Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

TecnhoViel's Achievements


Novice (1/7)



  1. Anyone ideas? What are the critical components for good rendering performance with VideoPad, besides CPU? I actually got a new CPU, an Athlon II X4 640 quad-core. Other rendering software (for example Cyberlink Powerdirector) makes full use of it's power, runs 2-3 times faster than with the old CPU, all cores almost at 100% busy. Rnedering time for my 3-minute test clip: 3 minutes. But with VideoPad, I see an average of 30% CPU load, the rendering is only down from 30 minutes to ~20 minutes for the same 3 minute clip (720p, 2 Quicktime .mov files from Nikon camera as source, 2 cross-fades, avi with H.264 as output - different output formats had little impact on rendering time). I have tried and checked quite few things: - plenty of RAM free, Videopad.exe only uses ~500MB, h264enc5.exe ~70-80MB - hardly any load on hard discs and network according to resource manager - I am using 3 physically distinct drives for source, temp and output (two IDE HDs, one fast NAS for output) - I have also tried with source material from a fast USB stick - no change in rendering time Question: Which of the three needs most performance: Source, temp or output? The HTPC mentioned above with its much less powerful X2 250 CPU runs about 2.4 times faster! The Win7 resource manager basically tells me that my system is bored with just 30% CPU load and very little load on anything else I can see. This is really frustrating... any help is highly appreciated. Update: I have now also done a test run with all relevant data in a RAM disk (i.e. all source material, output and Temp Dir). Resource Monitor confirmed that there was virtually no disk load. Still, the rendering was as slow as ever, CPU only used ~33%. So my disks are definitely NOT the bottelneck... I have also tried with Virus-Scanner deactivated, no change either. I'm running out of ideas of what to try next....
  2. Any Update on this? I also see it, but I don't really think it's just slow, because the "building preview" comes ans goes... i.e. the preview is there, and for some reason VP seems to start building it again. @NCH: Please let us know if you need log files (and which / how to create ;-)
  3. Aaah, 3.01 must be rather new, I had installed ~2 weeks ago and that was 3.0. BTW: 2.43 also contains English, I guess it's the international version which now also includes Japanese. Unfortunately, the slow rendering didn't get any better with 3.01 :-( I need roughly ten times of the video length with 720p QuickTime material as input.
  4. Is this still Beta? When I download from the English webiste, I get 3.0 - without a word on Beta status. I don't see any other version. When I download from the German website, I get 2.3(!). Again no word on the version. Both files have the same file name. If I choose "Check for update" in the installed 3.0 version, I get "New Version available online". If I then click on "view", I am sent to http://www.nchsoftware.com/videopad/versions.html, where 2.43 is announced as the latest version. Which version is the one I should use? Please fix your versioning! VideoPad is a wonderful piece of software, but this versioning chaos casts a very unprofessional light on it.
  5. I have made a few more tests and came to astonishing results: I rendered the same video on two different PCs, a laptop sporting an Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 and my HTPC with an AMD Athlon II X2 250 CPU. Both CPU are theoretically ~30-40% faster than my desktop, but render the Video using Videopad dramatically faster: The laptop needed a tad less than 10min, the HTPC just 7:52! That's factor 3-4! It seems VideoPad performs extremnely poor on my desktop system, while other programs (like Cyberlink, Magix) show a much better performance. On the other PCs I tried the difference is much smaller. How can I analyse the issue of my PC and VideoPad? Maybe it's just one bottleneck that I could fix, maybe even a misconfiguration? Any advice or ideas are highly appreciated! [update: The slow PC only shows ~75% of CPU load on both CPU cores, while the HTPC showed close to 100%] I would love to use VideoPad as I like the efficient user interface, small footprint (Cyberlink dowloads about 15 times more for instalation!) and the ease of operation. Oh, BTW, I have been using 3.0 from the start. Strangely enough, if I let my browser guide me to the German NCH website, I'm offered 2.31! And both files have exactly the same name... Please NCH folks, make version info (also change log) more visible!
  6. Hi Nat, thanks for our detailed description. I have played with the qualioty reatefactor. The result on the file size is quite impressing - VideoPad maintains a surprisingly good quality even when squeezing a lot - but the render time almost stays the same :-( Any way to accelerate this by adding a GPU?
  7. Hello, I am working with QuickTime .MOV files from a Nikon camera ibn 720p, 29.7 fps. Renderning time for a less than 3 minute test video is 30-38 minutes (depending on output format), so more than 10x real time. I have tried rendering to .mov, mp4, avi and asf - it's alway 30min+, with avi seeming to be the fastest option (~30min). I know my PC is not a great video editing platform (AMD 64X2 4200+, Asus M2a-VM, integrated graphics AMD 690G (i.e. Radeon X1250 based), 4GB RAM. But other programs like Cyberlink are ~4 times faster. Is there anything that might be wrong in my configuration? Any specific output format that's specifically efficient? Or is VideoPad just that slow on my hardware? Does VideoPad make any use of the GPU - i.e. would it help, to add a better graphocs card, so CUDA, APP or the like can be used? Any ideas for speed-up are highly welcome. I love the programm and working with it is very pleasant and fluent - but the rendering time is a show stopper for me. For 1h+ movies it won't even complete rendering over night :-( Cheers, Klaus PS: Is there any way to correct my user name in this forum? I introduced a stupid typo, it should read "TechnoViel"... PPS: I found out that I am running 3.0 - finding out which version one is downloading from NCH is impossible until you check the version in the installed program. I'll start a soperate thread on this...
  • Create New...