Free video editors for Windows
I want to edit videos and really like Adobe premier but not its price. I find many low cost of free tools far to simplistic.
I want an editor with more than 1 video channel,
More than 1 audio channel,
Visual and audio transitions.
Must have HD support.
What would you recommend folks?
I want an editor with more than 1 video channel,
More than 1 audio channel,
Visual and audio transitions.
Must have HD support.
What would you recommend folks?
Post edited by Scottie_uk on
Calling all ASCII Art Architects Visit the WOS Wall of Text and contribute: https://www.yourworldoftext.com/wos
Comments
Lightworks, just the ticket, big thanks :)
they never got back to me :(
Well I've registered, been accepted, downloaded and installed lightworks.
However, whilst being open source, to get full access to updates, and the fully unrestricted version, one must become a member: ?20 per year for educational membership, and ?40 for professional membership. Standard membership is free but users are restricted to only the free version of Ligjhtworks which I presume is crippled in several ways.
I think its a bit rich that open source is chargeable albeit by a rather creative means. It seems businesses are distorting the true ethic of open source software, and learning how to monetise the hard work of those working voluntarily and presumably with no payment.
http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?storeKey=gb&pid=prod3910160&cid=catalog3550067&segid=1153&ym_mid=1390756&ym_rid=85309016
Not that I agree with the way 'developers' use open source and call themselves programmers, I have to agree with this too... it's just wrong.
1) obscure, hide, or otheriwse remove certain things from view, i.e number plates, and speedometers
2) have a much more accurate editor, time wise, let me cut it to the exact frame, not just guess where I am between two whole seconds, and then do the same with the sound, and hope it fits
#2 is probably more important
I think people might start to suspect something when Jar Jar Binks crops up in his bike videos and the Titanic sails by in the background...
and a tread mill big enough for a motorbike.
genius, right there.....well, that or a Darwin award in the making but either way I salute you
erm, anyone know of software to remove time stamps from video?
I find time stamps very useful when editing hours of footage, but don't neccessarily want it on the finished project
erm, is that like compost?
Maybe you should just observe the speed limit instead ;)
Try Virtualdub, there's a few logo\timestamp removal filters available for it (eg MSU Subtitle and Logo Remover) as well as standard overlaying. It all depends what you want the finished section to look like - black barred or blurred.
supposed to be 30 seconds long, by the time I've joined the files, my converter is saying it's 31 seconds,, by the time I upload it to you tube, it's 32 seconds
it's really very frustrating trying to get my stuff to do what I want it to do :(
Open Source doesn't mean free and never has. It doesn't even mean that you get a license to use the source. The term Open Source has been around for decades and can mean anything from a company insisting on access to source code for auditing as part of a software contract all the way up to GPL style "give away all the code" licenses.
The way that the perception of the meaning of open source has been perverted to one specific example is as annoying as the news calling computer criminals hackers :p
Feature list: http://www.zs4.net/features
If you look at the final FLV you'll see it's 953 frames at 29.97fps which is one of the NTSC formats. You probably captured it with a PAL system at 25fps. I'd say the difference in times is down to the Youtube conversion process with a bit of rounding off to the nearest second thrown in for free.
I don't know what you're using the record the video but a lot of devices like mobiles etc use NTSC frame rates rather than PAL. If you are recording in PAL then you definitely want to make sure you're editing the footage as PAL and check that when you upload to YouTube that it doesn't convert the frame rate.
I am recording with a Drift Stealth HD 170 camera
it saves as .mov files
I then trim these with Quicktime
I then use Freemake video converter, either to join files together, such as half a dozen separate clips that I have trimmed out of a large .mov clip, and upload to youtube, or to convert to .wmv files. once converted to .wmv files, then I use Windows Live Movie Maker to add sound etc
Irrespective, when you have unpaid volunteers working on your code, is it not imoral to profit from this work, unless they are getting somthing credible out of the deal?
Are we still talking about Lightworks? Cause as far as I can see
a) there is no open source version because it's been delayed
b) they're opening their source, not getting other people to write stuff for them
If we're talking about open source stuff in general you do realise that the vast majority of development for stuff like linux etc is sponsored by big corporations like red hat, google, IBM etc?
There's this myth that all open source software is written by weird blokes with beards in their spare time. While those people do exist, a lot is written by programmers employed by vast software companies so yes, they do get something credible out of the deal, they get paid.
I get that second part but it does not usually involve a membership fee. If they want peeps to develop plug ins for the platform when why not release an API and a revenue share development model rather than charging membership fees for the use of what they intend to be open.
I dont need a yearly membership fee for a linux distribution, though I would be prepared to pay a small one of fee for a good distro that was pre-configured.
Also, the public version lacks many core features one would expect on budget tools, such as the ability to add titles in (without the work around of adding transparent PNGs). Adding images for more than one frame requires a stupidly long and fiddly work arround.
I think the idea of cutting out these core features is so they may sell them as a plug in at some point. However, that is purely my own speculation.
My current opinion, thumbs down.
The point of Enterprise Linux distros like Red Hat is that you pay for a support contract so you know that someone will fix any bugs for you and extra bits and pieces of software that they release under different licenses that make the system more useful.
It seems like some people are a bit spoilt by the amount of software that is available for free. It seems to create an expectation that everything should be. If someone doesn't want to give away their software they don't have to...