Jump to content

Aresby

Members
  • Content count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aresby

  • Rank
    Professional

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/c/RalphBacon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Interests
    All things Arduino & Electronics
    https://www.youtube.com/c/RalphBacon

Recent Profile Visitors

297 profile views
  1. "Building preview" on every transisiton

    I've learned that my PC has no hardware acceleration to speak of. So it's off. Permanently. I've not cleared out the TEMP file but I'm confused why that is relevant? I use a special folder for all VP files for temporary cache files.
  2. "Building preview" on every transisiton

    About 7% depending on what I have loaded (but idle).
  3. "Building preview" on every transisiton

    It's probably more likely on a zoom (I zoom into a portion of the screen in about 1 second, stay zoomed in for maybe 10 seconds, then back out again). However, even on pretty standard crossfades it can happen. I don't use that many effects so if it's going to happen it will happen on a very limited set anyway.
  4. "Building preview" on every transisiton

    To be honest, although I occasionally clear out unused cache files (by clicking that button) I find that if I clear the cache it takes forever just to build all the preview timeline snapshots again so I tend to avoid doing this. I'm 90% certain I tried this in the past (probably as a result of someone here suggesting it!) and it made no difference.
  5. "Building preview" on every transisiton

    But the question remains, why does it say (on my videos, at least) that it's "Building Preview" each time I try and preview past some transitions? Not all transitions, but on the ones where it does state this, it stubbornly refuses to ever let me preview that bit of the video in real time (I just hope, and review the final exported video). I've found that once I've been editing for about 20 minutes (in which time I've probably got several dozen cross-fade transitions where I remove "Erm" and "Ums" and other such mutterings) this is when it all goes a bit "Building Preview" crazy. I've (sort of) learned to live with this constraint but it's still quite annoying. I've downgraded the preview resolution past the point where I can read any on printed matter, such as eBay listings (so that's not acceptable) but it made no difference anyway. I realise that my graphics card is bottom of the list but there's no upgrade path for me there in my Ultra Small Form Factor PC. (sad face).
  6. Upgrade from 4.56 to 5.03 is TOTALLY worth it

    @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...
  7. Upgrade from 4.56 to 5.03 is TOTALLY worth it

    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?
  8. Upgrade from 4.56 to 5.03 is TOTALLY worth it

    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...
  9. Fair enough, two out of three ain't bad. I look forward to that release
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Video Size

    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?
  15. VP 5.01 still not using all CPU available

    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!
×