then close the project - reopen and load up that recently rendered file - then burn the DVD
For PD9, the only workaround I found was to purchase an editing program from another company.
For PD10, I sometimes have luck when using ONLY the default DVDHQ template. ANY custom template I have tried created jaggies and zigzag edges on moving objects in the scene to occur.
So you may try first rendering your project with the default DVDHQ template. Then close the project, load up your recently rendered DVDHQ file, then try to burn to DVD.
|
|
|
Great catch..
I am not a fan of 'component activation' at all.
But I'll be keeping a list of the activations required so I am not shut out after 30 days if I happen to forget one.
|
|
|
I just did a try of the trial version and have these initial observations so far – your results may vary.
Input files for me are all mpg or wtv files, 480, 720 or 1080.
Hardware acceleration box – PD9 often had serious problems with this box checked, while PD10 seems to do better with this box checked. (For me the PD10 sweet spot is the hardware acceleration box checked (bottom box), and the upper box (open CL or its equivalent with the intel GPU) unchecked.)
Producing 720p mpg or avc material – both PD9 and PD10 have brightness pulsing about once a second in the produced video if the hardware acceleration box is not checked. This is true whether the system has an nvidia card, or if the card is removed and PD10 is run with the Intel Quicksync acceleration. This pulsing occurs uniformly across the screen, and in photography terms, looks like maybe an f-stop or two of brightness difference. A key difference is that PD10 seems to do well overall with the hardware accel box checked, while PD9 did not. Default and custom profiles were tried.
Producing 480 mpg or avc material – PD9 created jaggies and interlace artifacts in EVERY option I could try. PD10 will do pretty good if ONLY the default profiles are chosen. ANY custom profile I have tried results in visible jaggies and interlace artifacts (even with the same or higher bit rates). Again this occurs whether the nvidia card is installed, or is removed and run with the HD3000 GPU on the intel chip.
Timeline scrolling and editing responsiveness – PD10 is decent, but not great. Every so often the timeline will ‘freeze’ for 5-10 seconds. But at least there is no crashing or minutes long lockups like early versions of PD9.
WTV file conversion – PD9 had serious problems with converting 720p WTV files, such that at scene changes it looked like the conversion process was bit rate limited – the visible effect was very noticeable blockiness for several seconds immediately after scene changes. PD10 does much better at this. However, WTV 720p files converted by PD10 STILL have the gradually increasing audio sync offset problem that has existed at least since PD8.
SVRT seems to work better. For instance with PD9 and 480 content that could be produced with SVRT, most of the content would be non-rendered and undamaged, but edit points would kick in the renderer and then jaggies and such would appear. It was very visible in the finished product, as the image quality would suddenly get ‘worse’ for a few seconds and then get ‘better’. As long as the default 480 profiles are chosen in PD10, the output quality is consistent.
3D functionality – don’t care, not tried.
In summary, at least PD10 ‘out of the box’ has not crashed, frozen, or caused significant video quality degradation like my particular experience with PD9 – with one caveat: you still have to figure out the ‘sweet spot’ of checked boxes and profiles within PD10 for your particular machine to attain that performance. I can understand that speed or efficiency would change with which box is checked, but it is frustrating that video quality is also significantly and visibly degraded.
W7 64bit, Intel I7 2600; 8Gb RAM, Nvidia 470, SSD boot drive with 50+ gig free, large mag drive for videos, up to the minute video drivers
|
|
|
I agree with a previous post that if PD10 launches in the next 2-3 months, then the program features/structure is already set. My fear is that PD10 will be a PD9 with 3D duct taped to it.. but of course I am hoping I am very wrong.
Most comments on this thread are likely most relevant to PD11, whenever that may launch.
Reliability and video quality are two virtues I would like for PD10/11.
For instance, interlacing management is indeed awful, rendering (particularly any type of HD) creates way too many artifacts. Timeline scrolling/editing responsiveness can be very slow, and can bring a powerful machine to a standstill.
My take for the PDxx software 'customer' is one that wants an easy to use system, but can grow somewhat as that customer gains some experience. If the customer starts to need even more and more features, then it is likely time to graduate from the PD world. Which brings me back to ease of use with best of class reliabilty and video/audio quality - those are the aspects that the relatively light user (and any user) should be able to take to the bank. If there were a solid PD-xx product, that product would provide significant product differentiation to Cyberlink.
Making even more bells and whistles available that only sometimes work is not the direction that makes sense for this program and target customers. I also agree with a concept that if the PD software guys know of specific lesser used features that mess up the rest of the program, those features are better left out.
Seriously, if the new PDxx sales flyer said - "NEW ENHANCED REDUCED FEATURE SET, BUT THE ONES WE KEPT WORK!", that would be a good thing for PD.
I was doing very well with PD8, and purchased PD9 sight unseen. Almost a year later as PD10 possibly emerges, I am still on PD8 with PD9 sitting in the box. And this is after trying every PD9 patch available and spending wayyy too much time with drivers, etc trying to see if I could get PD9 to work as well as PD8.
PD10 will not be purchased by me until I see how the trial version actually works.
|
|
|
WTV conversion in PD8 and 9 is one of the good features. However, there are several cautions:
Every channel has its own bit rate and resolution, and the bit rate can change from program to program - PD8 and 9 both react differently to these changes.
For instance, 720p seems to be the most 'difficult'. I find that after the conversion, the audio gradually goes off sync by about 37 frames per hour of program for both PD8 and 9. The workaround is to split the audio and shorten the audio track by 37 frames per hour.
PD8 does well when sourced by some of the 720p channels in the area, but is very sluggish editing 720 files broadcast by another channel.
PD9 also reacts very differently to different channel sources and recorded resolutions - that is why some folks have such troubles and some report very smooth operation.
There are some WTV to MPG conversion programs on the market if you look, but some (the one I have) down-converts surround audio to stereo. However, I find that PDx works the best with the files converted by the 3rd party program, but it is frustrating to lose surround sound.
PD9, at least on my rig, seems to be 'bit rate limited' during the wtv conversion and I see severe pixelation that occurs for about 5-20 frames after a significant scene change. That pixelation gradualy fades after the 5-20 frames. PD8 conversion of wtv files has no such pixelation. This does not occur each and every time, but often, and it is very annoying. This happens whether using the WTV file, or one converted by W7 to DVRMS format.
PD9 also has visible 'pulsing' of the overall brightnes level after rendering, It looks like the brighness gradually fades and returns in a 5-8 frame cycle every second or so. This is most visible on 720p sources. PD8 shows no sign of such brightness pulsing. Again, this is independent of whether the input file is WTV or DVRMS.
Both PD8 and PD9 result in some visible judder when the scene smoothly pans. I see this on 1080 as well as 720, but it is more visible on 720p sources. Other editing programs I have tried show no such judder after edit and render, using the identical input file.
As you can tell, I have been back and forth with PD8 and 9, having purchased both. I am still using PD8 awaiting (hopefully) a new patch for PD9.
I have done repeated PDx re-installs, up to the minute video driver updates, and repeated totally clean OS re-installs. The results are very consistent.
Hopefully this helps. I do suggest, if you want to use PD9, to find and get a 3rd party wtv to mpg converter. This will help some, but not all, of the problems with PD8/9 and WTV sources. Perhaps you can find one that preserves the surround format as well.
For information, the output format us usually mpg with at least the bit rate of the recorded channel with the same resolution of the source video - usually 12 to 20Mb/s or the default bit rate setting. I have also tried AVCHD output, using the same resolution as the source and either default or custom bit rates in the 10-20Mb/s range.
GTX 470, 12Gb Ram, I7-950, SSD with at least 50G free, Tb drives for video storage on SATA m/b ports, W7-64
|
|
|
I am looking for someone possibly verify what I think I found.
For versions 2504 and later, clicking the configuration option to uncheck 'enable file deletion from hard drive' permanently changes the way that PD9 works for the worse. PD9 becomes very non responsive after an edit or two. It may take 10-30 seconds to respond to a mouse click.
For versions up to 2330a, checking or unchecking that box has no visible effect on the program speed.
If the program is completely re-installed, it works until that box is unchecked again. But once it is unchecked, re-checking that box does not change performance.
Also, for versions 2504 and later, I have seen performance change once the list of 'confirmation' items in the preferences menu is opened, whether or not any boxes have been unchecked or checked.
This may help explain why a 'reinstall' can help, and why some reinstalls do not. It may not be a windows registry problem, but a configuration file problem within PD9 that gets jumbled. It can also explain why the program may work for a while - and then not.
So, if there are any takers on the proposal - completely remove PD9, set up the computer with latest drivers, etc as recommended, then install the 2701 trial version. DON'T OPEN THAT GEAR ICON OR TOUCH ANY OPTIONS - except of course to tell PD9 where the files to edit reside. Then do a couple of your favorite edits to see how the program works.
Then, pull up the 'configuration' dialog box via the gear icon or preferences menu and Uncheck 'enable file deletion from hard drive'.
Then do those same edits and see if PD9 works the same.
Then recheck the 'enable file deletion from hard drive' box and see what happens.
The file used here to test operation is a 15Mb/s, 720p/59.94/5-1 384k mpg file about an hour long.
I7-950/X58/6GB
|
|
|
I too have an i7 with nvidia fermi card. I also have an i7 with nvidia pre-fermi 8800gt card. Both running updated W7/64 bit with latest (266.5 video drivers.
PD9 on both machines is very slow and can become unresponsive doing the same actions as on PD8.
I do not do things that seem 'complex' - only cut and edit on a single timeline - no effects, subtitles, etc.
However, most of the clips are 720p or 1080i.
PD9 V2504 seems even more sluggish than 2330a. Artifacts in the video output also appear that do not in PD8.
If the work was complex, then it could be chalked up to the stress on the program/computer/cpu, etc.
But where PD8 is workable, PD9 is not - on the same exact machines doing the same exact simple editing on the same exact input files.
FWIW, I am back on PD8, waiting to see if a patch comes out that helps.
|
|
|
Curious - I see you have a video capture card.
Are the files you are using by chance a .wtv capture with Media center or perhaps using another capture program with the capture card?
There is a newer driver from Nvidia if you want to try that.
Ken
|
|
|
I have the luxury of a second computer (also a desktop) on which I have PD9. The main computer has PD8. Both of the computers are I-7/6gb/W7-64bit machines with Nvidia cards.
The operation of PD9 did change with the newest Nvidia drivers. But, video is quality is poor with all nvida driver versions so far. In particular, I see pixelation at scene changes in the source material as if the rendering routines are bit rate limited.
Editing is very sluggish in PD9 - to the point of being unuseable. Waits of 15 seconds to minutes after a split or cut are not uncommon. Editing speed did improve somewhat with the newest NVidia drivers.
A gradual offset in video/audio when converting 720p .wtv files occurs with the newest nvidia drivers, but not with 260.99.
In my case, rarely is there more than one track at a time on the timeline. There are no transitions, text overlays, stabilization, or other more complex operations.
It is important to note that the PD9 problems observed are identical on both machines, even though one has a GTX470 and the other a 8800GT.
The solution has been the same since a week or two after PD9 release - PD8 is re-installed on the main machine on which ALL the editing work is done.
With a new release of driver or PD9 patch I will retry PD9 on the second machine, but so far I get the same (bad) results.
PD9 has a lot of good things going for it - and I have contacted tech support to let them know what I am observing. I do hope that it gets working sometime - and then be able to get some use from the PD9 purchase price.
|
|
|
I have the same problem. I also notice that the videos have occasional 'pixelation' at scene changes that are as if the conversion to m2ts from WTV is bit rate limited at times. By scene change I mean those in the source, not scenes created by any editing.
It was one possibliity that the Nvidia 470GTX hardware was an issue, so I tried my older 8800GT with the same results. It is interesting to see that you have ATI video hardware with the same problem. I also tried PD9 on a clean install of W7-32 with the same results.
I also notice that the file that results from the PD9 conversion from the WTV file will not play properly in windows media player.
This issue has been brought up in a couple of previous threads too. Perhaps you can also contact tech support and try to get this up the list on items on which to work.
The workaround here is un-installing PD9 and re-installing PD8, then waiting for either driver or PD9 fixes to appear.
When converting from WTV with 720p source, the gradual offset of video and audio sync that occurs in PD8 is fixed in PD9. If the file is first converted to dvr-ms, that gradual loss of audio sync still occurs in PD9.
I really do like the direction that PD9 is taking, and the new interface is much better; so I hope a patch is available soon so I can use the new software I purchased.
If you find a resolution to this problem, let me know!
I7-950, 6Gb ram, W7-64, 470GTX
|
|
|
One troubleshooting suggestion:
For all clips that you want to edit, first bring them (one at a time) in to PD9 and then 'produce' (one at a time) as a separate file, Do NO editing and make sure SVRT is UNCHECKED to force a total re-render.
Try to keep the resolution of the newly saved files the same as the original (ie 480 to 480, 720 to 720, or 1080 to 1080, etc)
Then, from that batch of 'duplicate' files that contain the video clips, try to do the editing you would like.
I have seen occasions where PD9 just doesn't 'like' some clips and tends to be relatively non-responsive. The re-rendering often seems to help PD9 work with the clips much more effectively. If clips get very unresponsive, I also get the blue circle and the 'not responding' box.
Overall I have found PD9 to be much less crash prone that PD8, and once familiar with the some of the new interface techniques, a bit easier to use.
|
|
|
Thanks for the comment.
It is helpful for me, since I was thinking a remote possibility was an erratic hauppauge 1600 capture card.
Assuming you have different capture hardware than that, the common theme is PD9 and how it handles WTV files.
Doing the WTV import and then one re-render is a pain to get to a 'clean' clip, but it is one of the least painful options available. There are other software options available too of course, but WMC is included with Win 7 and easy to use. And as you say, at least PD9 actually deals with WTV files, at least part way.
Ken
|
|
|
I have seen the same problem with editing HD files. (see my recent post pd9 and wtv files).
I have found that very often a re-render without any editing will help, and you can work much more smoothly and quickly with the re-rendered file. It's as if the re-render 'cleans up' the clip for use in PD9. It is best to 'uncheck' SVRT to make sure the clip is fully rendered in this situation.
As far as memory usage, I also have a 64 bit system and have never seen total system memory use go above about 2.2GB, even with 12GB of memory installed. Memory use seems to be little affected by long or short clips. I see the same reliance on disk access, rather than loading the entire file in to memory.
However, with a 'clean' video, I find PD9 responsive, even with the disk access. That delay when clicking different parts of the timeline you mentioned is usually less than a second, and not more than about a second and a half if PD9 is handling the clip properly. (Even for clips of similar size to yours ~ 5GB or more)
Perhaps an SSD would help more, once you have that cleaned up video that PD9 can handle. The SSD would not help PD9 if it can't navigate the clip properly in the first place.
I do not use any shadow file, and find performance is just as good with or without for my system.
I seems as if the memory is used for very complex projects, but for one or a few clips the memory resource is not challenged much.
Hopefully the re-render helps for you.
|
|
|
PD9 does some things better than PD8 when converting/importing WTV files that are recorded using WMC.
In particular, so far I have not seen the problem with gradual loss of sound sync with some resolutions (ie 720p) that happened in PD8.
However, if I first convert the WTV file to DVRMS format in Win7, then import the DVRMS file with PD9, the gradual sound sync issue returns.
What I have noticed is that the imported WTV file (now a m2ts file) is nearly impossible to edit and will not play in Windows media player. This happens at multple recorded resolutions.
What happens is that after clicking at different points on the timeline, it may take PD9 10 to 30 seconds to respond. And scrolling along the timeline becomes erratic and often only a specific few frames appear in the preview window no matter how far or fast or slow the scrolling occurs along the timeline.
A workaround is to re-render that first m2ts file directly (no edits) to either a m2ts or mpg file, then do editing with that re-rendered file.
By the way, for 720p content, the default 720p avc template will lock up during that re-render - a custom template needs to be generated (I used 15Mb rate instead) to avoid the lockup during the re-render. By lockup i mean that it will render a few seconds of the clip, then just stop. But PD9 remains responsive and will allow a 'cancel'.
I am hoping to avoid a multistep and time intensive re-re-render process.
Has anyone seen and hopefully solved this same problem?
The sytem has a Hauppauge 1600 PCI capture card, so has anyone experienced this card being a problem? And does anyone have any experience with the hauppauge 2250 PCIe card instead?
Thanks for any comments/input....
(I7-950 desktop; 6gbDDR3; NVidia 470; Raptor boot drive with 2Tb storage drive)
|
|
|
I have PD9-ultra64 build 2316 installed with W7 64bit. Also 6 gig memory and I7-930 cpu. (PD9 installed with no prior PD8 or other video editing products ever installed)
First, I must say that PD9 looks like a great upgrade. Stability and layout are very much improved. While I just got used to PD8 crashing (particularly after a produce and going back to edit), PD9 has not crashed yet.
Initial observations are: (pending further use of the program!)
In some areas PD9 is a bit slower than PD8, but reliability and capability are much more valued.
Ouput, particularly when burning the default DVDHQ format, is much cleaner without the severe interlacing artifacts often seen in PD8
WTV import seems improved regarding audio sync - but still need to run more clips to see how it goes overall
Now, HOWEVER,
While running PD9, I popped up the windows task manager tool, and selected 'performance' which shows cpu and ram use.
With PD9 up and running, I have never seen memory use go above 2.2gig, and most often is around 1-2gig. I have loaded up single clips ranging from about 2-8gig in size, and multiple clips with total size from about 4 to 20gig. Memory use does not signiciantly change at the edit or produce screens.
I have tried this with the PD9 shadow file engaged and disabled.
Is there a RAM quantity threshold for the '64bit memory capabilty' to engage? Or, is the does the memory use occur at a specific operation of PD9?
Any suggestions how I can use this 64bit memory resource in PD9?
Ken
|
|
|
