editing software ????

[thestig]

wondering what editing software you guys like to use , theres been some great videos out there with great effects. :D

[manon1wheel]

Final Cut Pro/ Adobe After Effects is what i use. The software isnt going to make a video good. you have to be able to use them properly

[richgrundy]

I'm using Corel Videostudio Pro X2.
I personally really like it's simple design and it works well for what i want to do.

[Isaac Conyers]

the most popular would probably b final cut pro (for mac). people like matty p and raphael use final cut pro from wat ive heard. but the most popular for windows i think would b either adobe or sony vegas. i use sony vegas and from wat ive heard from others its alot better than adobe but its up to personal preference really

[richgrundy]

Yeah I have loads of mates who swear by Sony Vegas, but i tried and just didn't really get and gave up.
If you understand how to work it all its a super powerful piece of editing software.

[nannerdw]

I like to use Sony Vegas, and Virtualdub for upscaling, applying effects, etc. Though IMO, you can still make some pretty good quality videos with Windows Movie Maker. As long as you just stick with simple cut and fade between shots, avoiding stuff like the blue background intro, color wheel effect, and those cheesy slideshow transitions, people will assume that you didn't use Movie Maker. :)

[MoOoG]

I'm learning to work with after effects, but i used to make'em in sony vegas. After effects is muuch better, but more complicated.;)

[phthoruth]

I like to use Sony Vegas, and Virtualdub for upscaling, applying effects, etc. Though IMO, you can still make some pretty good quality videos with Windows Movie Maker. As long as you just stick with simple cut and fade between shots, avoiding stuff like the blue background intro, color wheel effect, and those cheesy slideshow transitions, people will assume that you didn't use Movie Maker. :)

I use iMovie09 on Mac, and Windows Movie Maker on PC.

To avoid the 'blue background', drag a clip over top of the title.

Final Cut is considered the best. But it takes longer to make a movie with it, so I went with the dumb'ed down iMovie which saves time.

[Jkohse]

I'm learning to work with after effects, but i used to make'em in sony vegas. After effects is muuch better, but more complicated.;)

i wouldnt suggest making a full movie with aftereffects...unless its a short video.



but i mainly use FCP when making vids, because 1) i capture with it so all my clips are going to be there already 2) easier to chop/ cut vids down (saves time in the long run) 3) you can do most of what you need to do in FCP, like colour correcting, simple transitions and simple title stuff. But a lot of people dont understand really how powerful both of these programs are ( considering they're both an industry standard)

All i really use AE for is titles...well when making uni vids. I work with them both quite a bit as a VFX artist and as a freelance designer.

honestly, something simple and gets the job done...windows movie maker!
-add music
-capture
-titles
- pretty straight forward.

but if you'd like more freedom and have some time to kill, then see what you can make with FCP, hit up some tuts and play!

good luck

[alextrem]

what do you think about final cut express?
better than sony vegas?

[unicycler100]

I use a great program called CyberLink. Its has great effects titles etc etc. And I was told it has been rated Number 1 in the world and used by pro movie makers but too sure about that.....

[Julia B]

I downloaded the trial of Cyberlink a while ago, I like it I'm gonna buy it when the trial runs out. Its only $90 for the Ultra version and $63 for the Deluxe. Linky (http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/overview_en_US.html)

[manon1wheel]

what do you think about final cut express?
better than sony vegas?

final cut express is great!

[1radler]

final cut express is great!
+1
I have never tried FinalCut Pro yet, but i may will soon ;D

[mux]

Hi

I use Adobe Premiere for the editing and for special stuff AfterEffects.

When you watch my video @ http://vimeo.com/7223527 then everything is done in Adobe Premiere except the season intros and the 2,5d flight with the painted mountains. These are made with AfterEffects (and Cinema4d for the leaves, snowflakes and BHs)

Really love them but there are damn expensive .... and as another wrote. The software isn't that important. Personally I just need a
- cross disolve (transition from one clip to the other)
- slow motion
all the other stuff is nice to have

cu werner

[phthoruth]

Hi

I use Adobe Premiere for the editing and for special stuff AfterEffects.

When you watch my video @ http://vimeo.com/7223527 then everything is done in Adobe Premiere except the season intros and the 2,5d flight with the painted mountains. These are made with AfterEffects (and Cinema4d for the leaves, snowflakes and BHs)

Really love them but there are damn expensive .... and as another wrote. The software isn't that important. Personally I just need a
- cross disolve (transition from one clip to the other)
- slow motion
all the other stuff is nice to have

cu werner

Nice, mux. I've heard mixed reviews on Premier, as was admiring your effects... but it was the After Effects part I liked.
Except the 4 pane thing. Thats something I wish I could do, because I often have too much footage, including multiple views of the same trick, and showing several at once would be cool.

My brother in law is a pro videographer, and uses final cut pro. I've heard express is close enough.

I have a side interest in this topic. The best/popular packages produce certain file formats, and I'll make an effort to support those better at Google.
Movie Maker is wmv/vc1.
Apple, Adobe, Sony tools make mp4 (h264/aac)

I'm told the learning curve is high on Final Cut and Premier. Cost is high too. Vegas, Movie Maker, iMovie are all easier.
After Effects is great, but not a movie editor... just effects.

My tool of choice, iMovie09, has the following features
1. very fast at high def. some tools bog down, which takes away from the artistry/timing.
2. 'themes' apply default titles and transitions that are actually shipable.
3. cheap. I might like to use Final Cut Pro, but cant justify the price.
In general, I can throw a movie together maybe 30% faster than with Windows Movie Maker, and the quality will be a tad higher.

[mux]

Premiere wasn't that great in former times but now I would go for FinalCut or Premiere - I worked on both and they are more or less the same. AfterEffects is really great but it's complex - and big fun :)

Concerning iMovie: great choice - and the new 09 should include slowmotion and !! picture in picture!!!. With this you should be able to get the splitscreen results

last side: mp4 is the way to go for most video plattforms like youtube, vimeo and so on - check out the howtos on the plattforms they give you some important tips on the encoding

now I'm really curious to see your video

cu werner

[agentQ]

Premiere wasn't that great in former times but now I would go for FinalCut or Premiere - I worked on both and they are more or less the same. AfterEffects is really great but it's complex - and big fun :)

Concerning iMovie: great choice - and the new 09 should include slowmotion and !! picture in picture!!!. With this you should be able to get the splitscreen results

last side: mp4 is the way to go for most video plattforms like youtube, vimeo and so on - check out the howtos on the plattforms they give you some important tips on the encoding

now I'm really curious to see your video

cu werner


I think you are giving off the wrong idea about after effects. I know you explained it in a previous post, but AE is not really made for editing videos, it s a special effects and motion graphics editor.

And you must be confused about the mp4. thing... it is certainly not the best format for Vimeo..

[Isaac Conyers]

I use a great program called CyberLink. Its has great effects titles etc etc. And I was told it has been rated Number 1 in the world and used by pro movie makers but too sure about that.....

cyberlink power director express? i hav it and it is the shitest program i hav eva used. no pro would use it, whoeva told u that lied and if WMM had a better quality option then i would easily choose it over cyberlink.

[unicycler100]

I downloaded the trial of Cyberlink a while ago, I like it I'm gonna buy it when the trial runs out. Its only $90 for the Ultra version and $63 for the Deluxe. Linky (http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/overview_en_US.html)

Haha yea I really like it. My mate downloaded it with a crack :) shhhh dont tell any one

[unicycler100]

cyberlink power director express? i hav it and it is the shitest program i hav eva used. no pro would use it, whoeva told u that lied and if WMM had a better quality option then i would easily choose it over cyberlink.

Its CyberLink PowerDirector I really like it over windows movie maker

[mux]

I think you are giving off the wrong idea about after effects. I know you explained it in a previous post, but AE is not really made for editing videos, it s a special effects and motion graphics editor.

And you must be confused about the mp4. thing... it is certainly not the best format for Vimeo..

Sorry if I confused someone about AfterEffects - agentQ said it perfect: it's a special effects and motion graphics editor that is perfect for short short stuff and in combination with a video editing software (like Premiere, FinalCut,....)

Concerning Vimeo: thats what they say on their site "For best results, we recommend using H.264 (sometimes referred to as MP4) for the video codec and AAC (short for Advanced Audio Codec) for the audio codec."
http://vimeo.com/help/compression

[phthoruth]

Concerning iMovie: great choice - and the new 09 should include slowmotion and !! picture in picture!!!. With this you should be able to get the splitscreen results


imovie, as far as I can tell, doesnt give you picture in picture, aside from the baked in effects. which give you up to 6 picture in pictures, but limited control.

imovie does give you great slow and fast motion, image stabilization, and reverse direction. I use these a fair bit in subtle ways I hope arent even noticed. examples
in the open house titles, where there is a picture frame and usually a sign saying the trail, the trail sign is a video, not a picture, but I stabilize it. the photos from afar come out blurry, and the subtle motion adds interest.
the 'previously on' segments are 20% faster. You've seen them before... this lets me get thru key moments, show more clips, and start the real video in sync with the audio.

re mp4
I've tried a number of formats, and mp4 works best. h264 video, aac audio, and about 6mbit/s. main profile, 720p.
youtube gives you up to 2 GB, and vimeo 500 MB. The final HD transcodes will be about 2 mbits on yt, vimeo, facebook etc, but you should upload about double that for good measure.
mp4 as opposed to mov seems to have fewer issues.
wmv has 2 issues - dropped frames, if not whole sequences. and filtering... mainly on vimeo.
motion jpeg and mpeg2 would be okay, if you gave them enough bit rate.

It would be great if people could post example links.
This would show us what effects are possible, and I'm wanting to know the file formats each editors uses.

imovie 09 - open house 4
YouTube - Open House Part 4

imovie 08 - snow
YouTube - Snow in Kirkland
the snow one is kinda interesting technically. filmed on HDV 1080i, I wrote my own deinterlacer. Because imovie was mixing interlaced video with progress titles/effects.

[agentQ]

Concerning Vimeo: thats what they say on their site "For best results, we recommend using H.264 (sometimes referred to as MP4) for the video codec and AAC (short for Advanced Audio Codec) for the audio codec."
http://vimeo.com/help/compression

Excuse me, your right. However I think its not quite as cut and dry here. I have spent A LOT of time fiddling with compression settings for both web videos and DVD.

If you go into your settings and simply click MPEG, or MP4 you are not going to be getting the same results as selecting H.264. Which is a MPEG-4 part 10. All H.264 conversions are MPEG-4, but not all MPEG-4s are H.264s.

Say you have a 3 jars a peanuts infront of you one are whole peanuts, one chunky peanut butter, and one smooth. Now, your overall goal it to squeeze these peanuts into a chocolate cup(your typical video sharing site). You obviously can not get those whole(uncompressed) nuts through the peanut butter injecter(uploader for videos sake). The chunky(or typical MPEG compression) will work, but may leave gaps and and not look the best. Now your butter smooth(H.264 compression) will load right in nice and easy, giving you the most peanut you can get in a small package(best quality vs. file size), it will look and taste the best.

If time is your concern a simple mpeg-4 conversion will work, but if you can spend a bit more time with the compression the h.264 will look the same and be a smaller file, or if you so choose, be the same size file and look better.

I may be confused, but this is what I have concluded with the reading and testing I have done... I am self taught and apologize if I am incorrect here. Just my couple sense.

[mux]

Excuse me, your right. However I think its not quite as cut and dry here. I have spent A LOT of time fiddling with compression settings for both web videos and DVD....
You are completly right - all this compression settings and finetunning takes a lot of time/patience and experience ...

[phthoruth]

Are any of these tools good at manipulating multichannel audio?
I'd like to put the video clip's audio on the center channel, and music on left and right.