jt49

My suggestion??? Are you a clairvoyant?

Hi Daniel Of course, the video's frame rate and the monitor's refresh rate are independent.But as you say, on a monitor with a refresh rate of (say) 60 Hz it is recommended to run videos at 60 or 30 fps (and not 50 or 25). So it would be fine if PTE would offer more possibilities to match the parameters of particular environments. I have not been thinking of mixing clips different frame rates. Think of simple jobs like making a few video cuts or of re-encoding, just for a single video clip. Typically, in a video editor or even in a re-encoding tool like XMedia Recode you will find the output option "Use original frame rate". For this kind of jobs PTE is not prepared. On the other hand, the underlying encoder (used by PTE) would be able to do it. I don't think that offering additional frame rates (like 10;12.5;15, 23.976; 30.00; 60.00) will be a big affair. The only drawback that I see is that some people who do not know much about video might become a bit more confused than they are already today. Best regards, jt

Did I overtax you? I'm so sorry

Hi Daniel, I am not that much interested in TV standards. I normally to run my AV productions, and those of my club members using a PC (or notebook), either on my PC monitor or using a projector. In both cases the refresh rates are around 60. So frame rates like 25 or 50 are not so good. So in my case, 60 seems the way to go. But what does 60 mean? My PC monitor runs at rates about 59.9503, my notebook with its own monitor at a rates slightly greater than 60.0. Looking at the specification of our projector, I see various refresh rates, depending on the resolution (59.95 for WUXGA, 60.0 for FullHD). Having this in mind it might be an advantage to have a choice between 59.94 and 60.0 when exporting videos from PTE. As I said in some other post: I often receive videos from others that run at 30.0. If I cut such a video in PTE, it would fine if I could render it at the original frame rate (30.0, and not 29.97). Best regards, jt

I don't have Premiere on my computer, but I am pretty sure that Premiere will be in the position to render at 30.00 and 60.00 (the same will hold for Final Cut). Igor's screen shot from a tutorial on Premiere does not show the drop-down menu for possible frame rates, but a menu for often used presets. If you look at this list, you will not find 30.00, but you will see 23.976, a frame rate that seems to be recommended for Instagram. Unfortunately, PTE does not offer 23.976. Why not? X264 is able to render at 23.976. I also looked at videos at YouTube. Most YouTube videos seem to be rendered at 25.00 or 29.97, but I also found examples at 30.00 and 60.00. So again, my question is: Why doesn't PTE offer the frame rates that the underlying encoder (x264) is capable of?

Photoshop offers 29.97, 30.00, 59.94, and 60.00, and so does Wings Platinum! Most of my club members use WP, so I often receive Videos at 30.00.

In version 10, I would like to see video export with additional frame rates like 30.00 and 60.00 (in addition to 29.97 and 59.94, presently called 30 and 60).

All in all, I am not very happy with the present situation. The said problem is not a 4K problem, and I would not regard it as solved. It seems to be true that 60 often means 59.94, but not in all cases. I often receive videos that run at 30.00, and I would like PTE to offer video export at 30.00 and 60.00, as well (like other AV programs). Like many others, PTE uses x264, and this encoder supports 30.00 and 60.00 (and many others). So it should not be a big affair for PTE to offer additional frame rates.

I made a short test with 9.0.17Beta using the notebook's own monitor. My observations are similar to those of Adrian. I started PTE twice, once using the Intel graphics and then using Nvidia. The preview ran well in both cases. In both cases I created short exe-files. Both ran well with either graphics system.

Perhaps a good reason for an update

test10 starts with both graphic systems (images are not sharp). test9017 only works with the Intel system.

This is definitely not true. When using HDMI my notebook automatically uses the Nvidia systems (Video, and (if the external device, like a TV, has an Audio component) Audio as well).

For me the situation is not OK, but not extremely bad, as the Nvidia system only does not work for PTE shows with the notebook's own monitor. When using external devices via HDMI the shows run well (PTE shows, V8 and V9). BTW: Shows created with m.objects and Wings Platinum are not affected.

I have a Medion gaming notebook with an Intel graphics system and an Nvidia 770M. The Nvidia driver is 397.31. Here are my observations: 1. pte9013, pte9014, pte9015, pte9016 all run well on the notebook's own monitor when choosing the Intel system 2. pte9013, pte9014, pte9015, pte9016 all show an access violation (as to be seen in the posts above) when running on the notebook's own monitor while using the Nividia 770M 3. pte9013, pte9014, pte9015, pte9016 all run well on an external monitor (via HDMI) when using the Nividia 770M Additional observation when using the notebook's own monitor: When I just click pte9013 and pte9014, they start using the Intel graphic system (which is default). When I click pte9015 and pte9016, they start using the Nvidia system (even though the Intel system is default).

There is a newer one: Version 397.31 (24.21.13.9731) from April 2018.

On two machines, I had some problems with the Nvidia graphics drivers. I had to re-install them.

There is a disadvantage with "Transparent to selection", as the the objects remain not clickable even when the show is running. The alternative: Avoid "Transparent to ..." and activate "Ignore objects not selected" (Tools menu). Then you may click an object to be moved in the object list, which then can me manipulated with the mouse.

Did you check your spam folder? You may contact the WnSoft's Support: https://www.wnsoft.com/en/support/

Ich würde bei Problemen mit der Bedienung nicht endlos herumprobieren, sondern hier im Forum Fragen stellen. Ich bin ab morgen für einige Tage verreist, Ende nächster Woche aber wieder erreichbar. Einige englischsprachige Teilnehmer antworten aber auch auf deutsche Fragen (mit Google-Übersetzer). Alternative: Fragen in Englisch bei "General Discussion".

Hallo Berny, ganz hundertprozentig fundierte Auskünfte kann ich Dir nicht geben, da ich weder "ProShow Gold" noch "AquaSofte Stages" bei mir installiert habe. Soweit ich es weiß, benötigt man bei ProShow aber die Version "Producer", um gut damit arbeiten zu können. Nun bin ich kein typischer Anwender vorgefertigter Effekte. Für mich sind andere Leistungsmerkmale wichtiger, etwa Masken oder Keyframing für Audio und Bildobjekte. Diese Funktionen bietet aber nur die Version Producer. PTE ist vom Grundkonzept her ähnlich wie ProShow. Shows bestehen aus einer Sequenz von Slides (in der deutschen Fassung "Szenen" genannt). PTE bietet aber im Audio-Bereich durch sein Spuren-Konzept deutlich mehr als der Producer. Zudem bietet bei PTE der Editor "Objekte und Animation" ein einzigartiges Werkzeug für die Positionierung und die Animation von Bildern und Videos. Die Objekte können dabei hierarchisch angeordnet werden (Vater-Kind-Beziehungen), wodurch Animationen wie Cube oder Rubic's Cube erst möglich sind. Vorlagen enthält PTE nicht so viele. Im Forum sind allerdings einige Benutzer sehr aktiv und stellen viele Konstruktionen zur Verfügung (Styles & Templates). Wer ganz auf die Anwendung von Vorlagen aus ist, der sollte sich den Producer und die zusätzlichen Vorlagen-Pakete kaufen. Wer aber kreative Shows selbst gestalten will, fährt m.E. mit PTE deutlich besser und zudem noch deutlich günstiger. Welche Version von PTE soll man kaufen? Ganz klar: "Deluxe". Bei Essentials fehlen doch einige wichtige Funktionen (Audio-Steuerung, Modifikatoren, einige dynamische Effekte, Farbmanagement, ...). Es dauert nicht lange, dann braucht man sie. Nun zu AquaSoft: Von Aquasoft bin ich persönlich nicht überzeugt. Hier haben wir ein Mischkonzept zwischen Proshow und m.objects. Wie man z.B. hier sehen kann, sind manche Konzepte (wie die 3D-Animation) komisch oder nicht ausgereift, man kann eigentlich sagen "fehlerhaft". Für kreatives Arbeiten benötigt man auch bei AquaSoft die teure Version (Stages), die mit 249 Euro auch kein Schnäppchen ist. Auch die Update-Kosten von Stages 9 auf Stages 10 waren mit mehr als 160 Euro auch nicht gering. Also: Mein Fall wäre das nicht. Was soll man kaufen? Für mich ist das keine Frage mehr Gruß jt

Ich habe die Diskussion im deutschen Forum fortgesetzt.

Berny, are you German? Then we might have a discussion in the German section of this Forum.

I agree! BTW: I'm looking forward to see your contribution to the Challenge 321, jt (organizer at München)

I'm sorry to say that I have deleted my topic from yesterday accidentally. So here, I post it again Maybe, that this topic has been discussed before, I don't remember? In the Timeline it isn't possible to link 2 or more audio clips to the same slide. I have often asked myself why this "feature" has been introduced. I don't see any reason for this restriction. In fact, we can circumvent this restriction, as in the Project Options (Audio tab) we really can link several clips from one track to the same slide (marked red, but it works). I often make use of it. I typically cut commentary into very short clips. So I often have 2 or more clips that belong to the same slide, and I want to link them all to this slide. Placing the clips on different track would be awkward. My recommendation for the actions in the Timeline: Allow 2 or more clips from the same track to be linked to the same slide. ------------- There have been 2 replies: 1. jkb just said "+1". (That's fine ) 2. Jean-Cyprien pointed out that it is possible to link several clips to the same slide, provided that they are located on different tracks. He also asks, why I regard the placement of clips to different tracks as awkward. My reply to Jean-Cyprien: From my original post it should be clear that I know how linking works. Regarding a situation as awkward is a matter of personal taste. I prefer to keep my timeline as clear and tidy as possible. And for me a smaller number of tracks is helpful with regard to this aspect. Let me say it again: IMO it does not make any sense to have the present restriction on linking when working in the Timeline. It just seems to be a feature that sometimes forces us to have more audio tracks than we really need