• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aresby

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Interests
    All things Arduino & Electronics
  1. @MattDUsing either of those settings how long does it take you to generate, say, a 10 (or 15, or 30 - so I can extrapolate) minute video? I've got a less powerful PC than you, an i5 Quad Core (no hyperthreading) 2.9GHz 16Gb and it still renders in far more than real-time (so a 10 minute video takes about 20 minutes, in H264 1080P 25fps). If I generate a MPEG4 video at 20 fps .mp4 it takes about 75% of real-time (so a 30 minute video takes about 20 minutes to render, or thereabouts). Hmm, I've just seen that AMD are to bring out a 16-core monster in the summer to rival Intel's i9...
  2. Ah ha! that screenshot explains a lot (of both your effusing and my grumbling). I don't generate H264 videos; I use .mp4 because when I started with VP it took forever to generate a 20-minute H264 video (I mean, hours). So I'm generating .mp4 which doesn't use the x264encoder hence why my CPU % is a bit like yours shown against VideoPad Editor. Worse than that, 5.01 (yes, for the PC) was so bad even generating .mp4 videos that I have dropped my framerate to 20fps, not ideal but good enough for my YouTube channel. I wanted to revert to 4.xx but my video was edited using 5.01 which does the transitions differently, meaning not backward compatible. Maybe I should retest 5.03 generating one of my existing videos using H264?
  3. That's interesting (and what I have been waiting for - I'll give it a try tonight and see if I get the same result). UPDATE I tried updating from 5.01 to 5.03 and my .mp4 video of 30 minutes rendered in 23:08 mins at 20fps, 8192kbs, 128kHz audio - I think this is the same as in 5.01. Additionally, CPU did not exceed about the 42% mark (overall CPU utilisation at the time 76%). Oh well, maybe the next release...
  4. Fair enough, two out of three ain't bad. I look forward to that release
  5. Yup, that's what I've been doing, but as you can imagine it's a bit of a pain, especially when I want two lines of, say, 23pt text with a 13pt top line and they are all on different layers, just to get the line spacing correct! Any plans to improve this valuable feature?
  6. v5.01 If I add (centered) text where the first line is 13pt and the second line is 23pt the space between those lines can be HUGE - and there's no easy way of reducing it. I've tried adding a line in-between them of, say, 5pt or less, to get the spacing correct which appears to work in the preview. Save and reload the project and the spacing is back to the huge leading again. I'd first of all like to see this behaviour fixed so that each line just printed whatever point size has been selected (like Word) without huge spaces between lines of text. Secondly, as a feature improvement, I'd be hugely grateful in being able to create text overlays where the leading (space between lines) can be manually specified (again, like Word). It would be even better if each line of text could be moved about to get the exact placement just right - currently there is no way that I know of to get text left-aligned with, say, a 5cm margin. It's either left, or right or centred but I would like my bulleted text to be 5cm from the left margin, for instance. Anyway, enough of the wish list, any plans to fix the weird behaviour of the current text placement / leading between lines of different point sizes?
  7. So the decrease in rendering time was (mainly) due to to the reduction in frames actually being generated rather than a reduction in computation time in converting a 20fps source to 25fps. Oh well. However, as I said, my video quality still looked good, there's little movement (so no blurring) in the video anyway (I do make the video sound boring but I'm hoping it's not!) so maybe I should stick to 20fps until NCH release a version of VP that consumes 101% of my CPU and can generate a 20 minute video in 5 minutes (I live in perpetual hope). If you want to watch it, it's called "Watching paint dry, part 8". A real winner.
  8. Hey guys As you know I've been concerned about the speed of exporting videos with release 4.58 and above (before then they seemed to generated more quickly). I know NCH is aware that not all CPU power is being taken by the export (and will hopefully speed it up soon) but that aside Borate (or possibly one of the other tech specialists) mentioned that the export fps could affect the time if the video output was not the same fps as the source video(s). So this week I generated my entire video with an fps of 20 (for both cameras) and exported with the same fps (usually I export at 25fps as per YouTube recommendations). It definitely seemed to export more quickly - quicker than real time which was my recent experience with VP. Can this be true? Incidentally the video quality at 20fps vs 25fps was (to my older eyes anyway) indistinguishable. So my 20 minute video finished in about 15 minutes this week, hurrah! Just to muddy the water a little, this was the first video I generated with 16Gb installed (instead of 12Gb) but I didn't really see much more memory being used anyway so maybe this had no effect? Anybody know about fps and export speed, either NCH or other users? Video generated: .mp4 format, 8192 bps, 128 kHz audio, 20fps
  9. Does this apply when generating a video in non H.264 mode, as I generate in .mp4 at 8192bps (mainly because it is much quicker and the end result is "good enough" for YouTube)? In other words, if I generate at a "lower quality" of, say, 6000bps now, will the quality be as good as the old (pre 4.58) 8192bps?
  10. Thanks for clarifying the differences, c_major, between the two methods of generating videos in two products. I guess the point here is that NCH obviously understands our need for speed and has it on their backlog. That's all we can ask for. Stability first, of course. Now that I've found the root cause of my BSODs (bad memory stick) I'm generating my VP videos with gay abandon again as I'm not on tenterhooks waiting for the crash!
  11. And Bob has the machine that I aspire to get; but he (well, VP) also has the problem that prevents me from even thinking about it. Now, NCH say some of the processing is done by the GPU and VP's been made more efficient generally, but I still second Bob's desire to configure VP like the Prizm Video File Converter; render a 40 minute video in under 10 minutes whilst you're having a coffee. Re-exporting when you discover a mistake is then not so onerous. Any plans on this front NCH?
  12. Final update on the Windows 10 BSOD saga: It's not VP causing it. After lengthy investigation (crashes were sporadic) MemTest86 identified a stick of Crucial memory that was to blame, which I'm hoping to RMA as they have a lifetime warranty (for the original purchaser). So, nothing to worry about on the VP front, I'll get this stick replaced and get another to bring the total to 16Gb that may help general Windows (and more specifically, VP) improve performance.
  13. Right, I understand about the 16Gb, as you rightly say Win10 and everything else that runs will certainly make use of more memory anyway (previously I had 12Gb) and will make less of use of a swap file. Regarding the bit about offloading the processing onto the GPU, does that apply to all GPUs even my rubbish Intel Graphics (that you positioned one step above a 32K VGA card I believe)? I'm not sure my GPU is going to help (rather hinder) but it raises the question about upgrading my GPU to something more meaty. Put it another way: if I were to upgrade to a modern Intel i7 Quad Core (eg Intel (Haswell-E) Core i7 5960X) with NVIDEA Gforce GTX1080 (just a random card) would I expect to see a significant reduction in export time (I render not in H264 but mp4 as it's quicker, at a constant 8192bps and 25fps)?
  14. I mean VP process varied between 30% - 70%. There was still capacity (% idle) left. Regarding your point about memory usage, I can totally understand that you don't want to my PC to run out of resources but I'd like to know how to increase the performance (reduce the export time). For example, I've removed what may be a faulty RAM stick from my PC so now I'm only running on 8Gb (barely sufficient for Win10 and VP). If I purchase another RAM stick to bring the total to 16Gb will VP increase the threads to take advantage of that extra memory or am I wasting my money? Any pointers gratefully received!
  15. I generating my most recent video using V5.01 (and tried out the "censored" filter whilst I was at it, pity you cannot move and resize the block on screen rather than via the sliders, a future enhancement perhaps?). I was disappointed that despite your previous response to my post about slow exporting, this version did not use all available CPU on my i5 quad core machine. It seemed to render in more-or-less real-time (35-minute video took roughly 35m to render, and the CPU varied between 30% - 70%). I don't understand why the export rendering process cannot be made more CPU intensive - under the control of the user. That is, if I want to just go and make a coffee whilst exporting because my PC is, effectively, 100% busy with VP exporting then that's my choice. On the other hand, if I do want to still use my PC and accept that VP will export more slowly that should be my choice too. I reckon my PC used to generate a 30 minute video in about 20 minutes using 4.48 and it used 100% CPU. Why not now?