Six years ago PDtoots did PowerDirector Project Management Tutorial (Part 1) and (Part 2).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAOnn8g0C_o

Link to Part 2 is in Part 1 video.

This was and still is a good method to keep up with your Project assets. Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

Thanks for the reply. I had actually seen that video, but assumed/hoped that the PowerDirector workflow would be better six years later. I just watched it again, and it's pretty similar to the workflow that I came up with myself.

One of the problems, then as now, is that we have little choice but to depend upon that packed project function. And it doesn't really pack everything that relates to the project. If one tries to compensate by leaving the original project working folders intact, that doesn't really work either because there is no way to rename or move assets from within PD, and renaming/moving outside of PD causes the PD to lose track of the assets. For example, PD16 creates a new audio file every time one edits audio with AudioDirector or WaveEditor, so it can get to be quite a lot of similarly-named files. And PD16 adds every edit as a new file and a new resource, so it can get hard to tell which ones are even relevant to the project. There is no way to delete the files from within PD16, making it necessary to delete them from outside of PD. And then it is all too easy to delete the wrong ones.

A while back, I made my living as a network administrator, so I probably have a better grip on file management, backup and archival strategies than the average guy, but I have to admit that I haven't been able to come up with any strategy that I really like with PowerDirector. I've had five(?) versions, and they all seem to have had the same frustrating workflow conflicts and limitations.

The creation of a new audio file with every edit certainly does exasperate the problem. Audio edits should be non-destructive, just like they are with video edits from the timeline. Speaking for myself, if PD offered an easy way to change the audio level of a given track without shelling out to an external program, I would certainly prefer that, but as far as I can tell, there is no way to boost audio levels from within PD16 by more than 12 db. I have an audio source that is always about 16 Db low. There is no way to correct it at the source, so I have to do it within PD every time.

AudioDirector has the same frustrating 12dB limitation, but it is possible to boost more than once, which PD16 itself (apparently) cannot do, so it works, even if it is more of a work-around than an actual solution. If nothing else, it just takes so much longer than if I could just right-click on the timeline and access global audio levels for the track as easily as, say, "mute clip". Audio mixing room won't work because the boost is limited - It doesn't call out dB, which is another issue, but regardless of the units, it's not enough. So that forces the use of AudioDirector, and that contributes to the project management issues.

What can I say? CyberLink seems to get so close to greatness, only to fall short by things as simple as the arbitrary decision to limit audio boost to 12dB. Why can’t I, at least, just type it in? How hard could it be? But listen, I really appreciate your reply, so I don’t want to go off on every single one of my PowerDirector frustrations. Thanks again. --
-Mark
Cable Solutions

Quote it seems pretty clear that new features are a lot more common than fixing long-standing issues

That's been my beef with Cyberlink for a long time and is why I won't upgrade when all I will get is a lot of bells & whistles that I'll never use whilst the basic issues remain unfixed. I suspect I'm not alone. Regards,
Mike

Home-build system:
Intel Core i5 Quad Core 3.3GHz, 2 x 4GB DDR3 1333MHz,
Asus Nvidia GT440 1GB, 2 x Western Digital WD10EARS 1TB, 1 x Seagate ST1000DM010 1TB,
Windows 7 Prof 64-bit, PD 9 Ultra 64, PD 13 Ultimate 64

Quote

That's been my beef with Cyberlink for a long time and is why I won't upgrade when all I will get is a lot of bells & whistles that I'll never use whilst the basic issues remain unfixed. I suspect I'm not alone.

Well said Mike. I did submit a trouble ticket yesterday, but still no response. --
-Mark
Cable Solutions

Hi,

This topic has morphed a little from the original which was about project file naming protocols.

However, the main points seem to be :

A facility to auto-name (perhaps from a user defined prefix/template) projects and produced videos.
A facility to have Windows style file handling from within PDR

Added issues now also include audio handling, audio file management and amplification constraints.

I normally wouldn't become involved but perhaps in this case I can assist.

The first two issues are potentially complex, in that they incorporate individual workflow preferences, individual skill levels and the technical issues relating to file locking and duplication etc.

For instance, the OP wanted to complete a project, produce a video and then tweak the video, produce it again, but retain the same name. That requires both PDR and Windows to do some nifty file locking and temporary file handling and also presents the potential of the accidental overwriting of existing files - great if you are of a skill level and have a workflow to suit. A bit of a nightmare if not.

Personally, I would never want a tweak to auto-overwrite an existing file (either project or video), for the simple reason that until it is produced and reviewed I cannot tell if I (or the production process) have got it right or made a mistake. I would always produce to a new name and review and then rename and delete or do whatever other housekeeping is necessary.

So here we have examples of individual workflows that are almost opposite, one might be "quicker/more convenient" but more risky, the other slower but safer. In this case, CL have gone for a safer method, I assume.

As to the file handling from within PDR, I'm sure that improvements can be made, but again, if you have an asset being "used" within PDR, should you be able to delete it from disk or rename it etc.? Obviously not, certainly not without due warning. Currently you can delete assets from either the library or the disk, but only in the right circumstances. As to "on the fly" renaming, the same system rules apply - how can an open file be renamed and remain open/unlocked and tracked by the software? I would suggest it is technically complex, and again potentially risky.

So, whilst it might be convenient, it is a complex issue, and might it be better left to a workflow that uses the main system functions to complete this sort of housekeeping?

As to the audio handling - producing separate files etc. I think that touches on the same principles. Overwrite an original or produce a new file and do the housekeeping later?

It is worth noting that CL have chosen to use a coding protocol in all version of PDR, where the file paths and names are hard coded into the .pds file. This does mean that care has to be taken when file handling and housekeeping so that file names, locations etc. are retained, otherwise they have to be manually located next time the project is opened. However, once this is appreciated, a suitable workflow can be adopted and implemented. It may require more discipline, but is not overly onerous.

As to the audio boost levels, I assume that the 12dB limitation is probably a pragmatic approach based on the average user/camera/needs etc. to prevent distortion and clipping? Again, perhaps in the design of the software a more "average user" approach was the concept, leaving the more advanced user, with different needs, to use a more specific workflow.

Looking back at the history of PDR, it has come from a consumer product to a more pro-sumer product, but it is still developed and distributed to a price point, and probably provides good value for money.

Should there be a professional version of PDR - perhaps with less bells and whistles but more advanced features and tools - well that is another debate??

I would suggest that if the issues in this thread need further airing, perhaps a new topic for a specific issue should be used to avoid confusion and a long meandering topic.

Cheers
PowerDirector Moderator

For customer support related issues, please contact:
- Customer service: https://membership.cyberlink.com/support/customer-services.do
- Technical support: https://membership.cyberlink.com/support/service/technical-support.do

I am not the OP, but I do appreciate your considerate reply. I have not seen that very often in this forum, so thank you for that.

I don’t necessarily agree on every point though. For example, it wouldn't really take very much programming genius to make it so that the default save name was the same as the first video file opened in PD. And for a lot of people, like the OP, that might be all it would take to bring some order. As opposed to a whole pile of rendered files named "produce.mp4" though "produce9999.mp4".

I could argue on the point of whether the files need to be locked just because they are resources, but putting that aside, editing in the timeline should not require any of those resources to be overwritten. The best way to do most edits would be right within PD - non-destructive edits. And the only reason that doesn't work for 90 percent of what I personally need to do is because of the silly 12dB audio boost limitation. If that was fixed, I'd have a lot less to complain about. That and the maddening disappearing waveform bug.

But with that said, I don't see the necessity of either overwriting or creating a new resource file just because the editing feature is not built into PowerDirector itself. It is possible to do all sorts of audio and video editing on both video and audio timelines, and none of those edits ever changes the original resources. It could just be written right back to the timeline, just like any other timeline edit without changing or adding anything else, and that would be no worse than any other timeline edit. Mostly, I just want it to function like a single integrated piece of software instead of behaving like a bunch of separate programs. And I dare say, it would be far more elegant to work with a single install file instead of a dozen.

I suppose that it is, as you say, a matter of philosophy or personal preference, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone who had ever worked with elegant software would prefer it just the way it is. It is, as you say, relatively inexpensive, but some of these wishes would not be hard to grant, so why not make it the best relatively inexpensive software? Happy customers can be almost as powerful as unhappy customers…if only because they are not UNhappy. --
-Mark
Cable Solutions