Billy, There are so many factors that affect the rendering time on any video.

The more you modify the original the longer it takes.

Why the huge difference between Powerdirector and ColorDirector, I don't know.

Choice of Hardware Acceleration or No HA sometimes makes a huge difference in rendering time.

SVRT if used, can save a lot of time, again, depends on how and what you modified.

My best advice, is start the rendering, go get a cup of coffee or watch a TV show or read a book.

Hey, If you want, you can check Shut Down Computer after Production, after you click Start.
You don't have to keep checking if done.

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.

Quote: Why the huge difference between Powerdirector and ColorDirector, I don't know.

Just to make sure I was clear about this, both instances of the same file were rendered in PD with the exact same settings with no Hardware Accelleration, but one was edited in CD and the other edited in PD. I don't regard this as a problem, just a curiosity. I will always use the process that produces the best result regardless of the time spent rendering. In the case of these B & W files I'll probably just use PD for the whole process since I can't see any difference in the result but with color files, which of course are the majority of the ones I work with, I'll use CD for editing, since the rendering time is not important enough to me to settle for a lesser result. I just find it interesting that a file edited with CD will take almost 3 times as long and use about half the CPU resources as one edited with PD. Dell Precision 7510 Laptop
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit | Intel(R) XEON(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @2.80 GHz
RAM: 32 GB
Windows Experience Index 7.5

Quote: I just find it interesting that a file edited with CD will take almost 3 times as long and use about half the CPU resources as one edited with PD.

The Half CPU resources may be the answer to the time difference.

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.

Quote: The Half CPU resources may be the answer to the time difference.

I expect so, but I don't know why the file edited in PD would use almost all the CPU resources while the one edited in CD only uses about half with the same settings in the Produce window. Just a little mystery that intrigues me. I think I may consult this chap:
http://www.hansomwheels.com/Sherlock_Addams.mp4 Dell Precision 7510 Laptop
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit | Intel(R) XEON(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @2.80 GHz
RAM: 32 GB
Windows Experience Index 7.5

BillyR

Would you mind posting enough detail that one could try and repeat your observation. I've noticed many anomalies as well when going to CD and back to PD.

From what you wrote, it appears you:
1) transfer a clip to CD from within PD
2) make simple cuts in CD
3) return to PD and produce

Your produce time is longer for same produce settings than making the simple cuts in PD only. If so, do your clips have the orange info icon in them when back in PD after the simple cut editing in CD? Does your produce time change if you select "Fix/Enhance" and remove "ColorDirector" check in PD. I almost think CD does something to the color profile anytime you make a modification in CD, even if just a simple cut. That also may fit your statement "but color programs come out better using that program,".

One needs to be careful if you produce in CD, say you pick the basic MPEG-4 1920x1080/30p you get 13Mbps bitrate in CD and 16Mbps bitrate in PD as the default. One needs to make a custom profile to truly match. PD11 was 13Mbps, but in PD12 that default changed to 16Mbps. It's almost like the CD programmers didn't get the default setting change memo so it's no longer a common default setting.

What PD version are you using as well, it appears a significant change for some modifications was done in 2726 and commented here http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/38146.page#196468 to have a significant performance difference.

Jeff

Quote: BillyR From what you wrote, it appears you:
1) transfer a clip to CD from within PD
2) make simple cuts in CD
3) return to PD and produce

That's close but not quite exactly what I do. In Step
2) I don't do any cuts, I make adjustments to the White Balance, Exposure, Sharpness, Denoise and maybe one or two other things. Then I bring it back to PD from whence in Step
3) I take the audio file to Audio Director where I edit and return it to PD. Then in Step
4) I cut out the commercials, add video fades front and back, make a final check to make sure I have what I want and the audio/video is in sync and then in Step
5) Produce to an MP4 (Hardware acceleration unchecked).

This is the procedure whereby the rendering time is about 40 min., using about 40-some percent of the CPU resources. I've never produced a file in CD.

When I skip Step 1) and don't take the file to CD and instead make the same type edits in PD and do everything else the same, that's when the rendering only takes about 14 min. at 90-something percent of the CPU with the Produce settings the same as above.

I've never seen the orange icon you mention, I guess because I've never made any cuts in CD.

Oh yeah, I'm using Build 2726. Dell Precision 7510 Laptop
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit | Intel(R) XEON(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @2.80 GHz
RAM: 32 GB
Windows Experience Index 7.5

Hi BillyR, Jeff & Carl -

When I read Billy's last post, I thought the difference in production times may have been related to the differences in adjustments applied in PDR & CDR. After testing, I don't think so.

Billy - the orange icon Jeff referred to gets planted on any clip that's had effects applied, whether in PDR or CDR.



Here's the test:

► Original clip 1920x1080 .MTS - 24MBps - 25fps - Duration 1:43:06

► Produce (without edits) using SVRT to .M2TS 1920x1080/50i (24MBps) No HA - 11.83 seconds - CPU 2-7%

► Apply Fix/Enhance in PD - White Balance & Vibrance 10 - Produce to same profile as above - 3:04.36 - CPU 54-67%

► Apply adjustment in CDR - White Balance & Vibrance 10 - Produce to same profile as above - 5:51.90 - CPU 27-38%
- in the CDR test, SVRT greyed out in PD.

I'm not clever enough to be able to analyse that, but I can see there's something going down (or up)! Just thought I'd post what I observed.

The 3 produced files (according to MediaInfo) are pretty much identical in every respect.

Cheers - Tony

Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

Quote: I make adjustments to the White Balance, Exposure, Sharpness, Denoise and maybe one or two other things. Then I bring it back to PD from whence in Step

Thanks for the additional insight. I think that there is the significant editing event. I do believe 2726 made some significant improvements in the area and it was highlighted by CL in the release notes but there still appears to be some anomalies. I'm thinking CD may have a different set of correction routines and some may not be as CPU efficient or multi core/threaded as PD or maybe even provide slightly different quality that affects CPU utilization. One can only guess, probably not much end users can do to get real clarification.

I have a dual core E5-2680v2 (20 total cores, 40 threads) that I typically don't use for editing, my normal editing box is a i7-3770 (4 cores, 8 threads) I played with PD12 on the E5-2680v2 and was fairly convinced prior to 2726 that parts of CD and PD color adjustments and other enhancements appeared to be confined to a single core. Having a extremely large core box to test on appeared to highlight that as a possible item compared to my i7.

Tony's test also mimics what I observed post 2726, it was the exact opposite for me pre 2726, CDR was much faster than PD. Again, somewhat supports the thought that they don't share the exact same correction routines between CD and PD.

Jeff

Hi,
It could be that colorDirector is (maybe) a 32Bit program thus doesn't use the 64Bit resources memory that a 64Bit program has available. That is why the different processing times. This is just my guess as I believe PowerDirector utilizes the 32Bit program modules within it.
Jim Intel i7-2600@3.4Gz Geforce 560ti-1GB Graphic accelerator, windows 7 Premium 12GB memory

Visit GranPapa64's channel for your YouTube experience of the day!

Thanks to everyone who responded. There is definitely an anomaly here. I just edited another B & W file, this time a 1963 one-hour episode of "12 O'Clock High" (about 45 min. after cuts) both ways, and the version that I edited completely in PD only took 35 min., using 90+% of the CPU resources, to produce. Then I cancelled all the edits (but kept the cuts) and edited the middle cut for White Balance, Exposure, Sharpness, Denoise, etc. in CD and returned it to PD. Applied the edits to the whole file and produced, and this time it took 1 hr. 35 min., using only 40+% of the CPU resources, or almost 3 times as long. This was approximately the same ratio as the previous file, so PD definitely handles files that have been edited in CD differently. The technical details such as cores, etc. I'll leave to others who know something about this stuff.

Unfortunately in this case I liked the result of the CD-edited file better than the PD-edited file, so will I from now on edit in CD and accept the longer rendering time? Knowing me, the answer is probably yes.

Please don't tell my wife I'm spending so much time on such trivial pursuits! Dell Precision 7510 Laptop
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit | Intel(R) XEON(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @2.80 GHz
RAM: 32 GB
Windows Experience Index 7.5