@CubeAce

Hi Ray

As confirmed by @Willem-vdfdeJong, there are no effects being applied, testing with these present in a project can cause 'side issues' in the results obtained, thus complicating determination what the HWA issue is being caused by, and is a bug or not.

. . . . How do you use the resulting files to create a usable disk after or check in a software player? . . . I have three main folders. Folder three appears to be empty. . . . .

The root folder, which will have a name structure similar to: BD H264 Image abcdefghijk, and contains the three folders are the pre-prepared files created before packaging them into the ISO file.

All the files which are not video files, or audio files, contained in them are the 'control elements' of the disc that the player references to play the disc video files correctly as required and manage the menu(s), chapters and other features such as subtitles, sound control, language selection etc, you will see there is some redundancy provision included.

These can be used for testing with a software player if it supports playing a folder eg VLC, PowerDVD.

MEP/VPX used to have a menu item to burn a disc from the pre-prepared files, they can also be used burn a disc from, if the burning software supports pre-prepared files.

Personally I always test the ISO image created by mounting the ISO image as a drive - right click and select Open with... , Windows Explorer.

Then test/play with player software eg VLC, PowerDVD, Nero Blu-Ray player etc, to test the image functionality before burning to disc.

John EB

@johnebaker

Quick question, because I'm wondering.

MEP/VPX used to have a menu item to burn a disc from the pre-prepared files, they can also be used burn a disc from, if the burning software supports pre-prepared files.

Let's say you have those pre-prepared files and you use software like Nero Burning Rom to simply and directly burn them to a BD, then is the BD going to work normally in BD players etc? Or is the BD not going to be recognized?

@johnebaker @Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi John.

OK, I made a 22 minute project with just files butt joined. No effects or titles. most were 4K clips but one or two HD clips as well.

Exported using the basic settings for Blu-ray HD (1920 x 1080) End files seem to be interlaced. Total project folder size is 3.86GBs.

I did not start this recording before I had checked both GPUs were in use and both showing signs of encode / decoding as I know a screen recording could skewer the results. As OBS is set to use the nvidia GPU it had little impact on the performance of the Blu-ray rendering. I hardly saw a twitch as OBS started. The files were completed in just over six minutes.

I have to go to Gatwick early tomorrow so will upload the folder for John to test later tomorrow as I clearly am lost on such things.

Ray.

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi

. . . . pre-prepared files and you use software like Nero Burning Rom to simply and directly burn them to a BD, then is the BD going to work normally in BD players etc . . . .

I do not have access to a BD Player at the moment so cannot completely test, however the method certainly works using Nero Burning ROM, ImgBurn and Windows File Explorer to burn the pre-prepared files BD (UDF) disc, and plays from an external BD burner with PowerDVD and VLC.

I always advise:

Using rewriteable discs, DVD-RW or BD-RE, for the first burn for 'quality control' check, and testing. Once the movie(s) is/are as required then copy the rewriteable to permanent disc DVD-R or BD-R.

Use a BD player and TV, wherever possible, for QC and testing, as often something will show up, that you may miss on the computer monitor, that needs correcting.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

. . . . Blu-ray HD (1920 x 1080) End files seem to be interlaced . . . .

That is correct - the BD AVCHD/h.264 .mts standard calls for interlaced video. MPEG-2 however is progressive

John EB

@Willem-vdfdeJong, @CubeAce, @AAProds, @browj2

HI All

An update to my previous comment:-

'I have found a Nvidia GPU NVENC development guidance document which would suggest that the RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000 series GPUs cannot encode 'h.264 field information', further digging is necessary to determine what this means'

Interlaced encoding support has been removed from all RTX GPUs based on the Turing (RTX 2000 series only), Ampere,(RTX 3000 series) and Lovelace (RTX 4000 series) architectures.

The argument in the NV forums for removal appears to be that Interlaced video is over, done with, obsolete! 😕.

The only question, still unanswered, is why Al, and I, were seeing HWA of interlaced video and not now, has the driver the support finally been removed from the drivers??

John EB

@johnebaker

"The only question, still unanswered, is why Al, and I, were seeing HWA of interlaced video and not now, has the driver the support finally been removed from the drivers??"

So, if it has been removed from the driver it means you need to "downdate" your driver?
And is this the case for RTX cards only or also GTX cards?

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi.

I honestly don't know as a lot of GTX and RTX cards use the same drivers.

I don't know about other sites but the ASUS website has a list of older nvidia drivers you can download there going back to 2021 if you want to give it a try.

Ray.

@Willem-vdfdeJong, @CubeAce

HI

. . . . So, if it has been removed from the driver it means you need to "downdate" your driver? . . . .

That is my next step in testing, I have 3 older drivers downloaded for testing.

. . . . And is this the case for RTX cards only or also GTX cards? . . . . I honestly don't know as a lot of GTX and RTX cards use the same drivers. . . . .

It is the Turing based RTX cards only, ie the RTX 2060 and higher.

The GTX 1600 series, based on the Turing architecture, should not be affected. If they are, and are running on the latest drivers, this would suggest the support for interlaced video rendering is missing in the drivers.

. . . . the ASUS website has a list of older nvidia drivers . . . .

I would advise against using these drivers, they may be customised, unless you have the ASUS graphics card they are designed for.

John EB

@johnebaker @Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi John.

As I have an ASUS GPU I downloaded and installed 537.58 studio driver from the ASUS site and it made no difference.

Using the 3060 V2

Ray.

@johnebaker @CubeAce

My GPU is from Gigabyte. I thought I'd try installing the driver from their website but it made no difference either.

https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Graphics-Card/GV-N166SOC-6GD/support#support-dl-driver

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi.

That saves me swapping out my graphics card to my old Gigabyte 1650 Super then. I notice the Gigabyte site had much older drivers as well.

I am not getting the warning about updating the driver though.

Ray.

I just tried making the BD project with the MPEG-2 setting in stead of h.264. I get normal Hardware Encoding that way but the compression is bad and the color information is downright ugly, like a gremlin that crawled out of the sewers... I will for sure never use it. But the alternative (I've tried it again for a bit), I've seen the counter hit 25 hours remaining and then it jumped back to 3 seconds and started counting up again to a full day.
Unfortunately I haven't yet received a reply to my email to Magix... This issue needs to be resolved in the next 8 or 9 days, otherwise I'm going to contact Magix and ask for my money back.

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi,

What you describe tells me that you have some effects or bad file or something on the timeline that slows everything way down. When that happen to me (excessive export/encoding time), I export all or parts to Magix mxv if I can find where the blockage is, import the results to a new project or movie, set the Movies/Chapters and then do the burning.

This issue needs to be resolved in the next 8 or 9 days, otherwise I'm going to contact Magix and ask for my money back.

And use what? Another program that has the same features (good luck with that) and that will have the same/similar/more problems? You need to figure what is holding up the process.

Why don't you contact Magix and ask them for help first? We are just users and we don't have your project or your computer, so we can only speculate.

Are you aware that the burning part of VPX is almost identical to that in MMS. The only difference that I have found between VPX and MMS is that you can export the burn design to a PSD file, modify it in Xara or Photoshop, and import the result into VPX - reserved only for brave souls,

The time it takes me to actually produce a video before getting to exporting or burning far exceeds the time to export/burn, and I don't have to be present for that. I start exporting or encoding and go to bed or do something else if it is going to take a long time.

John CB

@browj2

I have tried everything. Including using different files. There's nothing else I can do. It's up to Magix now.

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi Willem.

I have just had a thought. What CPU do you have?

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

Willem's system is,

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790k
GPU: NVidia GeForce 1660 Super

See this topic for more info and it looks like the HD4600 cannot be used, and the 1660 is not HWA h.264 interlaced, because it is TU116 architecture not the TU117 which does support HWA of h.264 interlaced.

John EB

@johnebaker

and the 1660 is not HWA h.264 interlaced, because it is TU116 architecture not the TU117 which does support HWA of h.264 interlaced.

Oh.. Ok, thanks for that info. If that's true there's no reason for me to continue using VPX15 then.

Edit:

https://www.magix.com/nl/videobewerking/video-pro-x/technische-gegevens/#c1763169

I feel like this bit of information borders on false advertising then. Why would they recommend hardware if it's incompatible with the complete program? "NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1050ti or higher"...

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi

. . . . I feel like this bit of information borders on false advertising then . . . .

Technically the specs are correct for the majority of exporting, ie: h.264/AVC and HEVC exporting to Progressive video.

It is Blu-Ray disc and, AVCHD disc and mts, Interlaced video export, which is in a minority, that is not supported.

Part of the problem, which complicates with whom does the 'buck stop', lies with Nvidia mixing chip architecture types across the similar model number GPU's, ie

TU116 GPU's - no HWA with h.264/AVC interlaced video

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER    
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 TU116
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

TU117 GPU's - HWA with h.264/AVC Interlaced video

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile

John EB

@Willem-vdfdeJong

Hi Willem.

The thing is, we also encountered your problem but John overcame it by kickstarting the hardware acceleration with the Intel GPU. That is not how it is supposed to work but is a workaround. In that sense it can be described as a bug as we can verify the behaviour. As John said, and I suspected, and why I asked the question.

Unfortunately your Intel GPU is too old. Had you an older version of the program it probably would work. There is very little in the realm of video editing programs that is backwards compatible. It's one reason I'm not using the latest offerings until I can upgrade my own CPU and motherboard. I'm finding performance degrading with each new release.

Each new release is configured for the latest hardware but they try to keep it as backwards compatible as they can. My copy of VPX 14 does not always export projects as well as my copy of Movie Edit Pro 2022 which is why I have personally stopped upgrading the products. I think but I'm not sure, that the reason your GPU can't be used is it is not fully Direct X 12.1 compliant. (I was wrong, apparently it does.)

Having some experience with working with advertising agencies in the past I know how they can spin the idea of cheesecloth into seeming to be waterproof.

In this instance I read the minimum specs as to mean needing both a working Intel inboard GPU and an additional GPU to get the basic functions of the program. Most people would read it as needing one or the other.

No company I know of deliberately points out it's own weaknesses.

I don't know whether this will be fixed by Magix of not but personally I would not hold my breath. The specs needed to run the programs are very closely specified by most of the other major players. They may or may not have exactly the same problems in the same areas. That would be difficult to ascertain.

I'm sorry how this has turned out for you but if you can find a boxed copy of VPX11 I think that should work.

Ray.

@johnebaker @CubeAce

If there is some hardware that is not fully compatible with the software, they should specify that in the system recommendations. Not simply say "This and up". A software programmer knows what he is programming so he should communicate it to others if they are going to use it and pay for it. Being general with your recommendations may be acceptable to some, but not to me.
I have decided to return the product due to the company failing to correctly communicate on multiple occasions. And since this is not the first time I need to do that I will never buy a Magix product again.

Thank you both for your energy you put into this issue.