Talk:List of video editing software

message: 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)
thread_title: Encoders vs. non-linear video editing

message: 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)
replies: text: Opuvai 202.86.222.249 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility?

message: *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)
replies: text:  Hello. You are right. I changed it to "Commercial". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why Proprietary/Freeware distinction

message: 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)
thread_title: Possibility of Including Another Program Under "Video encoding and conversion tools"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 https://opensource.com/life/15/1/current-state-linux-video-editing. 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 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+edit+videos+in+blender+.72b for using Blender as a non-linear video editor.
Danylstrype (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blender removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Videothang? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other ones under "open source" category 

message: 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)
thread_title:  disapointing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  VirtualDub 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ifx Software 

message: 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)
thread_title:  solveig Software 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is ArcSoft ShowBiz listed as Discontinued? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Software \ Dead links. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Btw that external list is being (almost) replicated/translated at  and  and  and .  A shorter list of only three items is  .  Another list is   A separate source for Kate's Video Toolkit is  John Vandenberg (chat) 12:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External lists 

message: Kaltura is a server-side package that can be used for setting up a web-based video platform, under the terms of GNU AGPL http://corp.kaltura.com/Deployment-Options/Kaltura-Community-Edition. Since a Kaltura server can be used for a number of video-editing functions http://corp.kaltura.com/Products/Features/Video-Editing-Tools, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  add Kaltura as a video editing software? 

message: 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:  
# It's one of the building blocks used by other software including other video editors;  see :Category:Software that uses FFmpeg.  
# 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)
thread_title:  ffmpeg 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done for now: It must be notable enough for its own article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a list of topics with preexisting Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wondershare Filmora? 

message: Category:
 DangerousDR (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023 

message: 1.46.5.199 (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Urro[talk][edits] 14:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AceMovi 

message: 2409:4073:4D0E:3B70:0:0:338B:C10F (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 12:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024