Jump to content
WnSoft Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by potwnc

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    pte vs competitor.jpg

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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%.

  • Create New...