potwnc
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by potwnc
-
-
Thanks, Igor. Hopefully in the next version then.
-
Just downloaded beta 4 and will test soon. In the meantime, just 1 question: which output color spaces are supported for video output? Any HDR color spaces?
-
I don't think it's just a display problem. Can you check your Pascal compiler for 23976 / 1000? It may be rounding to 23.980.
-
I haven't used 32-bit Windows since 11 years ago. (I'm actually surprised that Microsoft still has 32-bit Windows 8, 8.1 and 10.) I would imagine there is some way to get official numbers - either published by Microsoft themselves or by some respected industry group such as Gartner.
-
As long as PTE can output H.264/MP4, there are multiple free programs available to convert (transcode) that video into MPEG-2 format and author a DVD. So, I say don't waste time updating VideoBuilder - getting PTE 10 to market is more important.
-
This may seem trivial and unimportant, but it is actually critical. In PTE 8, 24p video renders to 23.976 fps, which is the standard for 24p. In PTE 9 video renders to 23.980 fps. A tiny difference, yes. But I need to re-render PTE video output using third-party software and my software does not recognize 23.98 as an input fps rate. Can this be corrected so that PTE 9 renders to 23.976 fps?
-
Just hoping that v10 will have video output to DCI color space and not just rec 709.
-
I am writing from the perspective of someone who only uses PTE for output to video.
While PTE has grown a lot over the years in terms of video capability, it is seriously behind the competition in 2018. In a search for something like "consumer non-linear video editors" it is hardly represented. Maybe WnSoft doesn't want PTE to be marketed as such. If so, I think that's a big mistake.
Some of the necessary improvements, such as a wider range of video framerates, have already been discussed recently.
We now live in a world where wide-gamut viewing devices (not only TVs, but devices on which video content is created) are becoming more common and less expensive. That trend will only continue. People now expect a High Dynamic Range experience - even if they don't understand what that actually means. PTE does not support that. The comment was made in my "PTE versus a competitor" thread that the two videos could be made to look the same. Well, yes they could if I chose not to take advantage of Vegas PRO's support for DCI-P3 output. But what would be the point of doing that?
Maybe the solution is for WnSoft to spin off a separate product, PTV (Pictures to Video) - although that wouldn't reflect the fact that video can be used as input as well. In any case, I would hope, at a minimum, that the next version supports two things that are essential for a competitive NLE product: (1) output to at least DCI-P3 (and, eventually in a later version, to Rec 2020 when that becomes the norm); and (2) a timeline that is - or can be switched to - marked in seconds and frames instead of seconds and thousandths of a second.
I'm sad to say that after making two full-length documentary films using PTE in the past, I no longer use it at all for serious video projects.
-
Less interest than I expected in this topic. So, to close it, the screenshot on the left is from a video created in Vegas Pro 15. The original image was shot on a Nikon D800 in Adobe RGB. The video was rendered to DCI-P3 and I had my monitor in (callibrated) Adobe RGB mode. So, obviously, the screenshot on the right is from the video created in PTE 9. I don't know what color space it renders mp4 video to - I would guess either sRGB or REC 709.
-
In a few days I'll be making a lengthy post in the "suggestions" section, but first I'd like to solicit some opinion here. The attached image has the same screenshot (actual pixels, Adobe RGB color space) from identical 4K videos - one made with PTE v9, the other with a leading, professional Non-Linear Editing program. Full disclosure: I'm using a pretty high-end monitor (callibrated 4K BenQ SW27). If you're using a standard sRGB monitor the two versions of the screenshot may not look all that different to you, so if you comment that you can't tell the difference, please also include in the comment whether you're viewing on a wide-gamut monitor.
Which do you think looks better? In a few days I'll say which one is from which program. The 4K videos are 15 seconds and about 55MB, so I'll also make them available in a few days also if anyone is interested.
-
Although I am rendering to 60p, I'm getting 59.94 fps. Is there no way to get 60.00 fps? 60p typically means 60.00, doesn't it?
-
Excellent, Lin, as always! Regarding file size, typically MP4 encoding will be more efficient at 60 fps vs 30 fps for the same source material, so the storage requirement would be less than double - although the exact numbers depend on many factors. I see that you targeted a bit rate of 16Mbps. A typical (commercial) MP4 encode at 1920x1080x24p would target around 20Mbps. For 60p I'd recommend you target at least 25Mbps - even as high as 40Mbps (although your file size would then be truly enormous).
I played it on a fairly old system with MPC Home Cinema 64-bit and the playback was smooth.
-
I would also be interested in seeing the finished product. This preview looks wonderful. One suggestion - and of course, this is just my opinion - would be to make the flag smaller. I found that it obscured things I was trying to read while it was "blowing."
-
I don't think 800x600x30p is a supported Blu-ray standard. Can you try 1920x1080x24p?
-
Very disappointed to see there is no low-compression video codec (per Igor's January 6 post under topic "Virtual AVI removed in version 9?"). As I stated in the topic, this means v9 is of no use to me. Shame, as I really like some of the new features.
-
Hi Igor, yes please include this low-compression codec so I can test it with Vegas Pro.
Thanks!
-
When other companies were transitioning to 64-bit versions of their products, they offered 32-bit and 64-bit versions at the same time. Couldn't PTE do the same until MS makes 64-bit only Windows?
-
No, it is not because of quality issues. Vegas Pro simply offers more features than PTE. For example, color grading, video reversal etc. It has unlimited audio and video tracks and very powerful authoring for both DVD and Blu-ray. The latest version has 4k and H.265. It is also 64-bit which is essential for very long (60+ minutes) projects.
-
Unfortunately, this is a deal breaker for me because my work flow is to create virtual AVI files and do the final rendering in Vegas Pro.
Is there any chance you will re-consider and add virtual AVI back?
-
With PTE9 (Beta 14) I don't see any way to publish a "virtual AVI" video - like I can in previous versions. Will this feature be removed in version 9 or has it just not been re-added yet?
-
Beta 11 is the first beta I've tried so far. Here are my test results for h.265 (HVEC) and 4:2:2.
The baseline was a 5-minute project originally created in PTE 8. The complexity of that project is about 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. HD video (6Mbps @ 1280x720p) rendered in about 12 minutes in PTE 8. All material was JPG, AdobeRGB color space - except for a couple of short .MOV video clips, not converted within PTE. Remeber that PTE 8 renders in h.264 only.
PTE 9, Beta 11 took about 25 minutes to render the same project (all tests were 6Mbps @ 1280x720p) with h.264/4:2:0. The output quality from this test was slightly better (informally measured just by playback in Media Player Classic) than PTE 8.
Rendering the same project with h.264/4:2:2 in PTE 9, Beta 11 also took about 25 minutes. The output quality from this test was a very noticeable improvement (informally measured just by playback in Media Player Classic) versus h.264/4:2:0.
Rendering the same project with h.265/4:2:2 in PTE 9, Beta 11 took about 50 minutes. The output quality from this test looked no different to me (informally measured just by playback in Media Player Classic) versus h.264/4:2:2.
Rendering the same project with h.265/4:2:0 in PTE 9, Beta 11 also took about 50 minutes. The output quality from this test looked the same to me (informally measured just by playback in Media Player Classic) as h.264/4:2:0.
This is about what I would expect - although the 2x increase in time to render h.264 in PTE 9 versus PTE 8 contradicts earlier comments I read on the Beta forum that video rendering is faster in PTE9! h.265 is not expected to give better quality by itself versus h.264 - it is just a more efficient compression technique that is useful mainly for delivering 4K/UHD video.
I hope PTE 9 render times for h.265 can be made faster. To be fair, though, I currently have a low-end graphics card and I would expect render times to be faster with a better graphics card.
Once PTE 9 supports 4K/UHD I'll do some more testing - h.265 has a much greater advantage over h.264 with 4K/UHD as it has been reported to cut the bit-rate requirement by as much as 50%.
-
I also use PTE exclusively for output to video these days. My projects are long (an hour or more), complex and involve multiple PTE projects. I also plan to start producing 4k video. A 64-bit version would mean a significant improvement for my workflow.
-
A few years ago I announced a feature-length documentary made using PTE. I have just released the second documentary made with PTE. It is about the Maya people. It is available at http://www.peoplesoftheworld.org/maya/.
-
One more thought: if Wnsoft plans to make PTE a 64-bit application in the future then I suggest to keep the raw, uncompressed output option and not remove it.
Color output spaces for video output
in Suggestions for Next Versions
Posted
I hope you will consider allowing control of color output spaces for video output (especially HDR color spaces like P3-D60) in version 11. Without this feature version 11 would be years out of date compared to the competition.