Noticed in your screenshot that you could be using a uhd video downloaded from YouTube in the VP9 format. Do not know if you have shadow files enabled which can help or if your preview resolution is set to high which can also help. Do not believe that the VP9 codec is supported in PD16 so shadow files is a must. PD17 has the VP9 support.

Quote Noticed in your screenshot that you could be using a uhd video downloaded from YouTube in the VP9 format. Do not know if you have shadow files enabled which can help or if your preview resolution is set to high which can also help. Do not believe that the VP9 codec is supported in PD16 so shadow files is a must. PD17 has the VP9 support.

Hi,

Thanks a lot for replying, it did a little help, but I noticed something wrong again.


1) Added shadow files at 720 resolution







2) But still PD when downscaling the "shadow files" is way too SLOW because it is only using CPU !





3) For example when I use vidcoder to downscale some vid it uses both CPU and GPU thus way faster







4) But when shadow files are made (Albeit being a extremely slow process) PD multi trim works great !







Botton line if you use PD to edit 4k vids, you must use shadow files, but it is better to let PD
doing the shadow files during the night !!!!

Too slow process due to lack of optimization.

Or is someting wrong with my config ?



Thanks for reading


Kind regards

Quote Botton line if you use PD to edit 4k vids, you must use shadow files, but it is better to let PD
doing the shadow files during the night !!!

Waiting for shadow files to finish being created has long been the the recommended approach whenever they're used. With a more powerful machine (see my system specs below), H.264 and H.265 4K 60p clips can be edited directly without shadow files, but it might struggle with ones encoded with VP9, especially if they're 60p.

There is also another option, which is to use an intermediate codec like MagicYUV to decompress high resolution/non-hardware-decoding-supported clips which makes it very easy for PD to work with them in real time. The downside is that the file size is many times bigger than the encoded original clip, but if you have a large SSD everything will run much smoother.

Converting to MagicYUV using VirtualDub2 is also much faster than waiting for shadow files. My system can process this VP9 4K 30p clip at 32 fps, meaning it takes about the same time to convert the clip as it would to play it back:



Here is the comparison of original and converted file sizes. You can really see how effective VP9 is at compressing tons of video detail into a very small file size!



YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Quote

Waiting for shadow files to finish being created has long been the the recommended approach whenever they're used. With a more powerful machine (see my system specs below), H.264 and H.265 4K 60p clips can be edited directly without shadow files, but it might struggle with ones encoded with VP9, especially if they're 60p.

There is also another option, which is to use an intermediate codec like MagicYUV to decompress high resolution/non-hardware-decoding-supported clips which makes it very easy for PD to work with them in real time. The downside is that the file size is many times bigger than the encoded original clip, but if you have a large SSD everything will run much smoother.

Converting to MagicYUV using VirtualDub2 is also much faster than waiting for shadow files. My system can process this VP9 4K 30p clip at 32 fps, meaning it takes about the same time to convert the clip as it would to play it back:



Here is the comparison of original and converted file sizes. You can really see how effective VP9 is at compressing tons of video detail into a very small file size!

First of all thanks for having the time to read my posting and answering.


Thanks for the advice you've put through your reply, did not know magic yuv neither mediainfo (which helps a lot for us to see whats beneath the vids), but in my pc extremely painfull also. just a simple i7 6700 and a Quadro P400.

I'm just an amateur doing my kids holidays and less much, that first shot of youtube video was just an example.
Most of all I use is h264 which is the codec of my cameras.


I was in doubt whether it was some misconfiguration on my PC !

But you have answered it all my doubts ! Thanks !

• "Waiting for shadow files to finish being created has long been the the recommended approach whenever they're used."

I think that Cyberlink PD should be using GPU assisted to create the shadow files, which by the way they aren't and it is such an obvious feature that I don't imagine why it is not there !




Is there a way to make the "shadow files" in vidcoder (which uses GPU assisted) and put them in the right folder ?
Then theres no need to left the PC hours downscaling the vids ?









Kind regards

Quote Is there a way to make the "shadow files" in vidcoder (which uses GPU assisted) and put them in the right folder ?

No. I believe that shadow files are Cyberlink's way of trying to have their cake and eat it too, meaning that you're actually free to start editing right away while PD uses the CPU in the background to generate the files. If they had PD put more "effort" into background processing, that would diminish the resources needed for project editing, so it's a balancing act.

Depending on the type and number of clips and the system's processing abilities, using shadow files can work reasonably well. Also, the entire process is automated, so PD will use the low-res files when editing but then swaps in the full-res clips when producing. I haven't looked into it, but I don't think there's any practical way to manually make your own shadow files and point PD to them.

That's where MagicYUV (or really, any other lossless/intermediate codec) comes in. MagicYUV is a newer option, and in my experience, it's vastly faster to convert clips to and easier for PD to work with than the older codecs.

By making full resolution copies that are very easy for PD to work with, you get the very quick editing response without the long wait for the background, CPU-only processing. The downside is that you do have to complete the conversion before you start editing (or at least convert the first clip if there are many), and you need to have a large SSD to store the huge file(s) and retrieve the very high bitrate frames at a fast enough rate to keep up with PD's demand, especially when producing:



However, there's no right or wrong approach, just different levels of up-front vs. in-situ processing and hardware requirements but with similar end results. One may work better than the other with your projects, so try them both and decide for yourself.

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Quote

No. I believe that shadow files are Cyberlink's way of trying to have their cake and eat it too, meaning that you're actually free to start editing right away while PD uses the CPU in the background to generate the files. If they had PD put more "effort" into background processing, that would diminish the resources needed for project editing, so it's a balancing act.

Depending on the type and number of clips and the system's processing abilities, using shadow files can work reasonably well. Also, the entire process is automated, so PD will use the low-res files when editing but then swaps in the full-res clips when producing. I haven't looked into it, but I don't think there's any practical way to manually make your own shadow files and point PD to them.

That's where MagicYUV (or really, any other lossless/intermediate codec) comes in. MagicYUV is a newer option, and in my experience, it's vastly faster to convert clips to and easier for PD to work with than the older codecs.

By making full resolution copies that are very easy for PD to work with, you get the very quick editing response without the long wait for the background, CPU-only processing. The downside is that you do have to complete the conversion before you start editing (or at least convert the first clip if there are many), and you need to have a large SSD to store the huge file(s) and retrieve the very high bitrate frames at a fast enough rate to keep up with PD's demand, especially when producing:



However, there's no right or wrong approach, just different levels of up-front vs. in-situ processing and hardware requirements but with similar end results. One may work better than the other with your projects, so try them both and decide for yourself.

Hi all,

And again thanks for having the time to read and respond this thread


You've said:
Depending on the type and number of clips and the system's processing abilities, using shadow files can work reasonably well.

I might add, PD works extremely well like that is shown in the pic I've already posted. I was using the time slider forward and backward hard and PD reacted without a minimun sign of lag when using shadow files. (Like I said before PD and Quadro P400 are a must have)




No. I believe that shadow files are Cyberlink's way of trying to have their cake and eat it too, meaning that you're actually free to start editing right away while PD uses the CPU in the background to generate the files. If they had PD put more "effort" into background processing, that would diminish the resources needed for project editing, so it's a balancing act.


Now to Cyberlink:
Feature recomendation for PD 18! Put it optional:

1) If people will want PD to work as is fine,

2) but put a flag somewhere, that if people choose that PD makes the shadow files first using GPU assisted before they get to editing is fine also, so when users choose this option they have conscience that PD is going to create shadow files first and only after this process ends, users can start editing. (Just like kind, you insert a big vid and you ask PD to separate scenes)
You know PD must act first before you can take any action.
(I have conscience I can do this now, put all the vids and wait for PD to create the shadow files, but why not using the GPU? way faster right?)

I would upgrade to PD18 in a blink of eye with this feature, and some users who don't have "ivory equipment", but instead somewhat good entry point equipment, like my case:

I7 6700 + Quadro P400 + 16gb Ram + SSDs




Till the next interaction, I leave this recomendation to Cyberlink.



Thanks a lot for your attention.



Kind regards all.

Quote Till the next interaction, I leave this recomendation to Cyberlink.

Please note that the people at Cyberlink who make the decisions to shape the future of the product do not monitor what's happening here on the forum.

To reach them with your specific requests (which would actually be considered for PD19, as PD18's feature set was locked months ago), please use Rate Us & Provide Suggestions under PD's File menu. There is a character limit, so you may need to provide more than one suggestion to get everything you'd like to see submitted.

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Quote
2) but put a flag somewhere, that if people choose that PD makes the shadow files first using GPU assisted before they get to editing is fine also, so when users choose this option they have conscience that PD is going to create shadow files first and only after this process ends, users can start editing. (Just like kind, you insert a big vid and you ask PD to separate scenes)
You know PD must act first before you can take any action.
(I have conscience I can do this now, put all the vids and wait for PD to create the shadow files, but why not using the GPU? way faster right?)

RuiFigueiredo1971, can't hurt putting in the suggestion again, but all was discussed years ago like here and contained link, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/77620.page#post_box_317731 and was submitted as possible improvement when the forum used to host product improvement suggestions.

On the positive side, CL has however significantly unthrottled the process over the releases (primarily PD14 and PD15 changes) which has significantly improved shadow file generation times. The generation is still a throttled CPU process and since most users often caution about any editing prior to full generation is done as there was some poor experiences it only makes sense to give some additional control to the user via pref.

Jeff

Quote

RuiFigueiredo1971, can't hurt putting in the suggestion again, but all was discussed years ago like here and contained link, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/77620.page#post_box_317731 and was submitted as possible improvement when the forum used to host product improvement suggestions.

On the positive side, CL has however significantly unthrottled the process over the releases (primarily PD14 and PD15 changes) which has significantly improved shadow file generation times. The generation is still a throttled CPU process and since most users often caution about any editing prior to full generation is done as there was some poor experiences it only makes sense to give some additional control to the user via pref.

Jeff

Thank you guys for your very usefull input ! cause I did not know what was going on and now I do!


Sugestion to Cyberlink done !


Kind regards from Portugal