Talk:List of video editing software

Encoders vs. non-linear video editing

I'd like to change this list such that it distinguishes between softwares that are just encoders and those that can actually be used for non-linear video editing. I'm gonna go ahead and start on that. Others are welcome to make changes and/or discuss it more here... Blackcats 03:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There should clearly be 2 distinct list / page. One for editing software and one for encoder. These are very different in purpose and usage. --Videoqualia (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is mencoder not much more than an encoder? I mean, it has cutlist and pipe support and can therefore do much more than just encoding. It can in principle do everything one might ever need when editing videos (although it might be to clumsy to work on the command line). 140.78.111.41 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vegas

shouldn't it be the "Vegas Family" or just "Vegas" instead of explicitly mentioning "Sony Vegas MovieStudio+DVD" (the low-end version of the Vegas programs)?

just did that change...

Possibility?

Why not include the Zwei Stein video editor in the free non-linear software section?

Because it's not free as in speech? FrederikHertzum (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Opuvai 202.86.222.249 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why Proprietary/Freeware distinction

• There seems no logical reason why the list should be separated based on commercial or freeware. Preferable would be a have a complete alphabetical list with price or freeware listed beside it as is currently done with the platform information. LetterRip 06:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, I'd suggest a list looking like this one - Comparison of instant messaging clients. Lemmio 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comparison of instant messaging clients is more comparable to Comparison of video editing software than it is to this page. This one is more comparable to List of antivirus software or List of word processors. --Lengau (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• The distinction between Freeware and proprietary software is void because Freeware is proprietary software. What is called "proprietary software" in this article should be called commercial software (and even this wouldn't be correct, since there is commercial open source software and commercial free software. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html)! -- MaxBruckner 11:36, 07 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hello. You are right. I changed it to "Commercial". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The categorization here is still a bit confusing, since as [User:MaxBruckner|MaxBruckner]] says, there is free code software that is commercial, such as Kaltura. It seems to me that there are three distinctions a user needs to know about. Considering the main reason a person would look for a list like this is to find software to use for a video-editing project, I think the order of significance is 1) libre/ proprietary, 2) client-side (desktop/ mobile)/ server-side, 3) gratis (free of charge)/ commercial. I suggest a list like this:

• free and open source
  • desktop
    • item (gratis)
    • item (commercial)
  • mobile
    • item (gratis)
    • item (commercial)
  • web
    • item (commercial)
    • item (gratis)
• proprietary
  • desktop
    • item (freeware)
    • item (commercial)
  • mobile
    • item (freeware)
    • item (commercial)
  • web
    • item (freeware)
    • item (commercial)

Danylstrype (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Commercial does not mean that it is not free/gratis. There is commercial free software, and there is commercial freeware, too.—J. M. (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibility of Including Another Program Under "Video encoding and conversion tools"

Why not include SUPER © from http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html It's one of the best video conversion tools I've come across. --Dave 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also consider adding HandBrake from http://handbrake.fr/, a utility for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux. It's one of my favorites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.233.45 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blender removal

I don't believe Blender is a video editing program in the sense the rest of these are. Blender focuses on 3d rendering. Any thoughts?

Liastnir 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blender has changed a lot since I used to use it regularly, and yes it does now include some quite useful video editing, details of which can be found at http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Video_Sequence_Editing mmj (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a LOT of other programs on the NLE lists that either are not for editing at all (Wax) or which are currently unusable for editing (Jahshaka). Someone should do a clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.229.77 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Blender has a sequencer (video editor) built in (see [1] and following pages). It is not as usable as a dedicated Non Linear Editor such as Cinellera, but it does work. m.e. (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree - Blender is a great program but does not belong in this section and shows a lack of technical moderation. I have used Povray for creating technical animations \ Movies since 1996 but it's not a video editor. Clock+ does not make Povray a video editor. Please can we have some contributions from people that actually have more than a passing interest in this subject or is the article just a big advert ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.59.247 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Blender is appropriate for this list, perhaps more than some of the other applications listed here. Chris Long, Senior Systems Engineer at Red Hat, wrote a blog last year about using video editing software on GNU/Linux . He wrote that he tried a number of the packages on this page, including Pitivi, OpenShot, AVIDemux, and Cinelerra, and found them unusable. Blender was what he finally turned to and he reports that it worked well as a video editor. He gives a links to a list of tutorials for using Blender as a non-linear video editor.

Danylstrype (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References

AviTricks Classic

I suggest the removal of the AviTricks from the "Freeware" subtitle because the sofware is not free. The so called "freeware" is a 30 day trial version.

Tried it, lasted less than an hour on my hard drive before being deleted. Difficult and non-intuitive user interface, I was required to watch a video in order to achieve even the simplest tasks. It's obvious the lady from the video has no ideea what is she reading.

(Generally speaking I found the video helps very difficult to watch, you lack the liberty to navigate quickly back and forth to make the necessary links between different fragments of information. Probably a video help may be good for illiterates but I'm wondering if an illiterate person can, or is willing, to use a computer.)

I managed to trim successfully the begining of a video but I failed to do the same with the end of it. Was it my fault or the fault of the software, I can't say for sure.

What made me to give up quickly, was a message box. Trying all kinds of features, at a moment I received a message telling me that I'm using a debugger and the execution ended abruptly saving nothing from my work.

Whether I use a debugger or not it's only my business. I will not tollerate a software wendor to tell me what other software can I have on my computer. The computer is my property not his. Actually, because I'm a programmer, I have the Microsoft Visual Studio installed and that comes with a debugger. I'm not going to uninstall it and change my profession just to run that "precious" software.

Videothang?

It seems Videothang is free to download, but I cannot find the source code anywhere. I suggest we move it to the closed-source freeware section unless someone can show otherwise. I'll check back in a week or so. --Lengau (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, not open source. Their license agreement is available here: http://www.videothang.com/support/includes/vt_eula.php It prevents any distribution or modification of the software. I'll update the page mmj (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Other ones under "open source" category

ZS4 is also not open-source, so I have moved it to the closed-source free section. I have only looked at this and Videothang so far, but I suspect a lot of the apps in the open source section are not actually open source. My minimum criteria for open source is that firstly, you can obtain the source just as easily as you can obtain the software, and the secondly, you have a license to modify the software and redistribute it yourself. The ones I've checked sofar satisfy neither. mmj (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

disapointing

The info I need is about user freindlyness, freeware, quality. This is the most disapointing article I have read so far.. kr Finn Bjerke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn Bjerke (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

VirtualDub

Is it really a non-linear editing program? There's already this debate about it. -79.176.117.112 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not a non-linear editing program, but it does have a place under video conversion and encoding. 70.119.44.175 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ifx Software

Shouldn't ifxAnt and Piranha Cinema be added? Anyone have any info about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.44.175 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

solveig Software

I've been using a really neat video splitter from www.solveigmm.com - I'm not techie enough to know where it could be listed, but it would be nice to see it included.Tony Senex (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AsfBin

Does AsfBin belong in this article? Freeware for personal use. Description from the home page, first link below:

"AsfBin is a command line utility for cutting out fragments, joining, editing and repairing ASF files. AsfBin can be applied to any ASF file, that is, not only to those with ASF extension but also those with WMV and WMA extensions. Precision, speed and the maximum fidelity was my top priorities in design of the AsfBin software. Not to mention, of course, reliability of this tool.

The whole operation is performed without recompression of the whole file. On a user demand, only a couple of first samples may be recompressed to give the ultimate precision in cutting. Because of that, the video quality is not degraded and the resulting file remains as unchanged as possible."

www.radioactivepages.com/index.php?docid=asfbin&lang=en&section=software

wakoopa.com/software/asfbin

RGB2 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think programs like AsfBin should be included in a separate list with a name like List of video conversion, cutting and pasting software. Or maybe it should be a separate section in this list, I don't know. I will add here more programs, to prepare that future list. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Split and Join utilities:

• MPEG Streamclip - convert, cut and join MPEG video files
• mpgtx - split and join MPEG videos, command line - GPLv2 - reference
• Mpg2Cut2 - cut MPEG2 files - GPL
• MP4Box - cut and join MP4 files - part of GPAC Project on Advanced Content package

—  Ark25  (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If they do not have an article on Wikipedia, they won't be included. That's the policy. Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good protection against adding crap software in the list but it's not a perfect approach. Many times the lists contain red links and that's good because it invites the editors to create those articles. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is ArcSoft ShowBiz listed as Discontinued?

Why would ArcSoft ShowBiz be showing as discontinued in the list, when it is still available? Maybe because it is called ShowBiz DVD 2, and there was originally one just called Showbiz?? Just a guess. When you link to the Wiki page on it, there is nothing about being discontinued, and the link to the company takes you right to the ShowBiz DVD 2 page, where you can buy it. 157.142.237.137 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Software \ Dead links.

The basis for software inclusion in the list appears to be based on a personal bias and not related to any historic or factual knowledge. Some of the listed projects are dead and have been for years. If you follow the current published links to SourceForge you get this : "It's dead. No traffic on the openlibraries dev list since april 09. No news. No nothing.

posted by piksi 2009-08-23 "

(Please check this BEFORE just moderating this and deleteting this post)

The above is documented - visibly and publicly available and had any care been taken over the Wiki content would be have been discovered many years ago.

According to sourceForge some projects listed that started in 2001 have less than 200 worldwide followers. I downloaded the source and it just plain does not work. Has the moderator got any technical knowledge but more importantly have they even checked what they publish.

Please find a moderator for this article who will at least do their (minimal) homework or at least check the links every 3 years. As much as I hate to criticize Wiki you get a fairer opinion from Cnet\Download.Com where real people download and use real software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.59.247 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no moderators on Wikipedia. The basis for software inclusion is based on the official Stand-alone lists guideline (if there are other products that are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article and the information needed for inclusion is verifiable, sure, they can be added to this list or even replace the dead ones—but the fact that a product has not been updated in the last 2 years does not mean it is dead). As for the fairer opinion from Download.com: this is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place to offer opinion on anything. All other principles by which Wikipedia operates are described in the relevant Wikipedia policies, guidelines and other articles. I would recommend familiarizing with them. Five pillars and Content content policies are good places to start. Two quick tips: Be bold (if you find an error, dead link etc., just go ahead and fix it), and sign your posts.—J. M. (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Semantics

• Removal of co-opting terminology "open-source" and replaced with appropriate terminology "Free Software" especially when software uses GNU GPL.
• top level software characteristic is either Free Software or Proprietary. Several software projects that are Free Software by GNU GPL have a commercial component to them, i.e. MariaDB has a commercial support, Canvas has commercial support, etc.
• Suggest a history of the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman prior to engaging in discourse on the topic.

Dgeeraerts (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I am afraid your edit was awful. First, why did you bother altering the layout with all the third level headings and <br/> tags? The result was almost the same as what we have except it was unnecessarily complex and non-standard, without offering any additional benefit in return.

Now, the person who must study licensing schemes first is no doubt you yourself.

• First, why do you change the classification model without moving the articles? "Freeware" are all proprietary. So are some open-source software.
• Second, why do you change it at all? The top level characteristic in this list is NOT whether they are proprietary or free software. The classification of this list concerns distribution model, not publisher's right model. All the problems that you mention above concern your own classification model, which means what you are doing here is creating the problem that did not exist.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

External lists

Wikipedia has articles about seven of the items on this list of '10 best free video editing software' for 2013. The three missing an article are:

• No 2: Kate's Video Toolkit
• No 4: VSDC Free Video Editor
• No 10: Ezvid Free Video Editing Software

MPEG Streamclip, Free Video Dub, & Freemake Video Converter from that list have a Wikipedia page, but are not mentioned on this Wikipedia list. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw that external list is being (almost) replicated/translated at [2] and [3] and [4] and [5]. A shorter list of only three items is [6] . Another list is [7] A separate source for Kate's Video Toolkit is [8] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, John. The ability to selectively convert a portion of video to another format is still transcoding, not video editing. So, MPEG Streamclip and Freemake Video Converter are still not editors. Free Video Dub, however, can trim video without transcoding; that makes it a video editor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know Freemake Video Converter can do so much. It goes on the list too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I'm more concerned that we don't list Kate's Video Toolkit, if it is so good. It is surprisingly hard to find good sources about Kate's Video Toolkit, so I am not 100% confident that it is all it is cracked up to be. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am afraid adding that item isn't as easy as you think, John. According to WP:NOTDIR, a fundamental policy, Wikipedia is free to catalog its own artles however it sees fit, but otherwise, it is not a directory of everything. In other words, since Kate's Video Toolkit does not have a Wikipedia article, the person who adds it to the list must also supply evidence to prove that it is noteworthy. A good review in a reputable magazine would do. Try PC World, Softpedia or Download.com for an editorial review. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

add Kaltura as a video editing software?

Kaltura is a server-side package that can be used for setting up a web-based video platform, under the terms of GNU AGPL . Since a Kaltura server can be used for a number of video-editing functions , would it be an appropriate addition to the "free and open source" section? Or is this page only for client-side editing applications? Danylstrype (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Kaltura is already listed, if you found good references you can add them on the Kaltura article (not here.) –Be..anyone 💩 08:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed, but not under the "free and open source" section. Isn't that where it should be, being AGPL?

Danylstrype (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Flowblade

Why has Flowblade been removed? Matiph (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to include software which has no article yet for two reasons.

• The list helps users to get an overview of lots of products and might be the first place to search for them.
• Articles are more likely to be written for relevant, industry-standard software and/or they could be added to the Comparison_of_video_editing_software

Matiph (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

These reasons are irrelevant. We generally do not include red links in stand-alone lists. If the products are notable enough, the articles will be written anyway. (And furthermore, when you add a red link to a list, never mask it as a minor edit and lump it together with some unrelated reorganization. This is a serious etiquette violation.)—J. M. (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ffmpeg

Is there a reason that FFmpeg is not on this list?

I don't know if it does "non-linear editing", which is a requirement according to the second sentence in this article -- but is not mentioned in the title.

I think it belongs for a couple of reasons:

1. It's one of the building blocks used by other software including other video editors; see Category:Software that uses FFmpeg.
2. It's capable of outputting videos in the free formats WebM and Theora; as of 2018-01-09, Wikimedia Commons prefers WebM but also accepts ogv (Theora).

It's listed in the Wikipedia article on List of free and open-source software packages as a "Video converter", but I've used it to trim both ends off of a video file as well as converting to WebM. I believe it can do lots more, but I don't know it well enough to discuss that.

I plan to add ffmpeg to this list.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Under active 'Proprietary (commercial)' ADD Vimeo's video editor - URL: https://vimeo.com/tools/video-editor/ Sam.frenzel13 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It must be notable enough for its own article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

I want to suggest we add Shotstack to the Proprietary (commercial) list. It's a non-linear editor that hosted in the cloud. Not sure how we'd add that in? Summer2301 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is a list of topics with preexisting Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Wondershare Filmora?

I'm not very knowledgeable on the distinction between video editing software and others, but I do think WonderShare's Filmora would fit in the list. Is is now as powerful as some others but I can do everything Windows Movie Maker, who is in the list, was doing and more. 66.131.97.175 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

AceMovi

AceMovi Video Editor is a newer proprietary (free - crippleware) editor (released around 2021 - although not documented). May not yet have enough rep. for immediate inclusion, high up in the waiting list is the next best thing. Lmstearn (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Showbox.com - why was it ever included in this list, in the first place?

Fellow editors and contributors,

I discovered that 'showbox.com' listed here on this page, now points to a domain-squatted page promoting gambling in Indonesia. So I, immediately, moved the entry to it's corresponding discontinued section.

However, a little bit of digging seems to indicate that 'showbox.com' was never a video editor, in the first place -- it was a pirate streaming service. So, listing it here was a mistake (or gaming Wikipedia's link juice for SEO?) to begin with.

I'll research further to confirm (or disprove) my suspicion, but if anyone knows any confirmed information, I would appreciate if you shared it here. Thanks. Snartech (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)