Videostudio Pro X5

[pepegota]

If I get the trial version, how is it converted to a purchased version. Must the trial version be removed and the purchased version installed or, can the trial be converted directly to the purchased version?

[skier-hughes]

YOu pay for it and insert the code. It then becomes a paid for version.

[BrianCee]

if you have a trial version and wish to buy the 'full' version you can just buy the serial number and put that into the trial which changes it to the purchased version - then you get access to the additional content and bonus pack which are not supplied with the trial - you then download and install them.

It used to be the case that many users had problems with their programme if they unlocked the trial version and we used to strongly advise people to completely remove the trial version and download and install the purchased version - those problems seem to be behind us now and I myself downloaded the previous trial of X4 and activated that with a serial number and I have had no problems at all for the last year.

[wstagner]

Not enough in x5 to justify the cost either new or upgrade. No 64 bit support, no multicam support, no embedded audio support. I think they've decided is cheaper/easier to farm everything out to addons.

[wstagner]

You can see my dialog w/Corel on their FB page if you're intrested:

https://www.facebook.com/corelvideostudio

I will test rendering speed, compare w/X4 and report back here.

I'll also check for the same old bugs that I'm quite sure still exist in the DVD burning module.

[Heesenproductions]

It was only mid-November 2011 when I bought the X4 Ultimate version... sigh.... I could have waited for the X5

[wstagner]

It's posted somewhere on this board that Corel introduces a new version every Spring.

[Ken Berry]

... or Autumn/Fall if you are in the Southern Hemisphere!!

[wstagner]

Sorry...shood have bin more specific....March/April time frame.

[Natal]

I downloaded it and had a quick look at it. As far as I can tell it still has the same bit rate cap on H.264 footage that X4 had, so it does not address my big issue with X4.

I don't see that there has been any significant improvement over X4 that I can see. It does accept 50/60p editing now, which a suppose is important for the folks with cameras that shoot at those frame rates.

But the bit rate is still an issue. Far more people have cameras that exceed the bit rate cap in VS than have camera's that exceed the frame rate cap. I don't understand their reasoning. How hard can it be to remove the bit rate cap? It is not like VS can't output at higher bit rates since you can do it with the "same as" setting. This tells me that they haven't addressed the encoder issues at all, which is bizarre since the encoder is the heart of any video editing program.

Based on what I've seen in the demo I will not be upgrading until it is heavily discounted, and even then it will only be to get the free add ons that come with the ultimate addition.

[Natal]

Which raises another point.....surely at least some people here must have beta tested this thing. Did they not raise the concern about the quality of the high def H.264 output from X4 that has been voiced here numerous times? How could this have been completely ignored? How can Corel still be ignorant about this problem?

[Ken Berry]

Well, yes. I took part in the Beta testing process, though I confess it was a strange process from the start. And the very first thing I raised was the 50/60p issue and the bitrate one to which you refer. As you note, the 50/60p rate is now resolved, up front. But on investigation, I found that the bitrate one was also resolved, though less obviously.

The big negative mark against it is that if you want to make a template for it using the normal template making method of entering the properties manually, you are still limited to a max bitrate for AVCHD video of 18 Mbps when the new international standard is 27 Mbps for 50/60p (and 3D). So that would at first appear to be a significant cause for concern.

The good news in this regard, though, is that using the Add method of making a new Template appears to work when you point the program at a sample file using 50p and (in the case of my chosen sample) a bitrate of 26 Mbps (for details, see below). Using Share > Create Video File > Same As First Clip also works -- although what would happen in my case where my first clip is almost invariably an uncompressed AVI title file I have created, I don't know yet. But of course I could use my new Template in those circumstances.

One sad thing is that you still can't set Project Properties for high definition formats. That doesn't bother me personally since I have not used Project Properties for many years. But it is -- and will continue to be -- a significant problem for newer users who think it has a greater significance than it actually does or who actually try to use Share > Create Video File > Same As Project Properties with unfortunate outcomes.

As a footnote to my reference above to the Add method, for those who don't know how to make such a template you need to have a sample file with the properties (including higher bitrate) you wish to include in the template. Then choose Tools > Make Movie Templates Manager. Then in the dialogue box which appears, click 'Add' down at the bottom. In the new dialogue box which appears, click the '...' button beside 'File Path' and navigate to where your sample video is stored, then select it. The file path should now appear in the dialogue box. Give the Template a sensible name you will remember. Then click OK then Close to get out of the dialogue boxes. Next time you open X5's Editing module, and you want to produce an identical video, choose Share > Create Video File, and in the drop-down menu your new template should appear down towards the bottom. It will include the higher bitrate.

Note that templates made in this way cannot be later edited. If you try, the template will revert to default DVD SD properties and you would have to make a new template to get back to what you had.

Note also that this is not a workaround but a valid alternative method of making a template which has been around in successive versions for some years now.

[Natal]

Ok, I stand corrected. They did not leave the encoder in X4 alone, they managed to mess it up in X5.

I have a test shot of a sunset over water with an island on the horizon, which shows as low mountains. If there are compression artifacts the mountains are reduced to blocks, so its pretty obvious.

The original shot:
AVCHD 1920x1080, 30fps, H.264
data rate 22.3 mbps, 208 MB

File produced using "same as first clip"
With X4: Data rate 22.3 mbps, 208 MB
With X5: Data rate 19.3 mbps, 181 MB (shows compression artifacts)

File produced using MPEG optimiser
With X4: Data rate 22.3 mbps, 208 MB
With X5: Data rate 19.3 mbps, 181 MB (shows compression artifacts)

File produced using BluRay H.264 preset
With X4: Data rate 19.3 mbps, 180 MB (shows compression artifacts)
With X5: Data rate 19.5 mbps, 182 MB (shows compression artifacts)

File produced using BluRay MPEG2 preset
With X4: Data rate 35.0 mbps, 309 MB
With X5: Data rate 35.0 mbps, 309 MB

So, to summarize:

A) The MPEG2 rendering works fine, doesnt show compression artifacts (horizon looks like the original). The file size increases due to the higher bit rate. The same file is generated in X4 and X5, in other words it is encoding the same.

B) The H.264 preset shows compression artifacts in both programs, probably due to the reduced bit rate as a result of the cap VS imposes. Oddly enough the file sizes and bit rates are not exactly the same, suggesting that SOMETHING was done. The output is crap in both cases however.

C) The MPEG optimiser generates a file which is the same as the original in X4, but imposes the H.264 bit rate cap in X5. In other words X5 is a downgrade from X4 for files generated in this manner (even though it claims to be generating the original bitrate when you produce the file).

D) The "same as first clip" generates a file which is the same as the original in X4, but imposes the H.264 bit rate cap in X5. In other words X5 is a downgrade from X4 for files generated in this manner (even though it claims to be generating the original bitrate when you produce the file).

The bottom line is that X5 can no longer produce an unadulterated H.264 clip from footage generated by cameras that shoot at 24 mbps. So, this is a loss of functionality compared to X4.

The recommendation is to stick with X4 if you are producing HD high bit rate H.264 footage. X5 will degrade that footage.
Both X4 and X5 appear equivalent if the footage is rendered in MPEG2 (which is pretty decent compared to the original).
I haven't tried any original footage which has a filter applied yet. X4 might render that and impose a lower bit rate (with consequent loss of resolution), I don't know.

Overall I think MPEG2 is the better option, at least until (or if) Corel patches and removes the bit rate cap on H.264.

[Natal]

According to the wikipedia entry:

Bit rate

For users recording digital television programming, the recordable Blu-ray Disc standard's initial data rate of 36 Mbit/s is more than adequate to record high-definition broadcasts from any source (IPTV, cable/satellite, or terrestrial). BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbit/s. This compares to HD DVD movies, which have a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 30.24 Mbit/s, and a maximum video bitrate of 29.4 Mbit/s.[103]

When I produce a BluRay disc I want VideoStudio to be able to produce a disc to those specifications, in other words to use my original video footage at the native bit rate, because the disc can certainly handle it. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation, the problem is that VS does not meet the specification for BluRay. It might be meeting the spec for AVCHD, but that is not the same thing. The issue is that Corel doesnt seem to understand that BluRay and AVCHD is not the same thing, and that even though camcorders have "AVCHD" printed on them, the actual footage itself is not that.

[Peter100]

Natal,

Do not mean to steal this thread but you may want to have a look at my post ( http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45612) to see what issues I have with AVCHD H.264 and X4. Obviously I would be interested if X5 has the same issues.

Peter