I have been using studio for about 5 years. I just upgraded to 12. I read a post that said picture montages burned to DVD are not as sharp in 12 as they were in 9. I agree. Also I just converted a VHS tape to DVD in Pinnacle and compared the quality to doing the same VHS to DVD copy with a Panasonic combination DVD-VCR recorder player. I used the custom setting in Pinnacle leaving only 4 min remaining on the disc and the 2 hour setting with the Panasonic unit. The DVD made with the Panasonic unit was sharper.

My question is this; there any Pinnacle users who also have experience with the competition? I have been looking at Power director (great review in PC magazine) and Adobe premiere elements 7. Do they produce sharper video on DVD? Can they be used on the same computer with Pinnacle without the programs fighting?

thanks, 

I have Power Director 7.0 on the same computer as Studio 12. They work fine together but be aware that if you have any Smartsound it will be overwritten when you load PD 7.0. they both are SS compatible. You will have to reload any SS sounds that you have. The same is true in reverse.

 

Buddy

Various factors explain why there is no easy way to do a rigorous quality comparison of NLEs. 

Budtow presents a valid reason to be cautious and not experiment with multiple NLEs on a single system.  Besides potential conflicts, each product leaves a big trail on a hard drive that can be messy to track or clean up.  System performance can slow down too.

There is also a "learning curve" for any product, and few people will do a twin version of a project on two NLEs, from scratch to finish, to test the respective playback quality.

NLE reviews in most publications or sites are based on rather quick surveys by people who must write several reviews a week to earn their way.  That entails far too little time to check out an NLE in detail.  Another constraint is that any "expert review" is likely to harp on things that leave an average novice buyer cold, or might not see the forest for the trees.

Camcorderinfo provides some fairly objective comparisons of the quality of various models' video, using fixed tests.  Too bad no site offers a similar comparison of the output of various NLE products.

Some playback software may present options to display some rigorous measure of bitrate, compression noise, and contrast ratio.  This might help the analysis, but I've never seen a product-by-product analysis with this rigor.

One thing is certain: all the primary consumer NLEs offer similar prices for their basic products, then try to earn premiums through sales of plug-ins, updates, and add-ons.  Another thing is nearly as certain: it's a tough business, and not very profitable in the current market.  Avid and Corel are the only two public companies whose video software is a large enough component of their sales to gauge the segment profits (or lack thereof).  Other companies are private (Nero, Cyberlink) and disclose no financial data, or else the video software product is only a tiny fraction of their business (Adobe, Apple, Sony).  I'd bet that the consumer NLE segment profits have fallen or are in the red right now.  Some firm's continue to post profits overall, albeit down, but that does not mean it is easy to get capital assigned to upgrade the NLEs or provide support.

Nero is the most versatile and economical product, but has the least depth, so far as video editing features go.  The consumer versions of Premeir and Vegas offer some depth, but are hard to learn, lack convenient add-ons like Montage, and the forums and support are dominated by people who may know one element of videography well, but possibly never held a camera or burnt a disc. Ulead products are nice, but its parent Corel is the most financially distressed of any.  Roxio sells some popular disc burning software, but (last time I checked) does not provide full support of AVCHD.  Cyberlink's PD is a close competitor of Pinnacle Studio in many respects.  Some say it is more stable, but I also read forum postings that observe image quality loss.  One reason I'd not bother to switch to PD is that it offers no AVCHD smart render advantage relative to Studio.  The reason Nero's smart render feature is not that attractive is that it works only when burning a disc, and the editing function and burning function launch separately.  Files exported from the edit function are recoded, and the edit platform is very bare bones.  People who say Nero loses less image quality can only be referring to burns of big clips which got no editing.  Studio Ultimate has lots of add-ons and effects platforms which I admit I've only begun to experiment.  One could spend a week to cook up a 1-minute super-dooper title sequence in Boris.  The only big disappointment is that neither the built-in image stabilizer or the Mercalli version work as they should (no miracles, just some stabilization, please).  No product I know of preserves native Dolby 5.1 sound, making 5-channel sound a somewhat useless export option.

Studio's biggest advantage is its user interface. It allows you to do fairly complex projects and to use lots of robust features, if you want, but it does not require you to wade through all that complexity if your project doesn't require it. (My primary job these days is to design and test user interfaces:-) )

You could argue that Studio doesn't have all the "nice to have" features that some others do, but I have been using Studio for many years, and I am still finding new features and plugins to explore. My knowledge and imagination are still the limiting factors in my video editing, not Studio.

I have downloaded and used/tested several other NLEs over the years and, so far, I keep returning to Studio.

Studio's second biggest advantage (a close second) is this forum. If you explain your problems clearly and are willing to learn, this forum will always find a solution for you.

Studio's handling of AVCHD (a little sluggish and not always maintaining image quality) is the only negative I would mention, but there are ways around it, for now, and with another generation of processors and graphics adapters, that will disappear.

B

 

The most  important feature of any video editing software is its ability to output sharp videos on DVD. I guess my question is-- How does Studio compare to others in its price range. If I did the same project with all the major consumer editing packages that are out therre (such as power director, adobe premiere elements, etc, etc.--Would they all look the same or do some software packages produce cleaner sharper video to DVD?

thanks,

Over the years, I have used Movie Maker, ULead Studio, Sony Vegas and the Nero Suite. I haven't seen much, if any, difference in the final output. I use Studio most because it does what I need to do and it is relatively simple to use.

B

 

heavytiger:

The most  important feature of any video editing software is its ability to output sharp videos on DVD.

Fuzzy video is obviously a drawback.  I'd say that most of the leading NLE products are competitive from the vantage of IQ preservation or loss in any edited video.  The clarity of a standard DVD will depend mainly on the quality of the source video and the bitrate of the output.  There are no secret geek or granny formulas about turning AVI, MPEG2, or even AVCHD to MPEG2 on a DVD.  Nero allows "smart render" export of AVCHD video to HD discs, but it must be unedited video, and the IQ preservation is less relevant to creation of standard DVDs.

 Since the lead products are competive by that hurdle, I'd say that the greatest elemental distinction of the various products is the ability to control or enhance sound.  Nero allows only single level sound settings to any native sound or added sound or music enhancements.  There can be no faded or sequentially varied adjustment to level, balance, or fade.  Neither is there a sound scrubber or pitch control integrated directly to the editing platform.  Obtuse or jerky volume levels, or bad sound, are as much a drawback to good video as fuzzy images.  I read the PD7 includes better control of sound than prior versions, but must defer to others about whether it includes a scrubber.  Premier elements may or may not.    As in the case of Vegas, such enhancements are probably available, but at a higher all-in cost.

 

 

I would like to add software that is mainly designed for slide shows to this discussion. Can one make a sharper and more interesting slide show with this type of software vs video editing software? Slideshows in Pinnacle don't seem to have sharp still images and stills seem to shimmer at times.

 thanks 

heavytiger:

I would like to add software that is mainly designed for slide shows to this discussion. Can one make a sharper and more interesting slide show with this type of software vs video editing software? Slideshows in Pinnacle don't seem to have sharp still images and stills seem to shimmer at times.

 thanks 

Let's look at two different scenarios ... two slideshows made using 5-mega-pixel still photos.

• In the first, you use software that creates a slideshow on your PC monitor by directly calling the photo files one at a time, maybe adding some transitions and music. The photos being displayed are using the full 5-mega-pixels of data to display the pictures. Of course, your monitor has much less than 5-mega-pixels, but you'll get the best quality your monitor is capable of delivering.
  
  You might be able to load all the pictures and a runtime version of the slideshow player onto a data DVD and share it with someone.
  
  
• In the second, you want to create a DVD video of your slide show so you can share it with just about anyone. The maximum resolution of a DVD is 720x480, so when you render the slide show to DVD video, the maximum number of pixels you have is 345600 or about 1/3 mega-pixels. This has nothing to do with Studio or any other video editor. It is the DVD standard. You cannot retain the full quality of a multi-mega-pixel photo when you render it to a video format.
  
  Even if you make a Blu-Ray DVD, the best resolution you can get is 1920x1080 which is about 2 mega-pixels.

It really comes down to what you want to do with your slideshow and how you want to distribute it I guess, but I doubt if video will ever be able to reproduce the full resolution of a still photo. Both will continue to improve and still photos will probably always be higher resolution.

B

 

heavytiger,

As bhurst says, the type of output is what determines the final (visible) quality of the picture.  I use both ProShow Gold (a Photodex program designed to make slide shows) and Pinnacle Liquid to make slide shows, and I see no difference in "quality" of the final slide show on the computer screen.

Do any video editing applications include the ability to burn discs with menus that link to slide shows which can be an annex to a video section, enabling the viewer to go forward or backward in the album without any fixed time constraint?  Likewise, do any have the ability to have an audio annex where a production could include interviews or readings whose audio files would use much less disc space?  Many commercial DVDs or BDs include such "extras."  It would not seem to require much programming to add the ability to the usual editing and burning software products.

JKoch:

Do any video editing applications include the ability to burn discs with menus that link to slide shows which can be an annex to a video section, enabling the viewer to go forward or backward in the album without any fixed time constraint?  Likewise, do any have the ability to have an audio annex where a production could include interviews or readings whose audio files would use much less disc space?  Many commercial DVDs or BDs include such "extras."  It would not seem to require much programming to add the ability to the usual editing and burning software products.

That is where you're getting into the realm of a Disc Authoring system as opposed to a "mere" Video Editing system.

If you need multiple audio programs, subtitles, complete control over the IFO navigation structure, complex navigation, mixed audio formats, mixed video encoding bitrates, "easter eggs", etc. you'll need to reach a bit further than a simple video editing application.  (In my opinion, anyhow.)

BittMann