Worth it to go to v8 or v10? - very slow editing with PD9

SANDEEP100

Newbie Joined: Apr 16, 2011 23:37 Messages: 10 Offline

Solved by

Oct 24, 2011 23:45

I am editing a very large project and have difficulty with PD being very slow.

Movie:
I decrypted and copied a Blu-Ray movie that I purchased - AVCHD 29GB file - m2ts 1920x1080 23.976fps 3.00Mbps. 1hr, 50 min. Dolby Digital 5.1 448Kbps.

Hardware:
I have a 2600K CPU with 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 570 GPU, one SSD M4 Crucial 256GB and a second Velociraptor 600GB 10,000 RPM drive. I have my source on the VR drive.

Settings:
Shadow files are not enabled. Preview is normal preview resolution, realtime. Makes no difference in speed if I set it to low or non-real time. I have hardware acceleration on. Also have CUDA on. I tried other settings such as CUDA off and others - no difference in performance.

My problem is this is painfully slow - a delay of 30-40 seconds if I click on any part of the clip and finally the image refreshes and I am able then to play or do any other functions. I have no transitions or special effects. At this point I have cut the movie into 6 different blocks (this process has taken more than an hour).

I have read through this forum and feedback is despite powerful hardware, there are similar problems. I read some have had success with PD8. I can't even find this on the Cyberlink website to purchase but am thinking to switching to PD8 to see if it makes a difference. I guess I'd love CUDA support. Is PD10 any better? Thanks

Charles

Tomas G77

Member Location: Ayrshire Joined: Jun 13, 2008 08:54 Messages: 100 Offline

Oct 25, 2011 06:35

Have a look at PD10 Forum
it has a lot of the same bugs that are in Pd9 ONLY if you are into 3d then upgrade other than that
no I would not waste my monies ( you could download the trial and find out for yourself that it is still very buggy)
PD 10 IS NO BETTER THAN PD9 THAT IS MY OPINION AND A FEW MORE ON THE FORUM.

but it is your decision at end of the day I would wait till PD 10 is patched I would not hold my breath waiting for a PD9 Update I don't think that will happen as I Said READ THE PD10 FORUM SEE FOR YOURSELF THE PROBLEMS AND THE BUGS STILL NOT FIXED IN PD10 CYBERLINK WANT YOUR MONIES BUT DON'T WANT TO FIX THERE BUGGY PROGRAM
WE ARE JUST BETA TESTERS THEY WILL BRING OUT A PATCH TO FIX SOME OF THE ISSUES AND LIKE THE REST OF THERE PATCHES IT WILL EFFECT PARTS OF THE PROGRAM THAT ARE WORKING ALL RIGHT BUT THAT IS CYBERLINK FOR YOU
SORRY FOR RANTING BUT IT IS SO FRUSTRATING THAT THE DID NOT AND WILL NOT FIX PD9 INSTEAD THEY BRING OUT PD10 AND CALL IT A NEW VERSION INSTEAD OF PATCHIN PD9
Tomthumb Thomas G
I'm a 33yr old trapped in a 69yr old body

Dafydd B

Senior Contributor Joined: Aug 26, 2006 08:20 Messages: 11973 Offline

Oct 25, 2011 08:03

Hi SANDEEP100,
have a read at what PD10 editors have written:
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/19666.page

Dafydd

SANDEEP100

Newbie Joined: Apr 16, 2011 23:37 Messages: 10 Offline

Oct 25, 2011 23:56

Thanks for the feedback folks. I think I found a solution (though not sure if this will degrade my video quality but so far I can't see that it does) - which is to convert the source file via mediaespresso to H.264 MP4 (seeting was 1920x1080 with 13Mbps bitrate). In PD, the original file is shown under properties to be AVCHD and so is the new MP4 file - only difference is the original file's extension was .m2ts and new files extension was .mp4. The new mp4 file is also about 11GB compared to 29GB. Interestingly the actual bitrate for original was 3668kbps and for new file was 1287kbps (using windows properties). The new .mp4 file was super easy to edit and no delay whatsoever! And I then converted both original .m2ts and new .mp4 to 1) mp4 best quality and 2) AVCHD h.264 and can't tell difference in qualities. This leads to the question, does PD just suck at dealing with .m2ts files in general?

Charles

Tomas G77

Member Location: Ayrshire Joined: Jun 13, 2008 08:54 Messages: 100 Offline

Oct 26, 2011 08:53

YES
Tomthumb Thomas G
I'm a 33yr old trapped in a 69yr old body