# Video Editing software



## Bob Sanders

I do A LOT of video editing and have the more expensive programs (Sony Vegas Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid MC) but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

You just want to replace the music track I'm assuming?
PowerDirector will do that, along with Video Studio and Premiere elements, and a few others.
Here's a review on the lower end major players:
http://video-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

Most of them have trial periods and they all pretty much do the same thing just in different ways so it's a matter of test riding and picking the one you want. They all have their glitches too! It's been a while since I have played on the lower end software but I'll try and answer any specific questions you have.

Most people just record music from Cd or where ever and throw that on but if you want to replace the music track with computer generated music then have a look at SmartSound. It even integrates into some of the video software (Pinnacle Studio for example) and can automatically adjust for peoper start and finish time. The music album selection is large but they aren't cheap though.


----------



## joed

Not just replace the audio. I do want to do some cutting and editing.


----------



## Bob Sanders

They will of course all do that.

Don't know how much you want to get into this but it might be worth mentioning that Adobe Premiere Elements and Sony Veges Movie Studio (not listed in the above review but very good) do have big brothers more on the pro end. So if there is a chance you want to take this further you might want to look at those two because both the big brothers operate similar to their little brothers. This makes it easier to advance since you already know their basis of operation.

Some of the editors there have what is called GPU rendering as well as CPU rendering. The graphics processor (if you have the right one) can render video at a faster rate. Personally speaking I never really cared for it. CPU rendering is a bit slower but I think it produces a slightly better quality and I would rather have the quality than the speed.

SmartRender is another thing you may want to look at. You're dealing with a lossy format so every time you edit it and rerender you lose a bit of quality. Smartrendering tries to preserve as much quality as possible by not recompressing the parts of the video that don't need it (the parts you didn't edit.


----------



## ZZZZZ

I second the motion for Adobe Premiere Elements. Current version is v13, but if you're a real cheap SOB like me, and you don't need or want all the very latest bells ans whistles, you can buy a slightly out of date version on FleaBay for +/-$50. Very far out of date but still perfectly functional versions are around $30. It usually comes bundled with PhotoShop Elements, which is a fine program for photo/graphic editing.


----------



## joed

The newest version you can't even buy it outright. You have to subscribe to it with an annual or monthly subscription. If I go with adobe I will look for an older version.


----------



## Bob Sanders

joed said:


> The newest version you can't even buy it outright. You have to subscribe to it with an annual or monthly subscription. If I go with adobe I will look for an older version.


That's Premiere *PRO*.

You want Premiere *Elements* (pro's little brother);

http://www.adobe.com/ca/products/premiere-elements.html

Premiere pro is a rather complex program (one of which is used in Hollywood) that is far more than what you need


----------



## PD_Lape

All that has been mentioned are I think overkill for what you are planning to do. Those softwares do have trials but are difficult to drive. You would need a decent computer to run those smoothly. I recommend playing with free video editing softwares for starters. VSDC free video editor should do the trick for you. I wouldn't really spend money on something I'd only very rarely.

-Paul


----------



## Bob Sanders

PD_Lape said:


> You would need a decent computer to run those smoothly..
> 
> http://www.northlandwholesale.com


Just about any machine can run the consumer level software with SD video. In fact some of the pro programs can be run quite smoothly on just about any machine too provided you're processing SD video in a standard format.

It's HD video which can be a bit more difficult to operate smoothly. Playback with AVCHD 1080p60 on the timeline with a few effects can be slow and painful if you don't have a fast enough machine


----------



## PD_Lape

Bob Sanders said:


> Just about any machine can run the consumer level software with SD video. In fact some of the pro programs can be run quite smoothly on just about any machine too provided you're processing SD video in a standard format.
> 
> It's HD video which can be a bit more difficult to operate smoothly. Playback with AVCHD 1080p60 on the timeline with a few effects can be slow and painful if you don't have a fast enough machine


My bad. I assumed the OP doesn't have an updated computer. I'd still stick to what I said though. It also sounds like this is a one time thing. So why pay for a software you're not gonna use for a long time? There are tons of freeware out there that can do just fine.

-Paul
_____________________________________________________________


----------



## joed

The computer is running an Intel duo core @3.16Ghz with two 160 gig hard drive.
The project may be on hold for while as the VHS conversion to DVD quality appears very poor. I think it might be the original transfer from film as the video just looks out of focus. I will have to look at cost etc of getting the film converted again. It was some else who did the original transfer in 1995 and provided me a copy.


----------



## PD_Lape

joed said:


> The computer is running an Intel duo core @3.16Ghz with two 160 gig hard drive.
> The project may be on hold for while as the VHS conversion to DVD quality appears very poor. I think it might be the original transfer from film as the video just looks out of focus. I will have to look at cost etc of getting the film converted again. It was some else who did the original transfer in 1995 and provided me a copy.


That system should be able to run consumer level video editors as Bob mentioned earlier. If conversion is the problem, I doubt you'd be able to do much with any software. It's rather tedious to enhance a poor source and even that wouldn't yield a significant difference. 

I recommend checking the quality of the video from VHS first before getting it converted again if possible. The film could be worn out through time and other factors. If that happens getting it reconverted would do you no good.


----------



## joed

The problem is someone else converted the film to video in the 90s. I have the original films and they are better than the video. I am investigating getting the film converted direct to digital.


----------



## jimn

That sounds like the best way. Everytime you transfer something it loses some information and detail. Also the scan technology today is far better than it was in the 90's


----------



## joed

The most common method seems to be to play the film and shoot it with a digital camera. I might give that a try since I can do that for free.
The best method seems to be a frame by frame transfer. I would want the raw files not the converted files from that transfer. If my test doesn't work well I will look into getting it professionally converted.


----------



## Bob Sanders

joed said:


> The problem is someone else converted the film to video in the 90s. I have the original films and they are better than the video. I am investigating getting the film converted direct to digital.


If you have the original film then it's best to back and use that. There will be a noticable drop in quality from the film to vhs to start with because of the resolution shift. There would be another resolution shift from vhs to dvd, and then to top that off, dvd uses a lossy format (mpeg2) so there will be an even further drop in quality when uncompressing/editing/recompressing a lossy format.

With the track you're on now, you have a drop in quality on three separate levels, and 8mm film is pretty low quality to begin with.


----------



## Bob Sanders

joed said:


> The most common method seems to be to play the film and shoot it with a digital camera. I might give that a try since I can do that for free.
> The best method seems to be a frame by frame transfer. I would want the raw files not the converted files from that transfer. If my test doesn't work well I will look into getting it professionally converted.


If you want to retain as much quality as possible then you need to convert over to a lossless intermediate format. The problem with that though is that most consumer level editors won't handle intermediates. You have to move to a more pro level program.

Here's a good and simple read on intermediates vs delivery formats:
http://eugenia.queru.com/2007/10/19/understanding-intermediate-and-delivery-video-formats/


----------



## talukdar

I think Adobe Premier Pro CS6 is the best Software for this kind of editing. Actually this Premier_Pro working through TIMELINE base editing. That can allow you to edit Music, Background Music, Video, Audio Separately.


----------



## kirwinjd

Bob Sanders said:


> I do A LOT of video editing and have the more expensive programs (Sony Vegas Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid MC) but I don't think that's what you're looking for. You just want to replace the music track I'm assuming? PowerDirector will do that, along with Video Studio and Premiere elements, and a few others. Here's a review on the lower end major players: http://video-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/ Most of them have trial periods and they all pretty much do the same thing just in different ways so it's a matter of test riding and picking the one you want. They all have their glitches too! It's been a while since I have played on the lower end software but I'll try and answer any specific questions you have. Most people just record music from Cd or where ever and throw that on but if you want to replace the music track with computer generated music then have a look at SmartSound. It even integrates into some of the video software (Pinnacle Studio for example) and can automatically adjust for peoper start and finish time. The music album selection is large but they aren't cheap though.


Hi bob,
Just curious on your opinion of Pinnacle editing software. I have pinnacle studio 14 and wondering how it stacks up to the other programs you listed.

Thanks


----------



## Bob Sanders

kirwinjd said:


> Hi bob,
> Just curious on your opinion of Pinnacle editing software. I have pinnacle studio 14 and wondering how it stacks up to the other programs you listed.
> 
> Thanks


pinnacle has had a number of different owners over the years and has had it's ups and downs. It used to have a big brother called Pinnacle Liquid Edition (later called Avid Liquid as Avid bought out Pinnacle) but was killed off due to low sales.

Pinnacle Studio is now owned by Corel (who in itself has had quite a few transformations in the video editing industry) and continues to advance SLOWLY. I used Pinnacle many years ago when I started video editing but outgrew it and moved on.

I would say it's good for the advanced beginner who wants to do basic stuff with a bit of a twist. It's not good for more advanced hardware though. I have a tri monitor system (for detailed video editing you need a lot of screen real estate) and Studio does not work well on multiple monitor systems. I find it also a bit lacking in the audio department. I work with a lot of surround sound now and Studio is pretty limited in its surround sound abilities.

All of these editors have their little glitches and Studio has its fair share but overall it's pretty reliable.


----------



## kirwinjd

thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I'm in the navy and do videos of retirement ceremonies. Just thinking how I can improve my work but I would still label myself as an advanced beginner so I probably should stick with pinnacle for now.


----------



## GrayHair

joed said:


> The most common method seems to be to play the film and shoot it with a digital camera. I might give that a try since I can do that for free.
> . . .


Have you considered frame rates? IIRC, 8mm & 16mm film is 18fps or 24fps, while video is 30fps (all nominal). There's an entire industry built around transferring film to video using special equipment. They usually offer color correction of some degree and it's sorely needed since the dyes on the film change color as they age (look for old color movies on the diginets; you'll easily spot those with no color correction).

Impossible to do at home? Maybe not, but I don't think you'll be happy with the results. My budget is tight and I love being able to say, "I did that!", but I let a pro do my conversions. I even considered buying or building a telecine, that is until I researched what all I'd need. They're faster and do a better job.


----------



## Bob Sanders

GrayHair said:


> Have you considered frame rates? IIRC, 8mm & 16mm film is 18fps or 24fps, while video is 30fps (all nominal).


Video can be shot/edited at 24p, 30p, 60i, 60p.

Most any editor today can both handle and manipulate multiple frame rates.


----------



## joed

Still experimenting with this on and off using different cameras and methods.
The projector has a variable speed so the actual frame rate I do not know. I have just been playing with it until the camera appears to record properly. I am getting mixed results. The images are transferring, but I don't feel they are as sharp as the original film looks when viewed.


----------



## Bob Sanders

What type of camera is it? What format is the cam using? Is it SD or HD?


----------



## joed

I was using a fuji Finepix that only does 420 video.
Then I tried a logitech 920c web cam that does HD but it is made for close up skyping and I can't get it close enough to an image projected on a wall without getting skewing.
Then I tried using a mirror and projecting the image onto a frosted glass panel and filming from the reverse side, camera set to mirror mode. I could not get the camera to properly sync and kept seeing black bars.
The projector has a variable speed control but that didn't help.


----------



## Bob Sanders

Do you have video outputs on the projector? (You would be better off doing direct capture to computer and bringing it into an editor)


----------



## joed

It's an 8mm film projector from the 40s all you get is a picture projected on a screen by a big light bulb.


----------



## Bob Sanders

Ah, okay.

If you want a clear and good reproduction then the only real way to do it is frame by frame progressive capture. It's tedious and time consuming but comes out the best.

Pause the projector on EACH frame (and there are about 18 frames per second) and take a picture with a good quality camera. Import the pictures to an editor and stitch them into a video. Do each frame fast otherwise you run the risk of burning the film!


The problem with your existing technique is the motion blur not seen by the human eye, *IS* seen (and recorded) by the camera. Frame by frame capture removes all the motion blur.


----------



## GrayHair

Bob Sanders said:


> Ah, okay.
> 
> The problem with your existing technique is the motion blur not seen by the human eye, *IS* seen (and recorded) by the camera. Frame by frame capture removes all the motion blur.


While frame-to-frame transfer will remove blur, it will result in sped up action. Film @24FPS transferred frame-to-frame to video @30FPS will run 25% faster. If the film frame rate is 18FPS, the speed difference will be even more dramatic.

Telecine of 24FPS film spreads 4 film frames across 5 video frames using 2:3 (or 3:2) pull down to match frame rates. A good telecine facility can transfer at several pull down ratios. Wikipedia has reasonable explanations of both *2:3 pulldown* and *telecine*.

If your film stock is in physically poor condition, a flying-spot scanner telecine is preferable since most of them do not use a intermittent to advance the film. Some of my film is 60+ years old, so flying-spot is essential to me.


----------



## Bob Sanders

GrayHair said:


> While frame-to-frame transfer will remove blur, it will result in sped up action. Film @24FPS transferred frame-to-frame to video @30FPS will run 25% faster.


Where did you get the 30 from??? You keep assuming video has a standard of 30. That's a wrong assumption. You can edit video on a fairly large selection of frame rates.

As stated above, video can be set at 24. Indeed most reasonable Hd cams these days will shoot at 24

Below is a screen shot of the DEFAULT selections available... and if you don't like those you are free to customize your own:










Video is completely customizable in terms of frame rate. Of course you may need to check your playback device to be sure it can reproduce the frame rate you're aiming for, but I assure you that video is not stuck at 30.


----------



## seosp2

joed said:


> I have had a bunch the old family 8mm movies put onto DVD from VHS tape. They need some major editing. The guy who did it originally put some terrible music and grouped the clips all wrong.
> I am looking some recommendations for editing software. Which one to try or stay away from.



You can use Kino, Blender, shotcut which are open source editors. Also can use windows movie maker, adobe premiere, VideoPad and Xedio.


----------



## Utilitypole

joed said:


> Not just replace the audio. I do want to do some cutting and editing.


In that case, just download Adobe Creative Cloud and try out the free 30 day trial of Adobe Premiere. The trial period has complete functionality (just make sure that you finish the project within 30 days! :smile. And Premiere lets you re-arrange pieces of footage, and replace the sound very easily.


----------



## SouthernEverG

I use Edius. Its a grass valley system and can do pretty much anything you want it to do.


----------

