Huge flaw (maybe bug) with proxy

[Ken Berry]

You might want to read my EDIT 2 added since your reply -- not that it adds much, apart from a successful render at over 60000 kbps using Custom and the maximum bitrate apparently used by VS 2018 of 65000 kbps...

[RickMen]

EDIT 2: I thought I would try Share > Custom, and set my own Properties there. But under XAVC I could only use a maximum bitrate of 65,000 kbps. Anything higher was automatically cut heavily. But I could at least produce a new clip with a bitrate of 63475 kbps.

I also tried creating my own Custom template using the Add function. I did so, linking it to RickMen's clip. The Project Properties clearly showed as 99999 kbps. But when I rendered it, again I got... 32,118 kbps!

When I tried the 'Add' function I got 65mbps. Basically I've tried every which way but always got only 65mbps for the rendered clip.

[Ken Berry]

So we might at least reasonably conclude that VS 2018 *without* SP3/4 provides a better result than it does *with* those service packs...

[RickMen]

So we might at least reasonably conclude that VS 2018 *without* SP3/4 provides a better result than it does *with* those service packs...

lol. So how does Lata/Trevor manage to get 100mbps? What version of VS2018 is he on?

[RickMen]

I just did an experiment, I switched off the 'Enable Hardware Decoder/Encoder acceleration' options under Settings->Preferences->File Creation and rendered the sample clip and got 90mbps. Smart Render was on. When I get more time I will experiment with the 'Performance Optimization' setting.

Lata/Trevor,

What are your settings for the File Creation and Performance Optimization ?

[RickMen]

I just did an experiment, I switched off the 'Enable Hardware Decoder/Encoder acceleration' options under Settings->Preferences->File Creation and rendered the sample clip and got 90mbps. Smart Render was on. When I get more time I will experiment with the 'Performance Optimization' setting.

Lata/Trevor,

What are your settings for the File Creation and Performance Optimization ?

With Performance Optimization off I got 90mbps. (No change/effect)

[RickMen]

Raw clip is 100mbps, after rendering with...

With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder OFF = 90mbps
With Enable Decoder OFF and Encoder ON = 59mbps
With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder ON = 62mbps (this was my default setting)

So it appears that the Enable Encoder option under File Creation is causing the issue, when its OFF I can get 90 mbps. I'm not sure what it does to the length of time to run the render process (will check that later).

[lata]

Hi
Interesting results
On holiday at the moment but back on my pc at the weekend and will check my settings

I believe I have deselected hardware encode, will confirm later

I can then test with and without the hardware encode

I do know I had no problems using the ADD when creating a profile

[RickMen]

Raw clip is 100mbps, after rendering with...

With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder OFF = 90mbps
With Enable Decoder OFF and Encoder ON = 59mbps
With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder ON = 62mbps (this was my default setting)

So it appears that the Enable Encoder option under File Creation is causing the issue, when its OFF I can get 90 mbps. I'm not sure what it does to the length of time to run the render process (will check that later).

With regards to rendering times (using a project that was approx 9mins long made up of 4K video [H.264 HPV 24bits, 3840x2160 25 fps 99,999 kbps] with a few 16mbs photos thrown in) I got the following results:-

• With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder ON = 65mbps, render time was 3.0 mins for every 1 min of project
  With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder OFF= 89mbps, render time was 4.4 mins for every 1 min of project.

Smart render was ON for both examples.

So the trade off is that I get a rendered clip with a higher video bit rate (closer to the raw clip) but it takes longer to render (46% more time).

I quickly reviewed both clips on my 4K TV and my initial observation was that I struggled to tell the difference visually between the 2 clips, the higher bit rate clip didn't 'jump out' at me.

EDIT - BTW when I replay the higher bit rate clip (89mbps) in VS it stutters and jerks but the lower bit rate clip(65mbps) replays fine. No issue playing the clip using WMP.

[Ken Berry]

Interesting. I have just gone back and checked my VS setup. I always have both Decoder and Encoder enabled. So I tried switching them both off. Smart Render was also off. And using Same As Project Settings, I got a video with the same bitrate as the original i.e. 99999 kbps. I also tried it with Decoder on but Encoder off, and with SmartRender enabled, and in both cases also got a new video with the original bitrate of 99999 kbps...

The time it took for these renderings all seemed much the same to me, but of course the original clip is a bit too short to be able to make accurate measurements. In any case, I have plenty of time on my hands, so will leave the hardware encoder off, and live with the extra time it takes to render...

[lata]

and yes I can now confirm that my acceleration settings were all deselected, ( to be expected i suppose) hence the reason for my renders using 99999Kbps

Post updated
I have now tested with all accelerations selected and render to 99999kbps, well actually its 99998kbps.
So far I have not been able to create one using the lower rate of 65 ish Mb
Could it be that I use AMD and you Intel.

[RickMen]

Interesting. I have just gone back and checked my VS setup. I always have both Decoder and Encoder enabled. So I tried switching them both off. Smart Render was also off. And using Same As Project Settings, I got a video with the same bitrate as the original i.e. 99999 kbps. I also tried it with Decoder on but Encoder off, and with SmartRender enabled, and in both cases also got a new video with the original bitrate of 99999 kbps...

The time it took for these renderings all seemed much the same to me, but of course the original clip is a bit too short to be able to make accurate measurements. In any case, I have plenty of time on my hands, so will leave the hardware encoder off, and live with the extra time it takes to render...

and yes I can now confirm that my acceleration settings were all deselected, ( to be expected i suppose) hence the reason for my renders using 99999Kbps

Post updated
I have now tested with all accelerations selected and render to 99999kbps, well actually its 99998kbps.
So far I have not been able to create one using the lower rate of 65 ish Mb
Could it be that I use AMD and you Intel.

Thanks Guys for your assistance, I've learnt something new that I can apply to my next project. I don't know why the bit rate on my rendered clip doesn't match the raw clip (as in your examples) but I can live with it, 90ish mbps is a fair improvement from 65ish mbps. I won't be changing my hardware or software anytime soon so I'll just accept it and move on. You're gotta love VS .

[tletter]

• With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder ON = 65mbps, render time was 3.0 mins for every 1 min of project
  With Enable Decoder ON and Encoder OFF= 89mbps, render time was 4.4 mins for every 1 min of project.

Corel states that "Enable Hardware Encoder acceleration improves the rendering time required for producing your movies" and provides no further explanation of how this improvement in rendering times is achieved but leave the impression that somehow they magically tickle the hardware. We now know that in fact what Corel does to improve rendering times is to drop the data rate from 99999 kbps to 65000 kbps! This is disgraceful as obviously rendering times will decrease if the data rate is dropped but that's hardly a hardware-based approach to improve rendering times. The question is why Corel would not explain to users what this legacy switch actually does. Perhaps the current Corel programmers don't know what legacy program features actually do.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[lata]

tletter
Corel do not actively reduce the data rate from 100Mb to 65Mb to improve render times.
The program is designed to use a max data rate of 65MB not 100Mb it is our cheating of the system that forces rendering at 100Mb, a workaround.
Yes Corel should increase the data rate, maybe next version, although the next service pack would be better, wishful thinking.

Pepi
If you are after high quality you may be best to record to 50P not 25P, that would improve quality certainly within the more active portions of the video.
Using 65Mb and 50P would probably be as good if not better than 100Mb and 25fps
Although there is no point in rendering the video from 25P to 50P, it’s the recording that need changing.

[tletter]

The program is designed to use a max data rate of 65MB not 100Mb it is our cheating of the system that forces rendering at 100Mb

lata
Not "cheating" anything! Corel DOES natively support 99999kbps (see image below).

As an aside, perhaps you can explain how the "Enable Hardware Encoder acceleration" switch uses the hardware to "improve the rendering time required for producing your movies". Does it leverage the GPU, CPU, RAM or something else? Corel certain either can't explain or doesn't know. That's too bad as it would help users select systems that would increase VS performance.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter