Talk:Comparison of video editing software/Archive 1

Kudos
This article is a gold mine of succinct data. It was invaluable for comparing video editing systems that our company is considering. Kudos to everyone who contributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.99.34 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MAGIX Movie Edit Pro 14
This is another one that would be good to add to the list. The URL to the company's website is this: http://www.magix.com/us/movie-edit-pro/classic/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.197.137 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Media 100
Has anyone heard of Media 100?
 * Yes I have used it extensively. It is a big commercial non-linear editing system. mmj (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Studio PRO
Edit Studio has a long history, developed by puremotion then later by mediachance, it has great multicamera support and non-destructive editing with effect tracks etc. Somebody familiar with it, please add this to the tables.

Forscene
This page looks like a good idea to me.

I've added in FORscene. It runs in a web browser and (as well as editing) can publish to web and mobile phones, so is slightly different from the others in the list. It doesn't have an article at the moment, but feel free to add one. I am involved with FORscene so it would not appropriate for me to write the article! Stephen B Streater 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll probably be adding to this article over time, so if you want to add the FORscene features, that would be great. I don't know what the supported formats are; you'll probably need to add new columns. --Baryonic Being 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does the demo on the FORscene.net show "Clesh" in the title? Is Clesh really the application title or is FORscene?  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 05:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clesh and FORscene use similar technology, but are designed for different markets. Clesh is a consumer version of FORscene, and has a demo on the web. FORscene has different versions for each professional market it is sold into:
 * Review option gives just one window and a navigation bar, to allow internet review of content
 * Logging version includes keyboard short cuts and ALE export
 * Editing version includes play and record windows with an active timeline which has more audio tracks than Clesh, as well as multiple tracks for subtitles etc
 * Publishing options including export of EDLs, XMLs to Avid / FCP and export of video to Video iPOD and the local machine via MPEG.
 * FORscene is sold directly to organisations via one-to-one demos, and includes training and optional machine configuration for better performance, and its demo account, as configured from day to day, has extra privileges and is password protected. If you like, we can add some FORscene guest accounts showing the range of options available in FORscene, with the extra buttons.Stephen B Streater 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PS At some point, FORscene will have its own article, and this will make everthing clear. Stephen B Streater 07:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

For other people's reference, I am using this page to help me. --Baryonic Being 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Supported formats
FORscene input and output formats differ.

Input formats include:
 * DV over Firewire (can be miniDV or DV-CAM)
 * Composite video
 * S-video
 * JPEG
 * all Windows Media Player supported formats (Windows XP uploader)
 * all QuickTime supported formats (Apple uploader)
 * 3gpp from mobile phones (can be uploaded over the air)
 * MPEG-4 from mobile phones (can be uploaded over the air)

Output formats include:
 * web pages containing video (which plays back on Windows, Macs and Linux using a Java player)
 * video for Symbian mobile phones (download over-the-air or via Bluetooth from another phone using FORmobile)
 * video for MIDP-1 Java enabled mobile phones (download over-the-air via the phone's WAP browser)
 * video for video iPOD
 * CMX3600 EDL format (a text file)
 * XML output for editing systems such as FCP (a text file)

This doesn't quite tally with the current format list. In a desktop application, files are usually edited in their native format. In FORscene, all input files are automatically converted into an internal FORscene format during uploading so they can be edited over the web - the original format may be unsuitable for a typical web connection. On publishing, the output is designed to play back over the web or on a moblie phone (or video iPod), which most of the input formats are also unsuitable for.

I haven't changed the list much (yet?) except to add camera phones, as most consumer video is shot on these nowadays.

Stephen B Streater 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Perhaps the supported formats isn't a good idea at all. It's clearly more complicated. For example, Apple's video editing apps support any format QuickTime does, which includes some AVI and MPEG files and not others, and it really depends upon codecs. So, I think I'll have to replace that section with something else... (keeping it here for posterity) --Baryonic Being 14:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You people find it difficult because you don't know what you talk about. Separate the supported:


 *  HARDWARE input: Y/C443, RGB, SDI, IEEE 1394, Composite etc
 *  CONTAINERS: DNxHD, QT, Windows media etc
 *  CODECs: DNxHD (list), H264, x264, DV etc
 * 
 * and your life will be much easier.
 * For example, MiniDV is not a format. It is a MEDIUM carrying data in DV compression. But so was Sony's 8mm DV tape called Digital-8 too. DV compressed material also can come from data-disks and harddrives and any other medium that is big enough to hold it. If the editor supports TAPE in/output, it would be under Supported HW. If the editor supports DV compression it would be under Supported Codecs.

Something Else(TM)
Ideas for possible fields:
 * Full-screen playback
 * Timecode display
 * Scene detection
 * High Definition support
 * PSD import support
 * Deck control
 * Batch capture
 * Batch export
 * Multicam editing
 * Video tracks
 * Audio tracks
 * Non-destructive editing
 * Real-time performance
 * Compositing
 * Keyframing
 * Color correction
 * Slow/fast motion
 * Reverse motion

But I don't know how to split them into sections! [BB]

This list is going to be long, as new features are easy to add. I suggest splitting it into three main sections, dealing with
 * 1) where source material comes from
 * 2) how content can be edited
 * 3) how the finished video can be published and distributed.

Where you can get the data from
Primary sources
 * Camera phone video
 * Camera phone photographs
 * DV camera (requires real time processing)
 * DV tape machine
 * analogue video input (S-video or composite)

Secondary sources
 * QuickTime
 * Windows Media Player
 * JPEG files

What you can do with the material
Core features which you would see/use on any edit
 * Shuttle
 * Jog
 * Frame accurate editing
 * Real-time performance
 * Timeline editing
 * Storyboard editing
 * Number of video tracks
 * Number of audio tracks
 * Full-screen playback
 * High Definition support
 * Timecode display
 * Non-destructive editing
 * Hours of video capacity on a typical system (eg 100GB disc)

Additional features which will not be used all the time
 * Scene detection
 * Video levels
 * Audio levels
 * Subtitles
 * Graphics import
 * Effects (eg dissolve)
 * Color correction
 * Slow/fast motion
 * Reverse motion
 * Logging
 * Metadata
 * Metadata search
 * Undo levels
 * Multicam editing

How you can distribute the video for viewing

 * Hosted web page
 * DVD
 * Smartphone
 * Java phone
 * QuickTime
 * Windows Media Player
 * Timecode outputs eg EDL, XML for moving to another system

This (particularly the middle section on editing features) could need more slicing and dicing as the list of features will probably grow, but this moves it on a bit.

Stephen B Streater 22:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Clesh
FORscene is in fact used by professionals and has a growing number of programmes broadcast on UK TV which were made using it. It recently won a Royal Television Society award for Technology.

Clesh is the consumer version of FORscene. It has no EDL/XML output, and no need for video logging keyboard shortcuts, as consumers don't tend to log their video in the detail required for professional productions. The main Clesh webiste is here, and the guest account is here.

I've added in Clesh in the market area: Clesh, the consumer version of FORscene, was launched recently with Tiscali. Stephen B Streater 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Podcasting
Podcasts seem to be an interesting output format for video distribution.

Apple released their video iPod in 2005, and the availability of podcasts on Windows and Mac PCs via iTunes, web browsers and other RSS feeds is widespread. I've added podcasts as one of the output formats. I don't know how the other systems work, but when you publish with FORscene, the video automatically appears for subscribers eg in their iTunes.

You can subscribe to my video podcast here. Stephen B Streater 09:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated to Avid Xpress Pro HD. That is the comperable product to Adobe Premiere Pro, not Xpress DV.

Podcast is an Apple marketing term. Originally meant something like 'sound on a webpage'. Later it mutated into 'sound with photos'. There was one software ever that created a 'podcast'. That was the now defunct 'Garage-band' by Apple tied to Macintosh. It is NOT an output format for anything. There is NO such container or codec as 'podcast'. Including it demonstrates just how little people understand the relevant terminology.

Nero Vision not mentioned?
Nero Vision is a decent basic video editor part of the $99 Nero bundle. deserves a mention here imho
 * Is it notable (see WP:SOFTWARE)? If so, you could write an article on it. Stephen B Streater 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Nero Vision Xtra is now included in the comparison chart

Corel's Video Editor(s) not mentioned either?
Ratherthanlater (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Operating Systems
Please input what type of operating systems are supported by the products. I wasted money on Premiere Pro simply because of the misinformation on this page. Do not judge the world by american standards. -Izaak

"Do not judge the world by american standards." What does this have to do with anything concerning video editing software. Don't blame America for your misjudgement in solely trusting an OPEN SOURCE encyclopedia for information (especially concerning software where the is an abundance of information i.e. premiere.) I honestly can't believe how quickly SOME members of the international community blame America for stuff like this. P.S. Its people like you who are perpetuating the existence of the archetypal anti-american european.

Windows Movie Maker?
I think Windows Movie Maker should be listed; it's non-linear and free. I don't know enough about it to add it here. AxelBoldt 21:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Windows Movie Maker listed as a destructive video editing? I havent seen any version of Windows Movie Maker modify the source videos. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

removal of blender from list of NLE software
Blender is a 3d modeling and animation software and in no way should be considered as a NLE


 * Blender was the NLE for the Elephants Dream short, and is the NLE and Compositor for the feature animation Plumiferos http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811021/ . It has been the NLE for a number of shorts and commercials.  It is considered one of the few stable opensource NLEs available  (Jahshaka and Heroine are notoriously crashy).  It has color correction tools, compositing tools, particles, text/title animation tools, it does HD formats, has support for high dynamic range editing and for outputing to Cineon and OpenEXR.  Blender is not only for modeling, animation and rendering, those are just its better known features.  LetterRip 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Blender, while also being an animation suite, plays the dual-role as a powerful NLE.  It's as powerful as other NLEs, so why shouldn't it be considered one? --I80and 13:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree, Blender was recommended to me, and found the learning curve to access and make use of the video editor so extreme, that after many hours of use, I still couldn't find the basic functions.Seb-Gibbs (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi-Def Formats - AVCHD?
Any chance of adding a column under the hi-def section for AVCHD support?

I don't know enough about the various software packages outside of Final Cut Studio and Adobe Premiere to do it myself...

TIA!


 * I agree AVCHD should be added, however it seems no softwares support this standard yet? Maybe a couple months later? --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

24p
Please post which applications can capture 24p video. The only one I know for sure can capture 24p is Adobe Premiere Pro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.85.239 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Ulead MediaStudio Pro and Ulead VideoStudio also support 24p capturing.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Ulead VideoStudio is now known as Corel VideoStudio

Hosted vs. Non-Hosted
The article distinguishes between "Web, not hosted" and "Web, hosted". The distinction is confusing to me. Could someone explain?

Thanks. CJF01 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about it either. However in my opinion it might be:
 * Web, not hosted: support to generate web streaming video files but no video hosting service is provided with the software.
 * Web, hosted: support to generate web streaming video and a video hosting service is provided with the software.
 * If what I though is true then I think maybe someone who say Adobe is web hosted should confirm which video hosting service is with Adobe.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some systems produce files which are stored automatically on a web server and can be accessed through a web browser on a web page - ie are hosted. Others produce files which the user must find his own web serving solution for - ie are unhosted. This is the differemce. Stephen B Streater 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LiVES
I've added LiVES, since it was missing. --213.129.227.107 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Liastnir 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. While it is different in emphasis, it has a powerful compositor and non-linear video editor.  It is a quite viable option for editing video, and therefore I think it shouldn't be ignored. --I80and 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree unfortunately, the main purpose of Blender is 3D Animation and gaming, not 2D/Static animations that you can simply slap together with minimal knowledge. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree, Blender was recommended to me, and found the learning curve to access and make use of the video editor so extreme, that after many hours of use, I still couldn't find the basic functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortable Tables
Just to help with the comparison of the software, could someone please make a sortable table. Obviously, some of the wording would need to be changed to help with the sorting (i.e. "bundled with Windows" to become "Free (Bundled with Windows". It would help make comparisons faster, and I don't feel like messing with the tables myself and ruining them.

81.104.177.44 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kino
I started adding Kino, but I'm not familiar enough with it to add much info in the article. Someone may want to finish adding it. --I80and 13:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Blender not a Video Editing Software ?

 * First because its official documentation claims:


 * Then because its video editing capabilities documentation claims:


 * Finally, the Blender page says:

So Blender is a 3D Software that as limited capabilities for video editing, but is not a software of choice for users only or primarily innterested in Video Editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfpower (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2007


 * Please sign your posts - Blender is more sophisticated and mature NLE and Compositor than a fair number of those listed - just because its primary focus is not an NLE doesn't mean that it shouldn't be listed - please read the earlier discussion on Blender as an NLE it has been used as a production NLE and compositor for some fairly sophisticated projects LetterRip 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not having signed previous post.


 * If you want blender here, ok, but then you must reference its use as a NLE, and complete blender almso inthe feature list. giving the version number the price and than it suport HD hardly goes in the direction of it beeing a NLE system. ALso update Blender pag to document the fact that it is a NLE, becaus ethe blender article only state basic NLE functionnalities .. just what I said.


 * If nothing moves in the next week on the subject, I will remove blender from that page. --Dwarfpower 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Being sorry also means you'd do so retroactively (via template:unsigned) instead of letting others do it for you. -79.176.117.112 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The blender inclusion has not yet been justified by a citation that would contradict my statements in this page.
 * If by monday no extra material is present to support the status of blender as a video editing system, I will remove it from this list. --Dwarfpower 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We still have no justification of Blender as a VES, no reference of such a use, when blender documentation only states limited video editing capability that do not represent a feature of the software. The blender article does not present the software as a VES, and no VES feature is included for blender in feature matrixes. Having given ample time to add such material to the article I remove Blender. Anyone willing to provided material to sustain the clain that Blender is a VES can still do that and modify accordingly blender article, all tables of the article and provide source to support the claim. --Dwarfpower 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, have been away. See this comparison chart - http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8589  It is almost two years out of date, and was written before the massive updates in Blenders NLE and Compositing capabilities - the author is planning an updated version. This article gives some of the strengths and weaknesses of Blender as a VSE http://www.ibiblio.org/joey/videolinux/blender-as-video-editor/ An opinion on Blenders VSE from a professional video editor (see the comments - http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Editing-video-for-non-video-folks.htm )  Or another article that discusses Blender versus other open NLEs http://jeremy.marzhillstudios.com/index.php/site-news/blender-its-more-than-a-modeller/  Plumiferos (A feature animated film to be distributed by Sony Pictures late this year) used Blenders NLE over Cinerella and assorted commercial options.  Elephants Dream used Blender exclusively for NLE. Blender has been used for editing documentaries, music videos, medical, industrial, scientific, and educational visualization videos, and of course a bunch of short films. LetterRip 21:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok we must reintroduce it, than, but all relevant informations must be given in the article, and the blendermain article must also be updated. --Dwarfpower 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jahshaka
This is a free video editing software, that isn't mentioned in the list: www.jahshaka.org --62.227.140.61 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

maintaining independence
I think it is important for pages such as this to remain as accurate as possible. Not everyone will probably have the knowledge as to whether certain software suports X,Y,Z formats. Things could become dangerous if someone from say, Apple, decides to lie a bit and note down things which apple doesn't do, to make themselves look good, and thus misleading readers. So we gotta be extra vigilant against such types. And if you are actually doing this - shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Output options: Blender
I believe wich Blender output, suports DVD format. --200.100.215.1 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Version numbers
How are version numbers for different software a worthwhile comparison factor? If one is version 2 and another is version 3, that means absolutely nothing, or worse, it misleads into thinking that a version 3 is necessarily better than a version 2. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one would use the version number as a comparative tool between different software packages. However, it is essential to include so that the reader has an understanding of what is being compared. (For example, Avid Xpress v5 has some significant changes from v4.) To use a car analogy, if comparing the features of cars from different manufacturers, we would certainly include the model year. Hope this helps. --Ckatz chat spy  22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But there is no provision guaranteeing that the version number listed is the one represented by the feature comparison. The field simply asks for the latest version number. Someone can simply update this without updating changes in features. So ultimately you end up in the same place, with outdated information, but now you have the possibility of misrepresenting the version in question. I would accept this argument if major versions of every software were included on the list, but there is already a presumption that only the latest version is represented. For a comparison of cars, under the same presumption that only the current model year is represented, it would be similarly pointless -- they would all say 2008, sans defunct models (for which a separate list ought to be created). If I were making a comparison of current cars, I certainly would not include the model year. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the information is valid and relevant. Yes, someone might update the version number without updating the specs. However, they could just as easily update any field without any verification. More importantly, if you are dead-set on removing data that is fairly standard content for these sort of tables, you should really seek a wider consensus first, rather than just this conversation. --Ckatz chat spy  08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the intent of the table is to compare the current versions of different tools, not past versions of tools with the current versions of themselves, I contend it is much more natural to simply drop the "as of version XXX" subscripts in cases where the version-reference is >1 major version behind. As others have previously noted, changes from the previous-release would still be noted in the table (since that is exactly 1 version behind.)  For example, let's say current version of the listed software is "CS5."  Any subscript that references CS4 will remain (for the time being), but any subscript to 'CS3' (or older) should simply be dropped...if a person is really interested in learning differences of legacy releases (>1 release old), they should seek that info elsewhere. 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What if we, for each feature box in the matrix, put the version number from where the feature in the particular product has been added in the green boxes instead of just yes? It's much more informative and ensures some consistency. The latest version field can just be the latest version field. Thelennonorth (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

VirtualDub(Mod) and Avidemux
Why is their inclusion being contested? Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The software has video editing capabilities, but it is not what would typically be considered a "non-linear editor". That is to say, being able to trim video clips is not the same as a timeline-based editing system. VirtualDub is listed at List of video editing software, but it is not appropriate for inclusion here. --Ckatz chat spy  22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your basis for that claim? Non-linear editing system does not contain anything that would necessarily rule out VirtualDub. If the richness of the feature set is at question, isn't that what a comparison is for? To say that VirtualDub is a video editing software, is on a List of video editing software, but "is not appropriate" for a comparison of video editing software is patently absurd. If you don't have a better argument than that and still insist on keeping VirtualDub off the list, I recommend seeking a third opinion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a previous discussion on this page that addresses suitability for a different program, based on capabilities. However, I don't have time to debate this extensively right now. I've restored the version information because (as stated) it is relevant. I'll add in your two programs when I get the chance. (Sorry, but the system I'm on right now isn't the best for more complex changes.) Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  08:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a better system - the software is back in. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statements are perfetly circular, as the "list of" is once again a list of *non-linear* programs, and you then simply ignore the phrase "non-linear" in the first line of this article (although not in the title and that's exactly the paradox). It's the very defition of Have one's cake and eat it too. You can't both put the words "non-linear" everywhere and then claim these are general lists. Well, obviously technically you can, but you know what I mean. -79.176.117.112 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinnacle Studio Free?
Is Pinnacle Studio really free as the first table says? 142.177.91.169 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can not sort !!!

 * When I click on the sort button near the License row or List price (USD) row :( I can sort the table according to other rows, but not those which I need! I tried using Firefox 3 & Internet Explorer 6. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ifx Software
Shouldn't ifxAnt and Piranha Cinema be added? Anyone have any info about them? 70.119.44.175 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Roxio's editor?
How is Roxio's editor not here? Dogru144 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FORscene update
The FORscene section could possibly be updated. Here are some references:

The IBC TV News website talks about exporting MPEG4, which is not yet in the table.

FORscene supports 8 audio tracks, as reported on the company website on Wed 15th Jul, 2009.

FORscene can import and export HD up to 1080p. Here is a report in the trade press.

FORscene storyboard is no longer in beta. In fact, upgrades since release include this one, reported on the company website on 25 January 2007.

Latest release date - as a Cloud computing system, the service is regularly upgraded, with different components being updated asynchronously. However, the Java front end release date is displayed in the Java console each time the software is launched. Most professional customers are using a Java front end built on 30 Nov 2009.

One column which could be added to the comparison is a reference to whether the software is a Cloud application or platform. This is starting to be noticed in the professional world. Here is the relevance of FORscene.

While I'm here, another important feature is support for collaborative workflows, as noticed here.

Perhaps someone less involved with FORscene would be willing to update the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is coming-up with the prices?
I just went to the Adobe web site and they want to sell me Adobe Premiere for US $1699. The price of $799 may be a street price, but shouldn't we use the MSR price if it's a commercial product and have a footnote to indicate that it can be found at a lower price? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Output options: mixing of formats and options
In the output options there is a mix of formats and options. What formats are usable in what options? This isn't clear. Please improve this. Thelennonorth (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance
I just wanted to leave a comment on the comparison chart.
 * 1) Many of the listed products are no longer published and therefore not relevant for this comparison chart.
 * 2) The comparison chart doesn't differenciate between the target market positioning, namely the consumer vs. prosumer positioning. For many of the consumer positioned products, the target market has changed towards prosumer orientation.
 * 3) Many of the listed publisher system requirements are no longer valid due to advanced graphics processing and editing sophistication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neccelle (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

GUI toolkit ?
How about specifying which GUI toolkit is a given app based on ? GTK, Qt, Aqua, MFC (or whatever MS Windows uses) --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AVCHD info incomplete
For example, the import section mentions AVCHD. However, AVCHD is the only format that in principle supports two different gamuts, i.e. BT.709 and xvYCC. But not all software can handle both gamuts, so merely stating "AVCHD" does not correctly represent the softwares' abilities., imho. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Alpha channel(transparency overlay) support
It would be great to add a column for alpha channel video transparency support. Which software support overlaying video over video and which don't as it isn't clear from layer count as not always multiple layers mean that alpha channel video can be used.

87.110.181.186 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"No recompression"
I want to know which softwares are able to render a video without re-compressing it. I know it's possible in Final Cut Pro, and I think it's partly supported in Sony Vegas, only possible for certain codecs, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torr3 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

HitFilm ?
We seem to be missing HitFilm by FXHOME. Their Wikipedia page says they've been around both the consumer and pro market for the last few years now.--Wikispherion (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.237.251 (talk)

Chromakey
I'm looking for a free video editing application (for 1 short film), that has Chroma Key editing, ie green screen so I can change the background. An article suggested that HitFilm3 Express has this feature, but the only feature list on their website suggests that "professional Chroma Key" is only on the professional version of the software. I checked this wiki page in the hope that a more complete list of features would be provided, but this important feature is not mentioned. :-(  FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

DaVinci Resolve
Black Magic Design's DaVinci Resolve has had strong video editing capabilities for some time now (as of 24 May 2016). Features listed on their site. It should be on this list. Breadteam (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)