Video editors, editing WMM, VSDC ect

[Radio Tech]

Since I started my YouTube channel I got hooked on Windows Movie maker.
As we all know, I am still a noob to all this video making editing and YouTube stuff.

So when I started I ran into a guy that showed a lot of cool stuff (The Meejah channel) and it sort of stuck with me since he had a nice tutorial on WMM.
But I think it is time to upgrade to something better. One reason is when I upload a video to YouTube I always see a message that says this:
"Your videos will process faster if you encode them into a streamable file format."

But WMM gives no other file format to save and upload with. Yes I have researched this but may have missed something.
I have a decent upload speed here but sometimes it takes my videos longer to upload than what I think it should. One of my last videos I did yesterday is still in the process of uploading. I started it last night and it appears to have just stopped. (Large video) I had to restart it and now at 65% 103 minutes remaining.

I have searched the internet but as we all know there is a lot of bias on what editors to use. But I know a lot of you good folks are also video bloggers and I trust your knowledge.
Not ready to purchase anything yet (got no money) so like to hear what others are using, how you like it, and why you use it.

I did download VSDC free editor from Meejah this morning but have not tried it yet.

[IanJ]

I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD V11.0 (not free).
I have tried upgrading to Sony Movie Studio Platinum V13.0 (same or similar to what Dave uses) but prefer V11.0 as the desktop player is a lot smoother in V11 for some reason.

The cheapest in the range is £32.95

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftware

Ian.

[vinicius.jlantunes]

I use blender, as WMM does not work well in Windows 10 so I was forced to find an alternative. Blender is not exactly a video editing software, it's much more than that; video editing is just one of its "modules".
It's free.
https://www.blender.org/

It was a bit complicated at first as it is not as intuitive as WMM, but then I watched this guy videos' (Mikeycal) and now I can do all I need. Here is the playlist on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjyuVPBuorqIhlqZtoIvnAVQ3x18sNev4

The only thing I find missing for my use is ability to add text captions more easily / with more control. It does have a "add text" option but it doesn't allow you to choose fonts etc...
Other than that it's good enough.

[Mechanical Menace]

While at the same time throwing a recommendation for http://www.openshot.org/ I've got to ask if WMM does everything you need except for outputting the right video formats why not just stick with that and find a video converter you like?

[mariush]

I'm also using Sony Vegas to edit my videos.

Cheaper (yet very similar to Vegas) software would be Sony's Movie Studio : http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/homestudio

The latest version (13) is around $50 but the previous versions (v12 or v11) are still available on sites like Amazon : http://amzn.to/1od4wv3   (v11 retail / box is $12 .. seriously cheap)

v11 is new enough to work quite well with hd content but you can see for yourself how different they are if you want, you can download trial versions from the sony link above.

[Radio Tech]

Wow, lots of cool replies. thanks all. I will look into each one. Perhaps a paid program is the way to go since my channel is growing.

While at the same time throwing a recommendation for http://www.openshot.org/ I've got to ask if WMM does everything you need except for outputting the right video formats why not just stick with that and find a video converter you like?

See, that right there is the stuff I have to learn. like I said I am still a noob when it comes to this stuff.  Going to look into converters and see what I can find.
Thanks very much for all the great comments  folks.

[SeanB]

If you are willing to go through a 2 part process use Handbrake.fr to convert to a YT format, as they have a built in conversion to the YT MKV format.  Takes pretty much any video file and converts it, and works well.

[Radio Tech]

Thanks Seanb I will look into that also.  I know there are betters ways than the way I am used to. Just have to learn more

[Halcyon]

I personally use Adobe Premiere and very occasionally Avid, but I don't suggest you run out and buy either of those for a YouTube channel.

You could try OpenShot Video Editor which is free and open source. It originally started as a Kickstarter project a few years ago. It's quite powerful for a free program: http://www.openshot.org/. It's interface is very similar to other bigger non-linear editing packages so it's also a great way to learn.

[rdl]

I ran across a few web postings that indicated WMM could export to formats other than .wmv, are you sure you don't just need to change some options?

If that's not the case, then Handbrake (free) can convert just about anything to x.264 (AVC/AAC) in either .mp4 or .mkv container format. The original will have to be re-encoded in the process.

[Radio Tech]

Halcyon. thanks, I will look at that also.
 Yes I do not want to spend major bucks at the moment to do this.  Mu last video was over 5gb. Biggest one yet. Seems it times out before it finishes the upload. Thinking a better format would be the choice.

rdl,
I looked but every posting I found said no. So think the converter may be the way to go.

[Someone]

It may not have the extensive tutorials of other software but the price is right:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/davinciresolve
The editing is only recent but already very capable, text/captions/image overlays are all simple enough (not drag and drop). What impressed me was the speed of the output rendering, having waited hours for Final Cut to render outputs it was a surprise to see it all happen realtime or faster.

[Brumby]

I may be out of the price bracket with the product I use - Cyberlink's PowerDirector.  Lots of features.  Lots of tracks.  I've used hardly any of the features, but I feel I've got my money's worth.  You can get it packaged with other companion software or on its own for around $US80, I think.

Multiple formats - and it can publish direct to Youtube.

[EEVblog]

I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio, because at the time when I switched to HD it was the quickest editor out there in terms of playback and rendering (if you chose the right format) on the machine I had.
Not perfect, no package is, but it's what I'm familiar with.
I used to use Corel VideoStudio for my first few hundred videos, it was a decent cheap package.
Have also used NCH Video Pad a few times, and I think it's really good for basic editing work. I had format corruption problems though, A bug they never seemed to fix last I checked. But worth a look for the price, the interface is easy-peasy.
Have also tried almost every other video editor on the planet, including the fanboy favourite Adobe Premiere. I found the usability of Premiere horrible for the workflow I'm used to.

[EEVblog]

Halcyon. thanks, I will look at that also.
 Yes I do not want to spend major bucks at the moment to do this.  Mu last video was over 5gb. Biggest one yet. Seems it times out before it finishes the upload. Thinking a better format would be the choice.

You should not be uploading 5GB video to Youtube.
Use Handbrake (x264) to compress the video using Constant Quality mode first:
https://www.eevblog.com/2013/04/16/designing-a-silent-cheap-video-editing-pc/

[EEVblog]

The editing is only recent but already very capable, text/captions/image overlays are all simple enough (not drag and drop). What impressed me was the speed of the output rendering, having waited hours for Final Cut to render outputs it was a surprise to see it all happen realtime or faster.

On Sony Movie Studio I get about x4-x5 real-time rendering speed to XDCAM EX at 30fps. 50fps is horribly slow because it has to use the Sony AVC codec.

[Someone]

The editing is only recent but already very capable, text/captions/image overlays are all simple enough (not drag and drop). What impressed me was the speed of the output rendering, having waited hours for Final Cut to render outputs it was a surprise to see it all happen realtime or faster.

On Sony Movie Studio I get about x4-x5 real-time rendering speed to XDCAM EX at 30fps. 50fps is horribly slow because it has to use the Sony AVC codec.

The comparison was rendering to industry standard H.264 (prores) on consumer computers while running colour correction, no doubt there are faster options with other considerations or just exporting without any processing.

[EEVblog]

The comparison was rendering to industry standard H.264 (prores) on consumer computers while running colour correction, no doubt there are faster options with other considerations or just exporting without any processing.

Yes, huge difference is you have to do any processing.
But if you have to do any colour, whitebalance, or other processing for youtube videos, then I must say that you are doing it wrong. You shouldn't have to do these things, get it all right in-camera.

[Someone]

The comparison was rendering to industry standard H.264 (prores) on consumer computers while running colour correction, no doubt there are faster options with other considerations or just exporting without any processing.

Yes, huge difference is you have to do any processing.
But if you have to do any colour, whitebalance, or other processing for youtube videos, then I must say that you are doing it wrong. You shouldn't have to do these things, get it all right in-camera.

You say its wrong, others disagree, manipulation of video is just another option for producing video. Only the very high end production cameras have enough in camera controls to produce broadcast deliverables straight up (TV uses these extensively to reduce expenses in the workflow) and you can improve the information in a video by utilising its possibilities rather than presenting "auto" from a camera.

[EEVblog]

You say its wrong, others disagree, manipulation of video is just another option for producing video. Only the very high end production cameras have enough in camera controls to produce broadcast deliverables straight up (TV uses these extensively to reduce expenses in the workflow) and you can improve the information in a video by utilising its possibilities rather than presenting "auto" from a camera.

You mentioned producing Youtube videos, I know a thing or two about that 
Looking at your Youtube channel there is nothing that can't be done in-camera, just like I do it.
If you are talking commercial TV video production etc, then I know nothing about that, but yes, plenty of reason to do stuff in editing.
I do practically everything in-camera, and you don't need a high end camera to do so. At least not for Youtube video.

[Someone]

I dont recall making any link to any youtube channels, unless you've got some backend access to link google accounts?

Lots of different people work in different ways, its arrogant to claim yours is the one true way and every other possibility is wrong.

[Radio Tech]

Great stuff everyone.

You should not be uploading 5GB video to Youtube.
Use Handbrake (x264) to compress the video using Constant Quality mode first:
https://www.eevblog.com/2013/04/16/designing-a-silent-cheap-video-editing-pc/

Until this thread. I never even heard of Handbrake. Told ya I was still a noob.
Interesting stuff and gives me a lot of research to do. Most of my videos are short, around 2GB, This one was the longest one I ever done.
Now I know I can find better options.
Thanks Mate

[EEVblog]

I dont recall making any link to any youtube channels, unless you've got some backend access to link google accounts?

The OP mentioned Youtube.
Sorry I confused you with the OP.

Lots of different people work in different ways, its arrogant to claim yours is the one true way and every other possibility is wrong.

I claimed no such thing. Just saying that I know a thing or two about Youtube video production.

[EEVblog]

Until this thread. I never even heard of Handbrake. Told ya I was still a noob.
Interesting stuff and gives me a lot of research to do. Most of my videos are short, around 2GB, This one was the longest one I ever done.
Now I know I can find better options.

Basically it comes down to the quality available on youtube.
Even if you have the world's best video camera, and you render to 1TB of uncompressed raw video (some of my videos could be!  ) and upload that to youtube, the playback quality will be no better than a version heavily compressed (that is 1/100th the files size) with Handbrake and uploaded.
Handbrake is so good, even the standard quality factor, it's almost impossible to tell the difference from the original footage. More than good enough for Youtube and almots any other platform.

The standard constant quality factor on Handbrake is 21 or 22, and I use 19 which is really guilding the lilly, for no good reason than because I can.
The final file size will depend upon how much moving content is in your videos. My screen capture videos for example compress down to ridiculously small files sizes, with no loss in quality. On the other hand, one of my outdoors video with tons of motion and tress and whatnot won't compress well at all, in which case I usually don't even bother with Handbrake, I just upload the rendered version.
But most of my videos though get maybe a 5 fold decrease in file size by using Handbrake over what I render in.
I do not archive the rendered version, only the Handbrake version I upload.

[Brumby]

The comparison was rendering to industry standard H.264 (prores) on consumer computers while running colour correction, no doubt there are faster options with other considerations or just exporting without any processing.

Yes, huge difference is you have to do any processing.
But if you have to do any colour, whitebalance, or other processing for youtube videos, then I must say that you are doing it wrong. You shouldn't have to do these things, get it all right in-camera.

There is a simple principle involved in ANY photographic pursuit: Get your raw shoot material as close as possible to finished quality as you can.  Post production processing is an inordinate waste of time if you have to correct for things you could have (and should have) captured properly at the shoot.  Getting it right straight into the camera will produce a better quality result, too.  I believe THIS is what Dave is saying.

Editing and adding special effects are different - but even then, less is more - IMHO.