Burn helper applets

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:27 am

Most of us doing video editing have more than one such program on our computers. Many of them install a burning helper device driver as a Windows process that loads on startup. Supposedly, these device drivers help their specific programs when it comes time to burn a disc. The Ulead driver is called ULCDRSvr.exe. My question is what are the chances of these device drivers conflicting with each other? They all target the burn drive in a system so there might be some potential for a conflict. Are they basically inert until called upon by their relative programs? I see so many problems posted relating to the burn process that it makes me wonder if this is an issue.

Also, I have another nagging question. If burning directly from the edit module is so fraught with peril that there is the need for a widely-circulated workaround that is even heavily documented in here, why hasn't Ulead fixed this problem? I mean, it goes back at least 3 versions already. Seems to me that if you can't/shouldn't burn this way then it is a major flaw in the program. VS touts itself as being so easy to use and the natural assumption of someone new to the program (and unaware of the recommended procedure) would be that you capture, edit and then move straight to the share module and burn a disc. This dirty little secret just seems a bit deceptive to me.

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:09 am

You have raised two points.
The first point - quite valid and worthy of investigation.
you can try turning off all or some of these services (make a note of which ones you tamper with so you can reverse the process if necessary).

Run | services.msc

Your second point about burning from the timeline.
The confusion arose because another member who no longer participates in this forum and has not logged on since Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:08 pm used to "Fly a flag" in which he strongly claimed that burning from the timeline was strictly taboo and fraught with danger.

The learned members of this Forum will disagree with that statement.
We do recommend that you create a video file at the end of the editing stage, clear your timeline and then use that new video in the authoring stage - this is for reasons other than bugs or other pitfalls.

There is already a lengthy thread regarding this and my reasoning behind it. Suggested work flow by SJJ1805 for Video Creation

Put simply - when you are faced with a large complicated task what do you do?
1. Do the whole thing start to finish in one session without a break.
or
2. Do you break it down into smaller more easily manageable parts and check that part works before moving onto the next part.

It is a matter of choice - choose whichever method suits you - both will work.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:42 am

sjj1805 wrote: Your second point about burning from the timeline.
The confusion arose because another member who no longer participates in this forum and has not logged on since Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:08 pm used to "Fly a flag" in which he strongly claimed that burning from the timeline was strictly taboo and fraught with danger.

The learned members of this Forum will disagree with that statement.
We do recommend that you create a video file at the end of the editing stage, clear your timeline and then use that new video in the authoring stage - this is for reasons other than bugs or other pitfalls.

There is already a lengthy thread regarding this and my reasoning behind it. Suggested work flow by SJJ1805 for Video Creation

Put simply - when you are faced with a large complicated task what do you do?
1. Do the whole thing start to finish in one session without a break.
or
2. Do you break it down into smaller more easily manageable parts and check that part works before moving onto the next part.

It is a matter of choice - choose whichever method suits you - both will work.

You justify the workaround by using the example of a lengthy project. My query was as to why the need for an alternative method even exists. If there is a problem, regardless of the size of the project, that is so pervasive that a different recommended procedure (one undocumented by Ulead outside of this forum) is needed, then doesn't that point to some shortcoming of the program that needs addressing by Ulead? No, I do not do a whole project from start to finish, but I would like to be able to load a finished project and then burn it right to disc without the intermediary step (and time) of first burning it to a file. I mean, isn't that the promise that all of VS's marketing material makes? I have done it both way with varied success. That alone tells me that the burn module is not integrated with the rest of the program as well as it should be. I can forgive VS for the myriad other things that linger unfixed from version to version (like the odd capture naming conventions, the frustrating library behavior, to name a few), but producing the final output shouldn't be so hit-and-miss or dependent on a methodology not intuitive to the process or documented in the printed materials. That's all I'm saying.

Post by **Ron P.** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:57 am

Using the workflow, where the project files are carried over into the burn module does work for some, and others it fails. Is this due to the program or perhaps the myriad of PC configurations?

I would say that if it does work for some, and indeed it does, the program can not be at fault. When the debate of this being a bug was ongoing, Ulead clearly stated that it was not a bug, because that is the way the developers intended on the program to work.

Now the "workaround" suggested in Steve's suggested workflow, is just a way to achieve some sort of success for those that have problems using the project files in the burn module.

When your PC has to create the MPEG-2 video files, from the project files, along with the short video clips for the menus, and everything else, if it is not running at it's optimum, it can cause the process to fail. This can not be attributed solely to the program, but more towards the PCs ability or inability to process this information. I'm sure that the programming could do a better job utilizing the current multi-core systems. However there are several that have decided to try VS because the more expensive programs just don't cut the mustard either.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:35 am

vidoman wrote:Using the workflow, where the project files are carried over into the burn module does work for some, and others it fails. Is this due to the program or perhaps the myriad of PC configurations?

I would say that if it does work for some, and indeed it does, the program can not be at fault. When the debate of this being a bug was ongoing, Ulead clearly stated that it was not a bug, because that is the way the developers intended on the program to work.

Now the "workaround" suggested in Steve's suggested workflow, is just a way to achieve some sort of success for those that have problems using the project files in the burn module.

When your PC has to create the MPEG-2 video files, from the project files, along with the short video clips for the menus, and everything else, if it is not running at it's optimum, it can cause the process to fail. This can not be attributed solely to the program, but more towards the PCs ability or inability to process this information. I'm sure that the programming could do a better job utilizing the current multi-core systems. However there are several that have decided to try VS because the more expensive programs just don't cut the mustard either.

I'm not trying to cause an argument here, I'm just a little annoyed that things like this are so ambiguous for us average users. I would think that a computer meeting the minimum specs for the program would be able to operate the program as intended, especcially if the PC far exceeds the minimum specs. I understand the wide gamut of PC configurations and how they affect performance. My problem is with the fact that this recommended methodology can only be found here and not in any of the literature that comes with the program. This causes many users to become shiny coaster producers rather than film makers. I recently ran into a problem with VS in this regard that forced me to try another program. Fortunately, the other program worked flawlessly and I was able to deliver my production on time, but aside from being out the cost of the other program I lost a lot of time chasing my tail looking for a solution that would allow VS to work properly. I want to continue using VS as it has the features I want and am used to and I am most familiar with it, but these kinds of nagging problems that never seem to get fixed from one version to the next just eat at me. Your saying that because it works on some and not others it must be a hardware and not a software problem isn't entirely accurate. That's like saying because I can run fast on flat ground but not on a slope then there must be something wrong with me and not the running surface. Up until now the videos I have been doing have been fairly simple, something that VS (or any editor, for that matter) should be able to do with aplomb. I have a dual-core system with 2gb of DDR2 RAM, separate SATA drives and a SD Mini-DV camcorder that connects via Firewire. I use very few transitions in my videos, almost no quality corrections, few titles, rarely any audio and except for an often large number of individual clips, they tend to be some of the simplest videos possible. That I would be having difficulty making DVDs with my more than capable system and simple projects tells me that there is more going on here than hardware conflicts. Ulead's kitchen sink approach to VS may make it more marketable to new users, but it certainly isn't making it a better product for those of us who have stuck with it version after version. If they are going to put the features in they should try very hard tomake them work across a broader cross-section of users. I find it disingenuous to be told that a product I bought based on manufacturer's representations of it as a one-source video editor should ideally be used in concert with one or two other products. That is basically what one of the forum advisors answered to another poster when he told him that "VS is designed for editing" and that he should use Movie Maker for capturing and perhaps an authoring program to make DVDs. To me, that is just unacceptable.

Post by **Ron P.** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:44 am

I understand that you're not wanting to start an argument, and neither do I. I do agree that there should be better documentation of this other method. However this falls back to where Ulead stating that using the VSP in the burn module is the intended method. So I think that they are reserved on releasing anything to the contrary. However if I recall correctly, somewhere in Corel's Knowledgebase or FAQs, they did advise against using VSPs and to create a video file first.

I would only guess that since that came after all the debate on this web board, that they just read it here and used it for a quick response in the FAQ or KB, whichever it is located in. Trying to find it can make for a very long day though..

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:55 am

vidoman wrote:I understand that you're not wanting to start an argument, and neither do I. I do agree that there should be better documentation of this other method. However this falls back to where Ulead stating that using the VSP in the burn module is the intended method. So I think that they are reserved on releasing anything to the contrary. However if I recall correctly, somewhere in Corel's Knowledgebase or FAQs, they did advise against using VSPs and to create a video file first.

I would only guess that since that came after all the debate on this web board, that they just read it here and used it for a quick response in the FAQ or KB, whichever it is located in. Trying to find it can make for a very long day though..

Thanks V-man. I guess that I'm just a little frustrated in light of the fact that I was harping on much the same thing over a year and half ago and little has changed. If not for helpful people like yourself, Steve, Heinz, 2 Labs and others in here I would have given up on VS long ago. Just like I did with Pinnacle when I got tired of their BS. This forum and how active it is goes to VS's credit. I've seen other product forums that go for days and even weeks without a new response. Thanks for taking the time.

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:07 pm

Sorry I couldn't get back to you any sooner but.......

For the full story Click here!!

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:46 pm

No worries, Steve. Make sure you give that pile a proper burial. It has served us well.