Jump to content

HunterEdits

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About HunterEdits

  • Rank
    Casual

Recent Profile Visitors

157 profile views
  1. Older versions don't include H265. Anyway, according to the product page at https://www.nchsoftware.com/videopad/index.html XP should be included. Thrawn wrote:
  2. I didn't expect it, no. Is XP not a supported OS for VideoPad?
  3. Just what it says on the tin. Doing so produces the following error: https://i.imgur.com/doumsWH.png Searches suggest this means a version of ffmpeg that won't work in XP is being triggered. These searches say if the newest XP compatible version of ffmpeg is used that this can be avoided, but due to the way VideoPad integrates codecs, there's no obvious way to drop in an ffmpeg file. Seemingly VideoPad includes two different versions of ffmpeg already; this may be a red herring. All I can tell you is it doesn't work. Reported though bug reports on 8.56 If you have any
  4. I see how it works, (although I don't see why you would want to duplicate your clip by copying a segment of it and extending it). What I wish would happen is that when you extend a clip, you lower its speed. Well obviously as borate implies, there's no more footage, hence extending it means slowing it down such that it fills the size you extended it to. Because I can slow a clip down to a speed percentage, but I can't (other than really tedious number checking) resize a slowed down clip to fit a gap. I don't mind still images but I have had issues with them in the past, particularly
  5. I want still frames (video extension for longer audio) or white noise (audio extension for longer video). I extend the clip length, but instead of getting a longer clip, videopad just starts duplicating the clip after where I already cut it off!
  6. So, I've always had this major issue with VP. Let's say I need to insert some sound and I need to extend the video to match it. So, I find some point with still frames and I want to extend that ("play it slower") over the extra audio duration. That is not what happens. What happens is I split the video in still frames, for a clip consisting entirely of still frames. I extend it to the desired length. It REPLAYS video that would have been in that position before the audio pushed it out. Yeah. So it literally plays the video that was there before the audio was inserted, over the duration of
  7. I've been studying my project and it seems to me that other similar titles look better. The only difference in them is the text color. Could be optical illusion that they are better.
  8. It is in his example. I was hoping for a setting or a procedure or something besides "it just works" because that gives me nothing to go on. Default renderer. I don't think graphics driver matters. I'm starting to doubt I'm reasonable, but what I can say is the preview is far more optimistic and I don't see why there should be any discrepancy at high quality levels, let alone the big differences I am experiencing. I don't believe it's relevant (or it shouldn't be, it's a text overlay) but the source data is 640x480 and I'm rendering it at 1024x768. Same result at 640x480 of cour
  9. Nat: Ok, you can't see so well. I will try again. PREVIEW: RENDERED: One important point to make also is that the whole image is degraded, not just the text, although the most problematic part of the results are the text layer. Major: This was done in 5.2. Of course...here http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hwh/files/text title.zip I'm just about positive the same thing happens in 6.1.
  10. Not sure how to interpret this silence. I guess it means "no one cares."
  11. Probably related to all my other videopad quality issues, amiright? Text layers look great in preview and the editor. Rendered, they suddenly look a lot worse. I already tried setting the codec quantizer to 10 (just for testing) and it looks pretty much like this: PREVIEW RENDERED The bottom is an exact rendered frame of the top preview. Please note the bar on the E. Look at how jagged it is. Or the bottom curve of D, ooh, nasty. I already tried to fix this with effects. Sharpening of course accentuates it. I tried a blur of .04 which gave great results in the editor,
  12. Hi, guys. My initial test is promising. I will probably be able to use this at least for the project in front of me; it's lower resolution. Now if it really works, it will work on my other long deferred project, in part because, again, I made these titles by hand with an external program, they looked great, but as soon as I imported them and rendered with videopad I got some degradation and blurriness. Cross my fingers on that one. Thanks for this tip! :)
  13. I have been trying to do this for a couple of projects and it never works. The idea is to take one frame, drag it out (for instance make one frame last 4 seconds) and then make it a title, monochrome or whatever. The idea is there is no motion, it lasts as long as I want, and I can apply effects, and then everything snaps into motion since the title includes in the background the first frame. What happens when I try to do this in Videopad is I just get a clip that duplicates the first 4 seconds of the video. It has sound, hundreds of frames - I might as well have gone to the 4 second
  14. Hey there. I had a similar question to quickly zoom in on a spot and then zoom out of it. The answer is right here. :)
  15. I did. They are at 512x384. At least that's what virtualdub says it is. That's how videopad detects it too. Version, I was using 5.2 because I don't love the dark color scheme, but I switched over to 6.1 to check and it's pretty much the same, except for some reason 6.1 absolutely refused to make a lossless video with any picture in it. I tried PNG and BMP and both renders "failed." So I compared with the two native renderers at high quality, MPEG4 and H264. H264 was the better of the two, but comparable to the results with version 5.2. As far as general video quality, I think there
×
×
  • Create New...