Video editing software

the camera records directly to mov? wtf? not avi?

convert to avi.
Dude, that's retarded. AVI and MOV are both just container files. They tell you nothing of the codec(s) used, nor does switching the container make it any easier to edit the file.

Free : Wax (http://www.debugmode.com/wax/) and Windows Movie Maker 2 are good ... for free. If you roll Linux, Kino is incredible.

Cheap : The video editing suite in Nero Ultra edition is actually pretty good. Pinnacle Studio 8 is also good. Both are under a $100. Worth it if you want to do light editing.

Expensive but worth it : Vegas Video or Adobe Pinnacle. I loved Vegas when it was still being developed by Sonic Foundry, but its still good under Sony. Pinnacle had a learning curve you're probably not going to want to tolerate unless you have a lot of time on your hands.

[/thread]
 
Dude, that's retarded. AVI and MOV are both just container files. They tell you nothing of the codec(s) used, nor does switching the container make it any easier to edit the file.

yeah, but avi with PCM audio is usually the standard for camera recording. It's not retarded to be surprised that it's being saved to mov. Just like it wouldn't be retarded to be surprised if his camera saved to compressed tiff rather that jpg.

Converting would make it easier if one program doesn't support the format, right?
 
yeah, but avi with PCM audio is usually the standard for camera recording. It's not retarded to be surprised that it's being saved to mov. Just like it wouldn't be retarded to be surprised if his camera saved to compressed tiff rather that jpg.

Converting would make it easier if one program doesn't support the format, right?
Yes and no is the short answer here. Yes it would be better if it were AVI because it would probably be an uncompressed wav file with either full frame or MJPEG video. Yes, it would have been surprising about 2-3 years ago to see .mov, but Apple has been practically giving it away in terms of licensing lately because of their push into the consumer electronics arena under the strength of the iPod. Since its cheap and uses less space than AVI, its practically a no brainer for manufacturers. MOV is actually much better suited to editing than AVI, Matroska, or possibly even MP4 depending on what's encoded in the MP4's private streams. Chances are that in this case the video is still MJPEG since its quick and cheap to implement and the audio is a 16k mono wav. By changing the container, you're only robbing Peter to pay Paul. Yes, you make it easier for a given program to read it, but in turn, you're going to make it more difficult and processor intensive to edit. Since there are plenty of free programs that can edit both effortlessly, Occam's razor says get thee a better editor.

I'd warn against using pirated copies of Sound Forge and Vegas. If its cracked, there's about a 99% chance there's malware in there. If the dude gave you a real life install disc and activation code, then no worries.
 
I'd warn against using pirated copies of Sound Forge and Vegas. If its cracked, there's about a 99% chance there's malware in there. If the dude gave you a real life install disc and activation code, then no worries.

Very easy to remove the malware or just get a clean pirated version, also very easy
 
yeah, but avi with PCM audio is usually the standard for camera recording. It's not retarded to be surprised that it's being saved to mov. Just like it wouldn't be retarded to be surprised if his camera saved to compressed tiff rather that jpg.

Converting would make it easier if one program doesn't support the format, right?

Not really nowadays. There are cameras now that record in straight divx even.

As its been said quicktime in the end is a container. when people complain about it being slow and buggy most of the time they are actually taking about the codec being used which more than likely was sorensen which was very popular with Quicktime a few years back. Most people today just use plain mpeg-4 in the quicktime container, which is probably what the camera did, along with cameras out now that record in divx.
 
Not really nowadays. There are cameras now that record in straight divx even.

As its been said quicktime in the end is a container. when people complain about it being slow and buggy most of the time they are actually taking about the codec being used which more than likely was sorensen which was very popular with Quicktime a few years back. Most people today just use plain mpeg-4 in the quicktime container, which is probably what the camera did, along with cameras out now that record in divx.


the surprise comes from that it's from a digital camera, not a digital video camera. either way, I get the point.

..we really took advantage of the vid funtion of our camera given how much more we could capture in each port.
 
You can get Xilisoft video converter that will take .mov to mpg, avi, wmv, mp4, anything...then that will import into Premiere...

The reason most people rag on premiere in the reviews is cause it is VERY much a rip off of Final Cut (the Mac preffered video editing software)

Premeiere is a piece of cake to use...if you can get your videos into it.

Windows movie maker is even easier LOL but that will DEFINITELY not take .mov files.