Aresby

So as long as I preview in a 16:9 format and export in same format (although at different resolutions), the preview setting will have zero impact on the export performance, bit rate, time taken etc?

The support guys have also told me to untick the Use Hardware Acceleration under the options too, as my PC is the worst in graphics capabilities. It certainly enabled me to generated my video but may have been coincidence as it doesn't fail every time.

Good, as I expected. Thanks for confirming this.

You could try what was suggested to me when I had export failures: Create final, ready-to-export sequences of a much shorter length (perhaps 30 minutes). Export each sequence so you now have a number of .mp4 files (or whatever you choose) then combine (join) those using any number of (free or paid for) utilities. If you find my response to the original problem I had, I mention which one I found worked OK - no video preview in the UI, just a list the videos and it produces (eventually) one single .mp4 file. Looking at your spec, I would think that more memory might help too. Windows 10 (you using Win?) requires on my machine 4Gb just for itself. Using VP brings the total to about 6Gb. Your rendering (export) time is huge, perhaps I don't appreciate the format you're rendering to. With VP 4.58 I'm finding it exports in about real-time (30 minute video takes 30 minutes to export). The next version is supposed to revert to pre-4.58 behaviour and spawn more threads or something to fully utilise available CPU so will be much quicker. If NCH ever produce a 64-bit version of VP they could just load all our videos into memory and work on that - that would speed things up I guess but that's all it is

Er, you mean I have few more transition fades where I cut out my "um" noises? But seriously, I don't see the connection between my PC's video card and the method used to render the final export anyway. Given that I've now published 73 videos using VP and only had this issue since 4.58 (since around Xmas) and it's failed three times now, I have my suspicions. That said, reviews of competitive products (shock! horror!) also say that they get the occasional crash on 'complex' stuff (not me then) so maybe it's just hard to code a video editor for all setups and not fail occasionally. The last BSOD, though, was doing next-to-nothing in VP (not rendering, anyway). I'm sure it will all come out in the wash and the last thing I want to do is move to another video editing product, learn that and then still discover issues. When I don't get issues, VP suits me just fine. As for buying a new PC, before 4.58's little trick of not even using all of my PC's processing power (it uses about 40% when rendering, but 100% whilst previewing) I was vaguely considering a higher end Quad i7 machine with a better graphics card but it would not bring a big enough benefit for the price. If it could render a 30 minute video in 5 minutes that would be something but pre-4.58 I could render a 30 minute video in about 20 minutes which was perfectly acceptable (if it didn't crash, which it didn't, usually). I will await the next videoing session with trepidation and the next release of VP with anticipation that all my woes will be gone

Thanks Borate. So this is the bit that NCH must answer. Why does preview resolution affect final export size? And does it ever affect time to render? I can't quite get the connection. My holy grail is full HD export quality but lowest possible size. Along with super-quick export! I tried using full HD preview but it took so long to generated the new previews that I abandoned it after 30 minutes and reverted to the lowest (16:9) available just so I could get my video finished. My 40 minute video took pretty much 40 minutes to render. Pre-4.58 it would have taken no more than 30 minutes. But 4.58 uses about 40% of total available CPU. Pre-4.58 took 100%. That's why I'm eager for the next release where they have fixed this, allegedly.

Hi guys As a result of some things mentioned in support responses over the last few days, I'm wondering if there is any link between preview rendering resolution and the final rendering time taken? If, for example, I preview in full HD, does VP still do exactly the same process for rendering the final HD video (exporting it)? In which case, are the different preview resolutions only there so that VP can generate the previews more quickly (along with any transitions)? Just wondering if this is something I can do to speed up export on 4.58 (whilst the new version which does use all available CPU when exporting and will be therefore quicker) is still being tested.

Last night I finished editing a 40 minute video, closed the project, and then re-opened it later for some last minute changes. Within seconds of it re-opening and me doing stuff (moving the cursor to the correct timeline clip, playing) it BSOD again, with MEMORY MANAGEMENT failure. I figured it must be my PC so I ran the BIOS memory check for the full 15 minutes but it reported no issues. So is there a bug in VP or what? I wasn't rendering this time, just editing. As I say it crashed within a few seconds of me opening the project so it could hardly have been stressed out that that point? I don't have that Hardware Acceleration switched on any more (it didn't help me AFAIK and support guys said switch it off anyway). The thing is, if you (dev) guys can't find this error it means it will still be in the next version, potentially (unless it's fixed by accident). Any ideas?

Funnily enough, although I tried this and think it's rubbish that the font changes from Windings to Arial after a project save and re-open, you're example with a square hiding something on-screen would help me sometimes when I leave a user name or some other personally identifiable information on screen that I want to blank out. So, two things need to happen: NCH must fix the bug that changes the Wingdings font back to Arial, and once that's done, I can then experiment with the effect (like you just showed me, thanks so much for that Nat) secure in the knowledge that the character I've chosen isn't going to suddenly change. Just to prove the point I'm re-editing a video this morning that had a decent enough left pointing arrow from Windings that has now changed to a backward slash. If I hadn't remembered your warning and generated the video like this I would be well upset!

That's a good suggestion, I'll try it although if I reopen a project it will be a bit onerous to change the character(s). I'll see how it works, thanks.

Interesting thoughts there Nat. Whilst I don't have a requirement for glowing text I do think that the whole text thing needs a decent update. For example, adjusting the leading (spacing between lines) is not possible, at the moment, and it even throws a wobbly if you change the text size on different lines - the leading goes all over the place with a 24pt leading for a 5pt text. Trying to insert a blank 5pt empty line is all but impossible. It makes it quite difficult to get the look I want. Your suggestion of having text fly in, letter by letter in an animated PowerPoint style, would also add interest, I think. Even more important (for me) though is the ability to draw on screen (eg a nice red loop or box around some important aspect) and being able to move it around as the video shot moves around. I currently have to do this by importing a red, transparent box from PaintShop, really clunky. Perhaps NCH have a backlog of features they intend to implement over the year(s) ahead - it would be good to allow registered consumers of their product to vote them up or down so they can see the perceived benefit of implementing one feature over another one.

Oh dear, talk about being bottom of the class, graphics capability speaking

Thanks for your responses guys. I have an HP Compaq Elite 8300: Quad Core I5-3470S @ 2.90Ghz 12Gb RAM Intel HD Graphics 2500 Dynamic Video Memory Technology (there's no information about how many Mb it has or whether I can steal some more from the system RAM). As I'm not playing games on this machine this has always worked just fine with all my programs - including VP (until now). Reading through the thoughts of NotADevWinkWink I'll give VP 4.58 another go this week with the Accelerated Hardware unticked to see whether it works first time. Once I've published my video I don't mind trying it with that ticked again to see whether I get another BSOD. All my other drivers are up-to-date, says Windows. Incidentally my PC is a Small Form Factor so I'm not even sure I have the option to add a graphics card of substance.

Hi guys. Another week, another video, another BSOD on Windows 10 using VP 4.58 whilst exporting the video. Same rendering settings I've used for over a year now (see previous post). But I tried not to panic and followed the previous advice by clearing down the unused cache and deselecting Use Hardware-Accelerated Video Effects. It then exported OK much to my relief. I thought that option might be for helping the preview rendering but maybe not? So can I ask what is that option (Use Hardware-Accelerated Video Effects) doing (apart from potentially crashing Windows). The error I got again this time was "Memory Management". Is that option going to anything to assist me considering I have pretty standard Intel onboard graphics? Should I keep it switched off? Are the BSOD errors related to this option? It would be nice to not have to worry about this for my next video (I'm considering going back to 1.48 at this rate, I can't stand the stress!). Your considered thoughts appreciated as always.

I tested this out, using the settings suggested by Nat et al and discovered a few things. 1. I set Normalise Audio on (a full description of how things works - you say it replaces existing audio rather than just amplifying it? - would be useful) as I want my entire video at a fairly standard audio level when exporting (a bit like how a radio station might do it, with both compression and limiting). 2. I discovered my input audio source was set to the USB microphone so I changed it to Default Device and Windows Mixer and found that the USB microphone was already the default device but it was set at 78% input level. 3. I discovered that I had OBS set to a 10 point amplification setting because the microphone level was a bit low. 4. Setting the microphone level in Windows Mixer to 95% (I found 100% made it go to max too often during general speaking) and removing the OBS amplification factor I found that: Narration in VP sounded just fine during playback and after video export (no discernable clipping on final mp4 video) OBS did not object to the new 95% microphone level when recording raw material and indeed, went to about 95% of 0dB during recording The OBS video sounded fine (a little louder than usual but no clipping) On importing video into VP it sounded fine with no clipping, although the waveform indicated a higher than usual level On exporting from VP into final mp4 it sound just like VP playback, no clipping So it seems that thanks to your great suggestions I have cracked it! Not only that, I've got "better" settings because the audio going into OBS is higher requiring no boost, and the resultant video into VP seems to be handled just fine too, and I might be able to speak slightly further away from the microphone to allow a greater dynamic range (but not too great). Thanks guys, let's hope it stays this way! (But an explanation of how Normalise Audio works would still be useful)

Right then, I followed your suggestions but did not install an updated (Intel Graphics) driver as I was already up to date. However, I did check your Blue Screen link and, as per Microsoft's recommendation increased the size of my swap file (actually, let Windows do its own thing, as even though there are concerns about the page file on an SSD it would take many years to 'wear out' the cells in an SSD for the average user [not that I'm in any way 'average', of course]). Result: success! It generated the file just fine, thank goodness, now live on YouTube. As an even more interesting aside, I also installed one of the MP4 'joiner' utilities you gave me a link to and ran that whilst the video was exporting with no ill effect (probably because 4.58 doesn't use all available CPU). The video was 'joined' with no side effects except that there was (obviously) no transition from one video to the next, just a hard cut. But this joining exercise completed before the VP video finished exporting. The rendered video from VP is 390Mb The 'joined' video (from two VP-generated videos) is 146Mb. All were generated at 8192 bps, 128k audio and a fixed 25fps at 1080p HD quality. So why the difference in size (but not perceived) quality? Well, the 'joiner' utility seems to have downgraded the bps setting from 8192, but even VP reports that the Bitrate in the final video is just 1425kbps (is this the same thing?) and the joiner says its joined video is 531kbps - both well down from 8192 but maybe I'm confusing apples with oranges. The raw video footage imported into VP reports it is 24854kbps which seems quite high but I'm not sure how much control I have of that (generated by OBS). The most important thing is the final quality seems just fine. But clarification on what the bitrate is of my videos would be useful (in the export dialog box I've always set it to the YouTube recommended 8182 kbps).

Just saw the above response about my narrated audio - I'll certainly try this but I do really want the audio on the entire video normalised (when exporting and during playback in VP), so by disabling it will this cause me issues? BTW I'm not even sure if I've got that setting checked, I'll test it out on Saturday (21st Jan).

I got a problem with VP4.58 when exporting a 40 minute video at HD quality, 8192bps, MPEG format. It fails at the 80% mark-ish and really does cause Windows to Blue Screen. The error on screen whilst Windows is helpfully "collecting data" is "Memory Management" - so is this VP, Windows or my PC's hardware? The crash was repeated when I tried again to render the video. I don't get BSODs on Windows 10 during my normal use, not ever, but maybe VP is using more memory (I've got 12Gb installed) and finding an issue? Anyway, the main problem is that I can't even regress to 4.48 as the Crossfade effect is different in 4.58 and causes blank (black) frames and audio jitter when I try to play it in that lower version. It would require me to go into the project and edit all the crossfades (there are dozens) to 'fix' this so I can get my video out - I've already missed my deadline so now I'm pencilling in Saturday afternoon to do something. Perhaps I can split the project into two, render each part separately then join them back up again - could that work? Can I join mp4 files without VP? I really need your help guys so any ideas gratefully received. BTW I'm going to take a copy of the full folder this time and dump it on DropBox so you guys and try and replicate the error next week - but that's next week, I need to get this video out soonest! Basically, help!!!

Good news that a new version is in testing (working with old version 4.48 showed me how much version 4.58 has improved). If I get the "failed" again I will let you know and try not to amend the project but sometimes I'm on a deadline, but we can but try this approach.

I'm afraid there is a 'problem' in doing this: Although I used the same project file I sent you, I had already generated a new .vpj project in an attempt to generate my video. When I use the project file I sent you the video was generated OK (no "failed" message at 100%). I even re-checked the hardware acceleration just to prove it and it generated fine also. So the 'problem' is the video now generates correctly (albeit very slowly - see my previous answer to you) and I cannot get it to fail again. However, on the day I was generating the video I tried it several times and each time it failed once it reached the 100% point. As I am not the only one with this issue I am thinking it is perhaps intermittent. Remember that I used 4.58 to generate three different videos over the Christmas period and only in this last one did I have a problem. But they all exported very s-l-o-w-l-y as previously mentioned. Not sure what to do now - if I cannot replicate the issue then there is no issue but we know there WAS an issue. Perhaps just log it and wait to see if it happens again - once I can recreate the problem then I can use your diagnostic version?

OK, so I switched off hardware acceleration (surely only used when previewing the video not actually generating it)? Whatever, it made no difference to the generation time, nor to the 40% CPU utilisation. So now my 20 minute video takes 30 minutes to generate instead of a 30 minute video taking 20 minutes to generate (in 4.48). Not good for me and wasting resources on my PC. I think 4.58 needs some further updates or user options to generate sufficient threads to totally utilise the CPU to speed up video generation. Intel Core i5-3470S Quad 2.90Ghz, 12Gb RAM, Intel HD graphics (but I have no idea of what hardware as I don't play games on my PC so it's of little importance). Anyway, I will reply to your other response separately.

OK, re-exported using 4.48 (the only previous version I had) and it worked fine - also a lot quicker than 4.58 which uses just 40% of my CPU which can't be right either - no wonder it's so slow! Any ideas yet?

Thanks for that response. I just reinstalled a previous version (4.48) by running the exe I had in the Program Files (x86) folder and it overwrote my 4.58 version. I didn't re-enter my licence key, it just knew about me. It worked too, so my video can now be generated and much more quickly (just 16 minutes, rather than the 25 minutes or so using 4.58, don't know what's going on there). Interestingly, I had an older VideoPad folder which had its own version of videopad.exe and that run just fine (alongside my 4.58) but was soooo old it would not open my project file and prompted me to upgrade to a more recent version! But it still indicates that making copies of the installation/runtime folder will allow you to run multiple versions side-by-side? Unfortunately, the saga doesn't end there (with 4.48 successfully generating my video). The crossfade effect had been changed in 4.58 and was no longer compatible with 4.48 inasmuch that it just truncated bits of the crossfaded video - I've had to go back and ensure the video clips are correctly aligned, what a chore that was. However, I'm relieved that 4.48 is still useable for me and will wait for 4.59 (?) to appear shortly as 4.48 definitely is a breaking change (well for us two, anyway). In some ways I'm surprised at NCH not giving early access to late beta or Release Candidate versions to real world users (I produce a YouTube video a week) who might find undocumented features more easily than they could. Of course, it would have to run in parallel with our installed released version and be backward / forward compatible so we could revert if required using the same project file. That said I've produced 3 videos over Xmas with 4.58 and it's only the last one that has caused me problems. So testing could be quite lengthy!

Happy New Year c_major! I didn't really expect a reply today but thanks anyway. Yes, I will install the previous version (I only have 4.48 prior to 4.58 - if there is another version you would like me to install let me know asap please and give me a link to the download). Here's a link to the vpj file (but note that I have now tried to split the project into multiple sequences to see whether I could generate it in separate parts then rejoin it all. Sequence 1 is the full video). https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4owslf2e9g0tamh/AACi3ik8zF_u3RyJvpVMyQ1aa?dl=0 (Ignore the other files in this folder, they are previous files I sent you for an issue which I'm still trying out.)

Just tried (several times) to generate (export) my video to .mp4 format (mpeg, 8192bps, 1920x1080, 25fps, audio 128kbps) and it has "failed" several times, despite trying several alternative settings. I'm getting panicky now that I can't generate this video, what can I do please? (Don't ask me to send you the entire project, it's several GB in size, about 20 mins long). The settings I'm using are the settings I've always used. Edit: It gets to 100% but the green bar is not quite complete (just a couple of pixels remain) - it's at that point it fails. Edit2: I've also noticed, but may not be anything do to with this, that my CPU utilisation is no longer 100% when generating the video, but hovers around the 40% mark - this seems odd to me as surely it should be totally occupying the CPU when generating a video (or is it now slower than before?). As I say, this may not be relevant but just something I noticed. "Failed" doesn't really help me diagnose the issue (nor you, I expect). Is there a log file generated somewhere? Using 4.58 but will re-install earlier version if required to do so.