Color corrections edits have never been fast, that's posted all over the forum so it's not like you found something new. Round tripping, PD-CD-PD has been some of the slowest options for color corrections. Even here, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/48352.page , nearly 6 yrs ago, you see the issue discussed and more than 4X the time to do round tripping vs CD produce. Versions since then have some ups and downs but I've never seen anything in PD/CD that can do major color corrections in a encode timely fashion. The trending often understood as I showed prior, BUT, the base bottleneck of encoding with color corrections have been too time consuming in the product.

I really doubt your ticket with support will resolve anything in a timely fashion, 6+ yrs have not.

If you've found a product that suites your needs, I'd head there.

If you want to understand CPU and GPU loading, one really needs a defined case to dig in so everyone's talking the same. Too many options, GPU decode, CPU decode, GPU encode, CPU encode, combos of the prior, CPU applying color corrections, down sampling the resolution,.... all big players on load and comparisons need to reflect choice.

Jeff

Here is the cut & paste response I received from Support. I closed the claim as following up further is a waste of everyone's time. I sincerely thank those responding in the forum. Sad that Cyberlink support is dwarfed by orders of magnitude to what one can get here from fellow users.


Thank you for contacting CyberLink Technical Support.

We understand that you find the ColorDirector 365 (in Director Suite 365) useless after testing it in relation to the forum link provided. We are more than willing to assist you.

With reference to your concern, after further checking the condition, per the current program design, the color/pixel adjustments, and video stabilizer-related features in ColorDirector and in the Fix / Enhance panel of PowerDirector require relatively heavy computing resources on the CPU hardware (but not GPU processing) to process and add the video effects on each video frame in user's project.

For instance, technical-wise, for 10 mins long video/clip which is encoded in 60 frames per second. To add color/pixel adjustment effects on the target video, it would require the program to process 36,000 frames totally, and if the resolution of the video is higher (e.g. 1080p or above), it would take a longer time to process further accordingly.

And, those color/pixel-related effects processing are CPU-intensive tasks rather than processed by the GPU using a hardware encoder. It is expected that the ColorDirector and PowerDirector would take a much longer time to process the color effects when producing the high-resolution video project as the color/pixel effects processing is CPU-intensive and requires heavy computing capacity relatively.

Our engineering team keeps enhancing the program feature and compatibility between PowerDirector versions.
We have escalated your concern to our engineering team for performance improvement reference.

Thank you for the report and feedback.

Quote Being slower than you want isn't the same thing as being broken, and maybe it would help to have some apples-to-apples comparisons.

Take a look at the two projects and sample clips in this OneDrive folder. Once the folder is downloaded to your computer, double click on either of the .CDS files to launch CD with the settings I used.

You should also create a 4K custom profile using the same settings I used to match the 4K source clip:



For the AVC 4K 60p MTS clip produced to 4K 60p with the Red Planet Artistic Preset, it doesnt matter whether I produce to AVC MP4 or M2TS, or to HEVC MP4. My system took 3:08 to produce the 13 second clip. That's a rate of 14 seconds of processing for every second of content, or about 4 frames per second.

If I instead produce to 1080/60p, it takes exactly 60 seconds. That's 4.6 seconds for every second of content or 13 frames/sec, which is about 3x faster than the 4K producing time.

For the HD 60p clip test, producing to 1080/60p with the 80s Fab Preset, it only takes 16 seconds to produce the 11.5 second clip. That's 1.4x the duration of the clip or 43 frames/sec, which is about 10x faster than processing a 4K clip to 4K.

How long do these clips take to produce on your system?

Upgraded processor to a Ryzen 9 5950 X. Puget Sound Davinci benchmark overall went from 753 to 990. 4K Media Score went from 62 to 81. Processing your 4K60 project in identical manner yielded 3:08 minutes to produce. This is a 16% improvement with a processor upgrade that benches ~32% better at similar tasks. This tells me that to use this feature in any reasonable amount of time I would need a processor around 10 times as fast as this one. Looking at the PassMark Software benchmark scores for CPUs, the most expensive consumer processor available, an AMD EPYC 7763, only benches at about twice the speed for a cost of about $7,800 for the CPU alone.
The CPU upgrade did improve the time to process my real world (for me) test of a 36 sec 4k60 clip in Power Director, round tripped to CD with manual changes and then back to PD, down to 18 min. I haven't tried Resolve yet but before the upgrade it color corrected in about 29 seconds. Honestly, So I guess in the end I'll have to admit the process isn't broken. It will eventually work. Just not sure why Cyberlink doesn't want to fix something that drives folks like me, that otherwise like the package, to go to a different editor suite.