Powerdirector 16 Versions

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Looks like ultimate pretty much just adds some effects and templates. I'd "rather" get it than ultra, but the ultra version is almost constantly on sale for around $40, whereas ultimate is usually $100 for an actual disc version.

Just wondering if it's really worth getting ultimate...

No way am I going to pay a monthly fee to use the adobe program or pay the high cost of vegas pro. Then most other software either doesn't let you burn to BR, charges you extra to do so, is missing key features, or is slow. So I've about settled on powerdirector.

Also, judging by recent years, 17 is probably releasing in a few months, but when I asked them about it, they are making me register an account just to read their email answer. lol. So i'll probably not bother with that.

Anyway, so ultimate necessary or not? Recently newegg even had the combo of ultra and cyberlink's photo editor for $45 or $55 combined! Maybe should have just done that.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I really don't know what to do. All professional articles say you need to get 16gb, or preferably even 32 or 64 gb, RAM, have a good cpu with a lot of threads, and have a good gpu if you are doing 4k video editing. Then I am told on the PD forums pretty much opposite... If specs don't matter, what was the point of me getting good components? It's making me wonder if PD is just not as good as reviewers say.

And there are just no choices that allow BR burning... PD or VS and that's about it, unless you want to spend $400 for software.

 

[kenrivers]

I believe you might be overthinking this. What are your system specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, storage)?

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I believe you might be overthinking this. What are your system specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, storage)?

For the one I am building so far I got 32gb of ram and a rx 580 gpu. I haven't yet decided on cpu. I am not worried that my components aren't good enough. What I am worried about is that I overspent, believing what articles said about needing good specs. And people tell me powedirector's gpu acceleration is broken when using amd cards.

 

[USAFRet]

I believe you might be overthinking this. What are your system specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, storage)?

For the one I am building so far I got 32gb of ram and a rx 580 gpu. I haven't yet decided on cpu. I am not worried that my components aren't good enough. What I am worried about is that I overspent, believing what articles said about needing good specs. And people tell me powedirector's gpu acceleration is broken when using amd cards.

32GB is not overspending. I also have 32GB.
RX-580 is "probably not" overspending. It is a good GPU that will last you several years. I have one.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I'm just saying if only video editing is done, it may be. Because someone is claiming that powerdirector is broken with amd cards and that he ahs never seen ovber 2gb of RAM used (not sure if he means overall computer ram or the gpu ram). If it only uses 3gb ram, 32 is overkill, assuming I don't do anything else that requires much.

I had read where someone else was using a different program (I think the good adobe one, whose name is escaping me... the cc one) and that it uses up around 12gb of ram. So if PD uses 2, that tells me it must not be going to do a great job.

As for gpu, I'm very tempted to sell the rx 580 (it's unopened) and get a 1070 ti because even though I don't pc game, I'm thinking well if I already spent this much money, why not to even further and get better gaming with a 1070 ti?

 

[kenrivers]

I too have 32GB of RAM and don't consider it overkill. You may think you will but you won't regret the RAM purchase. My system is several years old and still works well for video editing. I have edited on systems with lesser specs and trust me it was less than a pleasurable experience.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I too have 32GB of RAM and don't consider it overkill. You may think you will but you won't regret the RAM purchase. My system is several years old and still works well for video editing. I have edited on systems with lesser specs and trust me it was less than a pleasurable experience.

But powerdirector isn't at the top of your list of goto editing software. It seems like that one, for whatever reason, handles things differently than others. Hmm, I can't think of any options though other than either use powerdirector or videostudio. Mostly because of me wanting the full blu ray burning options.

 

[kenrivers]

Only because I have limited experience with PowerDirector. I can't say anything good or bad about it with my limited experience with a much older limited version. I was using Premiere Pro and VideoStudio long before I ever heard of PowerDirector.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

I am just stumped as to what to do anymore. If you read professional reviews, every one of the video and photo editors will have big cons listed, unless you spend $300+.

For powerdirector, it says the effects are not professioanl at all.

For videostudio, it says it's very slow rendering, among other issues.

For the nero one, it said the effetcs are better than the others, but it had some issue... I forget what.

They recommended if you're spending $100+ to just get the main adobe one or final cut pro.... yeah because $100+ is even remotely close to $400+ for those products.

And I want ability to either burn blu rays OR cr3eate many other file types. Does anyone know which all programs allow for actual legit blu ray disc burning other than powerdirector and videostudio?

In the review where the professional reviewer said powerdirector's effects are not good enough, he said he turns to vegas movie studio... yet then I go and click that review and it is a ho hum review as if it's just ok and I recall that program doesn't have some features (maybe blu ray or 360 video editing) and I think limited you more on something that is unlimited in other programs.

I also want ability to zoom, which I know powerdirector ahs, but unsure of others. And would prefer motion tracking... which I think that may be what vegas movie studio lacks.

 

[USAFRet]

They recommended if you're spending $100+ to just get the main adobe one or final cut pro.... yeah because $100+ is even remotely close to $400+ for those products.

They're saying that because either you go inexpensive under $100 (VideoStudio, etc) , or you go all out with Final Cut or Adobe Premier.
There's isn't much in the middle.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

yeah, but what they said was if you are going to spend $100+, you might as well get those expensive programs, which still makes no sense because spending $100 is not the same as spending $400. they said it in an article about a $100+ program.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Do either of you know if there are any more restrictions to downloadable versions of photoshop elements vs. the boxed version? For instance, does the boxed version allow more activations of it when you have to reinstall or transfer? I can get it for $35 after all fees, but they are out of the boxed version. I'd get the combo version of it and the video editing one, but kenrivers said they took away the BR burning option, I believe. And I still have no idea on video editing software what to get.

I have various deals I must use today or lose one of them. Deciding on software, cpu, mobo, etc.... I have no decisions made, as usual, and will probably run out of time.

Usually, people seem to prefer boxed versions to digital versions of software, so I am reluctant to buy the digital.

 

[kenrivers]

Really no difference except you get the digital download faster. I have downloaded digital versions of software without issue. I get digital downloads of VideoStudio.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Really no difference except you get the digital download faster. I have downloaded digital versions of software without issue. I get digital downloads of VideoStudio.

I can't remember if you prefer paintshop or photoshop elements. I remember USAFret prefers paintshop.

Just to give a better idea of what I want in software:

1. photo editing - very basic stuff, such as creating logos.
2. video editing - ability to burn BRs or create other file types instead, not too slow, preferably gpu acceleration.

If not for comparisons showing videostudio as being slow rendering, I'd probably have got that and paid the BR license fee. Then for powerdirector a review said not professional looking effects (odd since it comes with some professional packs from third parties).

I read that RAW file edits are quicker in phhotoshop elements than paintshop, as well.

 

[kenrivers]

Have not used Paintshop Pro enough to know much about it but have heard nothing but good things about it. I am just accustomed to Photoshop so I work with what I know. Ignore the remarks about a lack of professional looking effects and seriously consider how important they are to you. Not everyone who claims to be an expert actually is one.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Effects are not important to me, but just hate to pay what these products cost and then if I want to play around with effects it be amateurish. It also worries me that people on the cyberlink site keep saying intel is better than amd for video editing (not true if amd has more cores, unless they mean only for that product...) and that VRAM of the gpu doesn't matter... when all expert recommendations say it does matter.

 

[USAFRet]

Plugins for Painsthop Pro are cross compatible with Photoshop and Elements.
Standard 8bf format.

 

[kenrivers]

The effects may look amateurish regardless of what software you use until you learn to use it.

 

[USAFRet]

The effects may look amateurish regardless of what software you use until you learn to use it.

Just like cameras.

$300 of equipment in the hands of a pro may end up in an art gallery.
$20,000 of equipment in the hands of a novice is just....crappy pics.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

True, but when someone gives a professional review and says the effects do not look professional, but that nero's effects do, it makes me assume the person has used different software and is saying even once you do know, effects aren't good, ie that it's not capable of it.

Like i said, doubt I'd use them much, but you never know... I could end up wanting to.

 

[USAFRet]

True, but when someone gives a professional review and says the effects do not look professional, but that nero's effects do, it makes me assume the person has used different software and is saying even once you do know, effects aren't good, ie that it's not capable of it.

Like i said, doubt I'd use them much, but you never know... I could end up wanting to.

To me, that suggests that they may have been paid by nero.
Those plugins just give you a starting point, and easy clicky clicky.
The brain and eye behind it is the key.

Also, this depends a LOT on what you're doing with these photos and videos.
A professionals opinion might refer to magazine quality, pics sold for $5,000 each. In which case, you buy the tools you are familiar with and produce the best output for you.
Buying a $500 software package once, and using that to create and sell thousands of $$ in images, is well worth the original investment.

Are you at that level?

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

True, but when someone gives a professional review and says the effects do not look professional, but that nero's effects do, it makes me assume the person has used different software and is saying even once you do know, effects aren't good, ie that it's not capable of it.

Like i said, doubt I'd use them much, but you never know... I could end up wanting to.

To me, that suggests that they may have been paid by nero.
Those plugins just give you a starting point, and easy clicky clicky.
The brain and eye behind it is the key.

Also, this depends a LOT on what you're doing with these photos and videos.
A professionals opinion might refer to magazine quality, pics sold for $5,000 each. In which case, you buy the tools you are familiar with and produce the best output for you.
Buying a $500 software package once, and using that to create and sell thousands of $$ in images, is well worth the original investment.

Are you at that level?

It did not say that any of that was the case, and it said other programs in the same price range have more professional effects. It didn't say you have to buy $500 software. It obviously was not catering to those who would be creating that level of professionalism or it would have said don't look at any of the $`100 software.

 

[USAFRet]

Most or all of the applications we've been discussing have free trials.
Or are actually free by design.

Only you know what supports your workflow and what you're comfortable with.
For me, it is Adobe Lightroom and Paintshop Pro. Your needs may be different.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Most or all of the applications we've been discussing have free trials.
Or are actually free by design.

Only you know what supports your workflow and what you're comfortable with.
For me, it is Adobe Lightroom and Paintshop Pro. Your needs may be different.

I don't have the pc built and my old one doesn't have good enough specs to get a good idea if I do a trial.

I thought lightroom is mostly after effects?

 

[USAFRet]

Most or all of the applications we've been discussing have free trials.
Or are actually free by design.

Only you know what supports your workflow and what you're comfortable with.
For me, it is Adobe Lightroom and Paintshop Pro. Your needs may be different.

I don't have the pc built and my old one doesn't have good enough specs to get a good idea if I do a trial.

I thought lightroom is mostly after effects?

Noooo....Lightroom is initial processing of the RAW as it comes out of the camera.