yamiho
asked on
how to edit the movie
hi experts,
how to edit the movie which is in the cassette.. i wanna convert into mpeg, or avi file.. coz i need to keep on the website. can i edit the movie with adobe after effects, or golive.. or do i need to use any other tool.
if yes then plz guide me..
regards
YamihO
how to edit the movie which is in the cassette.. i wanna convert into mpeg, or avi file.. coz i need to keep on the website. can i edit the movie with adobe after effects, or golive.. or do i need to use any other tool.
if yes then plz guide me..
regards
YamihO
The cheapest video editor i know of is QuickTime Pro. The player may look like just a player but once you upgrade it to Pro the editing features are fantastic. You certainly dont need to spend several hundred bucks on expensive video compositing software. Its available from www.apple.com for both Mac and PC. As far as getting the movie from tape to your HD follow MarcG's instructions on graphics cards.
Adobe premiere is good for beginners and Macromedia director is even better for editing, effects, and exporting to the web, flash, or other movie types. Of course, if you decide to buy a capture card, software is included that lets you do the basic editing. I would recommend buying a video capture adapter (usb) which go for less than most capture cards. You can connect any NTSC or PAL video source (vcr, camcorder,tv tuner) to the s-video and rca ports. Also comes with basic video editing software. Hope this helps.
to tim: some capture cards even come with premier.
>> The cheapest video editor i know of is QuickTime Pro
There are dozens of freeware video editors, many of which have been suggested as answers to previous questions! Having been a participant in many of those threads I would have thought that you'd been aware of this! I'm beginning to suspect that you get some kind of commission on QT-Pro sales!
Anyway, the best of the freeware apps (for PC) is VirtualDub.
There are dozens of freeware video editors, many of which have been suggested as answers to previous questions! Having been a participant in many of those threads I would have thought that you'd been aware of this! I'm beginning to suspect that you get some kind of commission on QT-Pro sales!
Anyway, the best of the freeware apps (for PC) is VirtualDub.
QT Pro is just a beautifully written program and its miles ahead of most shareware editors in terms of raw power and versatility. No other editor can open or save to as many formats with as many options for codecs. Its a simple, easy interface, and it works extraordinarily well for such a small program. You just cant touch it with shareware.
>> its miles ahead of most shareware editors in terms of raw power and versatility
Absolutely not true. Whilst it can convert many formats to and from each other it only really comes into its own when working with MOVS. For all other conversions there will almost certainly be several better (and free) tools. I use TMPGEnc for converting from AVI to MPEG and VirtualDub for converting to AVI, for example.
>> No other editor can open or save to as many formats
Small point of clarity. MediaPlayer can open as many formats but it cannot save to as many.
>> options for codecs
What do you mean by this? QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by the codec vendor. And if they are there then they will be available to all editors!
>> QT Pro is just a beautifully written program.
How do you know? Have you seen the code?
>> Its a simple, easy interface
Amusingly, it actually features in an Interface Hall of Shame that I've seen on the web (can probably find the link if you are interested).
The bottom line is that it is always important to choose the right tool for the job and QTPro is only the best tool for the job in one respect, converting to and from Quicktime, i.e. it's native format. Frankly, it is rather annoying to constantly see you touting QTPro as the be-all-and-all in video editing. Because it isn't. It's not even free for God's sake.
What's worse is that you frequently recommend it to people whithout even making the effort to find out what they are trying to do! Do you not care that some people will see your Number 1 status and spend $30 on your say-so when they could have done the same thing for free with a shareware app? And when, as somebody else did recently, you are asked why it is so good, you either
- trot out a whole bunch of unqualified statements that don't say anything
- or you rave about features that are not peculiar to QT Pro
- or you make statements that are just plain not true.
All of course dressed up in your pseudo-advertising blurb like 'beautifully written program'
This is why I have felt the need to type such a long response.
Absolutely not true. Whilst it can convert many formats to and from each other it only really comes into its own when working with MOVS. For all other conversions there will almost certainly be several better (and free) tools. I use TMPGEnc for converting from AVI to MPEG and VirtualDub for converting to AVI, for example.
>> No other editor can open or save to as many formats
Small point of clarity. MediaPlayer can open as many formats but it cannot save to as many.
>> options for codecs
What do you mean by this? QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by the codec vendor. And if they are there then they will be available to all editors!
>> QT Pro is just a beautifully written program.
How do you know? Have you seen the code?
>> Its a simple, easy interface
Amusingly, it actually features in an Interface Hall of Shame that I've seen on the web (can probably find the link if you are interested).
The bottom line is that it is always important to choose the right tool for the job and QTPro is only the best tool for the job in one respect, converting to and from Quicktime, i.e. it's native format. Frankly, it is rather annoying to constantly see you touting QTPro as the be-all-and-all in video editing. Because it isn't. It's not even free for God's sake.
What's worse is that you frequently recommend it to people whithout even making the effort to find out what they are trying to do! Do you not care that some people will see your Number 1 status and spend $30 on your say-so when they could have done the same thing for free with a shareware app? And when, as somebody else did recently, you are asked why it is so good, you either
- trot out a whole bunch of unqualified statements that don't say anything
- or you rave about features that are not peculiar to QT Pro
- or you make statements that are just plain not true.
All of course dressed up in your pseudo-advertising blurb like 'beautifully written program'
This is why I have felt the need to type such a long response.
And from
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/30/quicktime/index.html
we have this snippet....
>>
Response has been overwhelmingly negative from developers and users. Online bulletin boards, like the Mac the Knife forums, have been flooded with complaints. A dissatisfied user named John Christie posted a Fix QuickTime page, noting that the new QuickTime "has an absolutely terrible interface." QT4 has even been inducted into the Interface Hall of Shame
<<
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/30/quicktime/index.html
we have this snippet....
>>
Response has been overwhelmingly negative from developers and users. Online bulletin boards, like the Mac the Knife forums, have been flooded with complaints. A dissatisfied user named John Christie posted a Fix QuickTime page, noting that the new QuickTime "has an absolutely terrible interface." QT4 has even been inducted into the Interface Hall of Shame
<<
you should give MainActor a try, it can also load/save practically any format. and it comes with a powerful video sequencing tool. And for only 99$ it is really worth a closer look (owners of an ELSA graphics card (like me) can even use it for free). Take a look at the demo version
http://www.mainactor.de/
I read already tests where it was compared to Adobe Premier. And it was also said it is especially good for Internet viseos and multimedia cd roms.
http://www.mainactor.de/
I read already tests where it was compared to Adobe Premier. And it was also said it is especially good for Internet viseos and multimedia cd roms.
MarcG,
Yes I'd forgotten about MainActor. Used that about two years ago (version 2) and it could do tons more than QTPro even then. TMPGEnc can also support all the formats that QTPro can and it has loads of options for saving to MPEG, including support for MPEG-2
Yes I'd forgotten about MainActor. Used that about two years ago (version 2) and it could do tons more than QTPro even then. TMPGEnc can also support all the formats that QTPro can and it has loads of options for saving to MPEG, including support for MPEG-2
"QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there
by the codec vendor."
--Im not sure where you got that quote. I certainly dont see it in this thread. Context would be important.
">> QT Pro is just a beautifully written program.
How do you know? Have you seen the code?"
--You dont have to see the code to know its a well written app. Ever seen the code for Netscape? But we all know it was coded by monkeys on the moon.
">> Its a simple, easy interface
Amusingly, it actually features in an Interface Hall of Shame that I've seen on the web (can probably
find the link if you are interested)."
--Im well aware of the preceived interface problems. The so-called problems dont bother me at all.
"The bottom line is that it is always important to choose the right tool for the job and QTPro is only
the best tool for the job in one respect, converting to and from Quicktime, i.e. it's native format.
Frankly, it is rather annoying to constantly see you touting QTPro as the be-all-and-all in video editing.
Because it isn't. It's not even free for God's sake."
--I think you sorely underestimate QT Pro which is disappointing because its a great tool. I dont get the impression youve used it much or are fully aware of its features and capabilities.
I havent made any untrue statements above so im not sure how you can rant. I suggest great tools, thats the long and short of it. If you want an even greater tool then use Final Cut Pro but thats going to cost you $999. QTPro has features that shareware utilities cant touch, but then if you'd ever used it to its fullest extent, you would know that.
by the codec vendor."
--Im not sure where you got that quote. I certainly dont see it in this thread. Context would be important.
">> QT Pro is just a beautifully written program.
How do you know? Have you seen the code?"
--You dont have to see the code to know its a well written app. Ever seen the code for Netscape? But we all know it was coded by monkeys on the moon.
">> Its a simple, easy interface
Amusingly, it actually features in an Interface Hall of Shame that I've seen on the web (can probably
find the link if you are interested)."
--Im well aware of the preceived interface problems. The so-called problems dont bother me at all.
"The bottom line is that it is always important to choose the right tool for the job and QTPro is only
the best tool for the job in one respect, converting to and from Quicktime, i.e. it's native format.
Frankly, it is rather annoying to constantly see you touting QTPro as the be-all-and-all in video editing.
Because it isn't. It's not even free for God's sake."
--I think you sorely underestimate QT Pro which is disappointing because its a great tool. I dont get the impression youve used it much or are fully aware of its features and capabilities.
I havent made any untrue statements above so im not sure how you can rant. I suggest great tools, thats the long and short of it. If you want an even greater tool then use Final Cut Pro but thats going to cost you $999. QTPro has features that shareware utilities cant touch, but then if you'd ever used it to its fullest extent, you would know that.
ASKER
i'm just hearing the conversation. i dont understand what you guyz are talking about, i mean in deep... i'm very beginner to this sofwtare..:) but its quite interesting :)
>>
QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there
by the codec vendor."
--Im not sure where you got that quote. I certainly dont see it in this thread. Context would be important.
<<
That wasn't me making a quote, that was me making a statement in response to your claim that QTPro has 'many options for codecs'. I Suggest you re-read my post.
>>
--Im well aware of the preceived interface problems. The so-called problems dont bother me at all.
<<
OK, so you are aware that there are perceived problems with the interface that are serious enough to be highlighted by many Mac users. Great. Why does it not occur to you to point this out to somebody that you are supposedly trying to help? Worse than neglecting to do this, you actually tout the idea that it is a nice interface!!
>>
--I think you sorely underestimate QT Pro which is disappointing because its a great tool. I dont get
the impression youve used it much or are fully aware of its features and capabilities.
<<
No, I haven't used it much. Took a look and didn't see anything I haven't seen done better elsewhere. Please enlighten me. What can it do that other editors cannot? Also, you talk about Final Cut Pro. This costs $999 versus QTPro at $30. Now, you yourself tell us all how 'immensely powerful' QTPro is. So perhaps you can explain this immense power versus a proper editor from the same company that is priced at 30-odd times more!!
>>
I havent made any untrue statements above so im not sure how you can rant.
<<
Well, I was referring to another thread but, since you ask, in this very thread you state that QTPro is the cheapest editor you know of and that is not true. You know well enough that there are lots of free editors out there yet you prefer to suggest that somebody spends 30 bucks.
>>
You dont have to see the code to know its a well written app.
<<
Of course you do! Although to somebody not educated in this respect, a well-written app probably means a well-designed and functionally correct app that is easy to use. Now, an app could be written appallingly but meet these criteria. Anybody who knows better will tell you that a well-written app is one that is easy to maintain and change and doesn't carry large overheads to the software producer in this respect. Perhaps you could tell me more precisely what you mean when you describe it as beautifully written. If you really mean design, then we are back to the Interface Hall of Shame references are we not?
>>
QTPro has features that shareware utilities cant touch
<<
Like what? I've seen you make this and similar statements before. One of these days you will tell us what these are. Maybe today will be that day?
QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there
by the codec vendor."
--Im not sure where you got that quote. I certainly dont see it in this thread. Context would be important.
<<
That wasn't me making a quote, that was me making a statement in response to your claim that QTPro has 'many options for codecs'. I Suggest you re-read my post.
>>
--Im well aware of the preceived interface problems. The so-called problems dont bother me at all.
<<
OK, so you are aware that there are perceived problems with the interface that are serious enough to be highlighted by many Mac users. Great. Why does it not occur to you to point this out to somebody that you are supposedly trying to help? Worse than neglecting to do this, you actually tout the idea that it is a nice interface!!
>>
--I think you sorely underestimate QT Pro which is disappointing because its a great tool. I dont get
the impression youve used it much or are fully aware of its features and capabilities.
<<
No, I haven't used it much. Took a look and didn't see anything I haven't seen done better elsewhere. Please enlighten me. What can it do that other editors cannot? Also, you talk about Final Cut Pro. This costs $999 versus QTPro at $30. Now, you yourself tell us all how 'immensely powerful' QTPro is. So perhaps you can explain this immense power versus a proper editor from the same company that is priced at 30-odd times more!!
>>
I havent made any untrue statements above so im not sure how you can rant.
<<
Well, I was referring to another thread but, since you ask, in this very thread you state that QTPro is the cheapest editor you know of and that is not true. You know well enough that there are lots of free editors out there yet you prefer to suggest that somebody spends 30 bucks.
>>
You dont have to see the code to know its a well written app.
<<
Of course you do! Although to somebody not educated in this respect, a well-written app probably means a well-designed and functionally correct app that is easy to use. Now, an app could be written appallingly but meet these criteria. Anybody who knows better will tell you that a well-written app is one that is easy to maintain and change and doesn't carry large overheads to the software producer in this respect. Perhaps you could tell me more precisely what you mean when you describe it as beautifully written. If you really mean design, then we are back to the Interface Hall of Shame references are we not?
>>
QTPro has features that shareware utilities cant touch
<<
Like what? I've seen you make this and similar statements before. One of these days you will tell us what these are. Maybe today will be that day?
I would post all the reasons that QTPro is better or i could simply direct your attention to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qt/ where it lists most of them in one way or another. Follow some of the links too. There are some neat examples in there.
As for the statement "QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by the codec vendor." im not sure how its relevant but as long as were talking codecs ill point out another tidbit. QTPro comes with Sorenson Codec 2.1 which if purchased by itself ranges in the hundreds of dollars and is a vastly superior codec as far as quality and filesize go.
About the interface. It was only a handfull of people that screamed about it and then a bunch more that jumped on the bandwagon because they had nothing else to complain about. The major complaints were that it used a nonstandard MacOS window so it wasnt consistant with the rest of the OS, and that it used a scroll wheel for the volume setting. I couldnt care less if its a nonstandard Mac OS window. The functionality is still the same. And i never use the scroll wheel volume. I use the up and down arrows on my keyboard to set volume. People screaming about its bad interface seemed a bit weak on the evidence side. It was just something to scream about.
The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic but QTPro packs in alot of features into a very small app. Its stable, and it works very very well. That is a well written app. I dont care what the code looks like. For example, if i created somthing in Photoshop and it was awful, you wouldnt say "well at least his layers are organized". Conversely, if i created something great in photoshop but flattened my layers you wouldnt say "gee that design sucks because his layers got flattened". If things are functional, compact, stable, powerful, and packed into a small app, its well written. As per my netscape example a couple posts up, we all know Netscape 6 is NOT a well written app though i doubt any of us have seen the code.
Yes, there are freeware video editors out there but as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for". $30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor especially one with the number of codecs that QTPro ships with. Buying the codecs alone would cost you a great deal of money and you still wouldnt get a player/editor with QTPro's features.
As for the statement "QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by the codec vendor." im not sure how its relevant but as long as were talking codecs ill point out another tidbit. QTPro comes with Sorenson Codec 2.1 which if purchased by itself ranges in the hundreds of dollars and is a vastly superior codec as far as quality and filesize go.
About the interface. It was only a handfull of people that screamed about it and then a bunch more that jumped on the bandwagon because they had nothing else to complain about. The major complaints were that it used a nonstandard MacOS window so it wasnt consistant with the rest of the OS, and that it used a scroll wheel for the volume setting. I couldnt care less if its a nonstandard Mac OS window. The functionality is still the same. And i never use the scroll wheel volume. I use the up and down arrows on my keyboard to set volume. People screaming about its bad interface seemed a bit weak on the evidence side. It was just something to scream about.
The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic but QTPro packs in alot of features into a very small app. Its stable, and it works very very well. That is a well written app. I dont care what the code looks like. For example, if i created somthing in Photoshop and it was awful, you wouldnt say "well at least his layers are organized". Conversely, if i created something great in photoshop but flattened my layers you wouldnt say "gee that design sucks because his layers got flattened". If things are functional, compact, stable, powerful, and packed into a small app, its well written. As per my netscape example a couple posts up, we all know Netscape 6 is NOT a well written app though i doubt any of us have seen the code.
Yes, there are freeware video editors out there but as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for". $30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor especially one with the number of codecs that QTPro ships with. Buying the codecs alone would cost you a great deal of money and you still wouldnt get a player/editor with QTPro's features.
There is a more concise list of QTPro advantages at http://a1936.g.akamai.net/7/1936/51/bafa6c3c3dc4d9/www.apple.com/quicktime/pdf/QuickTime_Pro_DS-b.pdf which breaks it down for comparison sake.
>>
i could simply direct your attention to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qt/
<<
Why not just summarise it for us. Just one unique feature for starters would be nice....
i.e. Do you really expect me to follow a link to apple's site for an impartial comparison? I'm not even going to bother. If you can come up with something better I might take a look. Would you expect Coke's website to say that Pepsi is better?
>>
As for the statement "QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by
the codec vendor." im not sure how its relevant but
<<
It is relevant because you made the statement that QTPro has many options for codecs, remember? I was pointing out that these options are part of the codec, i.e. bitrate, motion prediction etc.
And as for this...
>>
as long as were talking codecs ill point out another tidbit. QTPro comes with Sorenson Codec 2.1
<<
That simply beggars belief coming from you!! How many times have you encouraged people not to use the AVI format because it is not cross-platform and suffers from obscure codec dependencies? 'But not everybody will be able to see it' you cry! Anyway, now you appear to be espousing the virtues of a codec that would cost people 'hundreds of dollars' to acquire. What about the people that can't see your beautiful Sorenson-created vids? Duh! But wait! Then we would all have to go and buy QTPro and your master plan will be complete! The bottom line, weed, is that you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.
>>
About the interface. It was only a handfull of people that screamed about it and then a bunch more that
jumped on the bandwagon because they had nothing else to complain about
<<
I don't know where you got your stats from but that looks like more of an assumption on your part than anything else. How did a 'handful' of people 'flood' a bulletin board/forum? Amnesia? Accidental multiple posts?
And you know what? I agree that some of the criticisms are petty. But non-standard interface design is not a huge bug-bear of mine cos I'm a competent user. However, I don't make any assumption about the abilities of others in this respect but can see how some people can become bewildered by behaviour that they don't expect or features that they do expect being hidden behind some 'cool' aesthetics. If somebody said to me 'recommend me an app, I'm a newbie' then familiarity with apps that they do know would be one consideration I would make on their behalf.
>>
The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic
<<
Agree with that statement but the size of the app is not really the determining factor in how well-written an app is. And in any case, QTPro was an 8 meg download as I recall. The executable may be only 779K but that 8 meg wasn't downloaded for nothing, you know. The same is true of most Windows-based apps (probably more so and it bugs the hell out of me). Anyway, enough of that....
>>
Yes, there are freeware video editors out there but as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".
$30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor
<<
Now this is interesting. I could just say "zero is a small price to pay for a really good video editor" about any number of freeware apps but instead I'm going to ask how you can say 'you get what you pay for' as one part of your argument and then say that '$30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor'. If the first sentence is true then I am forced to conclude that QTPro is a pile of crap! (Which I know it isn't but you get my point).
I actually happen to think that $30 for QTPro is good value for money and I also think that there are many examples of free software that kick the butts off of commercial apps. QTPro is but one example of this. There are many better editors out there, believe me (or prove me wrong!). And anyway, if I had to download five freeware apps that, combined, created a powerful toolset, where each one was particularly strong in just one area, I would consider it preferable to spending $30 on one that is OK at all things....
And like I've said before, most of the time, it is possible to suggest a product to people in this forum that won't cost them money to acquire and that is the course of action I believe one should take. Believe me, this dialogue is kinda fun, but I actually do get fed up with you suggesting QTPro as the answer to all video-editing questions. Please take this on board. If you don't know of any good Windows apps cos you're a Mac user, then fine. But don't spend other people's money for a few EE points. That's just sad. I also have some appreciation of the frustrations that Mac users face when up against a market saturated with PC-specific products and technologies. I'm sure all Mac users would love to redress the balance. But not here, please. And certainly not at the expense of others. Mac user love their Macs. We know that. Mac users love telling PC users how much better than a PC a Mac is. I don't disagree. But that same love for the Mac so often extends to berating the PC and anything that runs on it. There are some fantastic PC apps out there, weed. And some of them are for video-editing. Equally, a lot of the better ones are free. We don't necessarily love our PC's with the same vigour as a Mac owner, but a lot of us dislike Micro$oft and its crappy OS (nearly!) as much!!
Anyway, that's me addresing ALL your points. I'm not going to beat you around the head with the ones you have conveniently over-looked.
i could simply direct your attention to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qt/
<<
Why not just summarise it for us. Just one unique feature for starters would be nice....
i.e. Do you really expect me to follow a link to apple's site for an impartial comparison? I'm not even going to bother. If you can come up with something better I might take a look. Would you expect Coke's website to say that Pepsi is better?
>>
As for the statement "QTPro cannot possibly come up with options for codecs that weren't put there by
the codec vendor." im not sure how its relevant but
<<
It is relevant because you made the statement that QTPro has many options for codecs, remember? I was pointing out that these options are part of the codec, i.e. bitrate, motion prediction etc.
And as for this...
>>
as long as were talking codecs ill point out another tidbit. QTPro comes with Sorenson Codec 2.1
<<
That simply beggars belief coming from you!! How many times have you encouraged people not to use the AVI format because it is not cross-platform and suffers from obscure codec dependencies? 'But not everybody will be able to see it' you cry! Anyway, now you appear to be espousing the virtues of a codec that would cost people 'hundreds of dollars' to acquire. What about the people that can't see your beautiful Sorenson-created vids? Duh! But wait! Then we would all have to go and buy QTPro and your master plan will be complete! The bottom line, weed, is that you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.
>>
About the interface. It was only a handfull of people that screamed about it and then a bunch more that
jumped on the bandwagon because they had nothing else to complain about
<<
I don't know where you got your stats from but that looks like more of an assumption on your part than anything else. How did a 'handful' of people 'flood' a bulletin board/forum? Amnesia? Accidental multiple posts?
And you know what? I agree that some of the criticisms are petty. But non-standard interface design is not a huge bug-bear of mine cos I'm a competent user. However, I don't make any assumption about the abilities of others in this respect but can see how some people can become bewildered by behaviour that they don't expect or features that they do expect being hidden behind some 'cool' aesthetics. If somebody said to me 'recommend me an app, I'm a newbie' then familiarity with apps that they do know would be one consideration I would make on their behalf.
>>
The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic
<<
Agree with that statement but the size of the app is not really the determining factor in how well-written an app is. And in any case, QTPro was an 8 meg download as I recall. The executable may be only 779K but that 8 meg wasn't downloaded for nothing, you know. The same is true of most Windows-based apps (probably more so and it bugs the hell out of me). Anyway, enough of that....
>>
Yes, there are freeware video editors out there but as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".
$30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor
<<
Now this is interesting. I could just say "zero is a small price to pay for a really good video editor" about any number of freeware apps but instead I'm going to ask how you can say 'you get what you pay for' as one part of your argument and then say that '$30 is a small price to pay for a really good video editor'. If the first sentence is true then I am forced to conclude that QTPro is a pile of crap! (Which I know it isn't but you get my point).
I actually happen to think that $30 for QTPro is good value for money and I also think that there are many examples of free software that kick the butts off of commercial apps. QTPro is but one example of this. There are many better editors out there, believe me (or prove me wrong!). And anyway, if I had to download five freeware apps that, combined, created a powerful toolset, where each one was particularly strong in just one area, I would consider it preferable to spending $30 on one that is OK at all things....
And like I've said before, most of the time, it is possible to suggest a product to people in this forum that won't cost them money to acquire and that is the course of action I believe one should take. Believe me, this dialogue is kinda fun, but I actually do get fed up with you suggesting QTPro as the answer to all video-editing questions. Please take this on board. If you don't know of any good Windows apps cos you're a Mac user, then fine. But don't spend other people's money for a few EE points. That's just sad. I also have some appreciation of the frustrations that Mac users face when up against a market saturated with PC-specific products and technologies. I'm sure all Mac users would love to redress the balance. But not here, please. And certainly not at the expense of others. Mac user love their Macs. We know that. Mac users love telling PC users how much better than a PC a Mac is. I don't disagree. But that same love for the Mac so often extends to berating the PC and anything that runs on it. There are some fantastic PC apps out there, weed. And some of them are for video-editing. Equally, a lot of the better ones are free. We don't necessarily love our PC's with the same vigour as a Mac owner, but a lot of us dislike Micro$oft and its crappy OS (nearly!) as much!!
Anyway, that's me addresing ALL your points. I'm not going to beat you around the head with the ones you have conveniently over-looked.
---All apples site shows you is the feature set. Obviously im not going to go to VirtualDub's website to get QuickTime Pro's features. Nor does the site do any sort of comparison between QT and VirtualDub. You do the comparison from the QuickTime PDF and VD's website yourself. Its not hard to see which one comes out ahead.
"How many times have you encouraged people not to use the AVI format because it is not cross-platform and suffers from obscure codec dependencies? 'But not everybody will be able to see it' you cry! Anyway, now you appear to be espousing the virtues of a codec that would cost people 'hundreds of dollars' to acquire. What about the people that can't see your beautiful Sorenson-created vids? Duh! But wait! Then we would all have to go and buy QTPro and your master plan will be complete! The bottom line, weed, is that you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid."
---Since QuickTime Player is free and cross platform this isnt a problem. But then you would know that if you used QuickTime. Like it or not QT is a standard for video on the web.
---The fact that QT uses a scroll wheel for volume isnt a reason i wouldnt suggest using QTPro..heh. That would be silly. Its like saying "golly, photoshop 6 has confusing icons in the top of the layers palette, better not use it then!"
---As far as "free" versus $30 goes i could recommend lots of freeware editors, but theyre not very good and i wouldnt be doing yamiho any favors by recommending them. Sure, you could probably come up with 5 freeware editors that when combined do what quicktime pro does (except for the codecs), but as per your argument above about the abilities of users, combining 5 apps to do one task is going to be confusing. So youve conveniently contradicted yourself.
---I don't know how this got into a Mac vs PC debate. QuickTime Pro is 100% cross platform. However your little diatribe seems to have provided you with a soapbox for "mac bashing" which, if thats how you plan on convincing me that VirtualDub is better, is juvenile. I have no idea what exactly QuickTime Pro as an editor has to do with platforms. Its a great editor and thats the long and short of it. If you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro with FinalCut. Even the big schools that teach video editing use QTPro and FinalCut. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why with the given features, and codec options. You can rant and rave and attempt to insult people all you like but those are the facts.
---Your demonstrated lack of knowledge about video and video editors in other questions which i corrected for the benefit of the question poster has made me come to the conclusion that you have some sort of grudge. Carrying grudges across questions is bad form, especially when it it gets to the point where one contradicts someone else just for the sake of trying to prove something. Thats silly and doesnt help yamiho in the least.
I suggest you read http://a1936.g.akamai.net/7/1936/51/bafa6c3c3dc4d9/www.apple.com/quicktime/pdf/QuickTime_Pro_DS-b.pdf
At this point im going to stop posting to this question because its gotten absurd. I fully expect you to post some "last word" jibe attemtping to discredit me but it really doesnt matter. My credentials and experience speak for themselves. Yamiho, use whatever you want but take a close look at both options before choosing.
"How many times have you encouraged people not to use the AVI format because it is not cross-platform and suffers from obscure codec dependencies? 'But not everybody will be able to see it' you cry! Anyway, now you appear to be espousing the virtues of a codec that would cost people 'hundreds of dollars' to acquire. What about the people that can't see your beautiful Sorenson-created vids? Duh! But wait! Then we would all have to go and buy QTPro and your master plan will be complete! The bottom line, weed, is that you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid."
---Since QuickTime Player is free and cross platform this isnt a problem. But then you would know that if you used QuickTime. Like it or not QT is a standard for video on the web.
---The fact that QT uses a scroll wheel for volume isnt a reason i wouldnt suggest using QTPro..heh. That would be silly. Its like saying "golly, photoshop 6 has confusing icons in the top of the layers palette, better not use it then!"
---As far as "free" versus $30 goes i could recommend lots of freeware editors, but theyre not very good and i wouldnt be doing yamiho any favors by recommending them. Sure, you could probably come up with 5 freeware editors that when combined do what quicktime pro does (except for the codecs), but as per your argument above about the abilities of users, combining 5 apps to do one task is going to be confusing. So youve conveniently contradicted yourself.
---I don't know how this got into a Mac vs PC debate. QuickTime Pro is 100% cross platform. However your little diatribe seems to have provided you with a soapbox for "mac bashing" which, if thats how you plan on convincing me that VirtualDub is better, is juvenile. I have no idea what exactly QuickTime Pro as an editor has to do with platforms. Its a great editor and thats the long and short of it. If you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro with FinalCut. Even the big schools that teach video editing use QTPro and FinalCut. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why with the given features, and codec options. You can rant and rave and attempt to insult people all you like but those are the facts.
---Your demonstrated lack of knowledge about video and video editors in other questions which i corrected for the benefit of the question poster has made me come to the conclusion that you have some sort of grudge. Carrying grudges across questions is bad form, especially when it it gets to the point where one contradicts someone else just for the sake of trying to prove something. Thats silly and doesnt help yamiho in the least.
I suggest you read http://a1936.g.akamai.net/7/1936/51/bafa6c3c3dc4d9/www.apple.com/quicktime/pdf/QuickTime_Pro_DS-b.pdf
At this point im going to stop posting to this question because its gotten absurd. I fully expect you to post some "last word" jibe attemtping to discredit me but it really doesnt matter. My credentials and experience speak for themselves. Yamiho, use whatever you want but take a close look at both options before choosing.
All you have actually done is used the age-old trick of adopting a moral stance while at the same time getting the final word yourself! If that is not so then why have you taken the trouble at the same time to comment on each of my own points (even if you have interpreted them some other way to suit your own purposes - sigh). And why have you chosen at this precise juncture to level accusations and hurl criticisms at me. Surely a dignified retreat would have been worded differently. Al you are doing is punching me and running away, as a child might.
Anyway, please show me where I have said:
a) QTPro wasn't cross-platform.
If you read my post properly you will notice quite clearly that I was referring to the Sorenson codec being tied in with QTPro if you want to avoid paying several hundred dollars for it! If people produce content for such a codec doesn't that mean that people need to have it installed in order to view that content? So where do they get it from?
So you can spare me the mis-placed sarcasm.
b) That I don't like QuickTime
All I have said all along is that it is not always the best suggestion for the job at hand and that you might consider providing a solution to somebody that achieves what they want for free. I don't see how you can assert that my not sharing your opinion that it is brilliant means that I think it is crap! You make it up as you go along, I'm sure!
So spare me your fabrications.
c) that it takes 5 good sharware apps to create the equivalent QTPro functionality.
I was well aware of what I was writing and I don't say anything like that at all. You have an interpretation problem, I'm afraid. It was an illustration only (although I can appreciate that you are left only with straws to clutch at)...
So spare me your mis-interpretations
d) that I don't like Macs
If you again re-read my post (sigh) you will see that I say Macs are better than PCs and that the Windows OS is crap!!!!
So spare me your paranoia
e) that VirtualDub is better than QTPro
I don't say that anywhere! I have said where it is specifically the best freeware app that I am aware of for the job at hand. Several people have accepted it as a valid answer to the question here at EE. Lets assume that QTPro has it beat hands down. Why would somebody prefer VirtualDub to QTPro? Is it because it does what they want and is free? Well, go figure. Maybe that's why they accepted the answer?
So spare me your defensiveness
>>
you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro
<<
And golly-gee what are they running QTPro on? Macs, by any chance?
>>
---The fact that QT uses a scroll wheel for volume isnt a reason i wouldnt suggest using QTPro..heh.
That would be silly. Its like saying "golly, photoshop 6 has confusing icons in the top of the layers
palette, better not use it then!"
<<
I didn't say that, now did I? You know as well as I do that there are other anomolies and behavioural differences. You're the one who keeps banging on about the freaking scroll-wheel. I have already said that I agree with you that most of the criticisms are petty, have I not? If you honestly do not appreciate the principles behind the consistent look-and-feel approach then there's not more we can exchange on this point. I only pointed it out in the first place because you had the gall to say it was a nice interface!
>>
Your demonstrated lack of knowledge about video and video editors in other questions
<<
Which questions would these be? I'm not saying they don't exist but I don't recall your ever correcting me in other threads. Refresh my memory....i.e. don't spare me my blushes.
regarding the argument about the abilities of users do you really think I was talking about making such a recommendation to somebody who was a new user? Only somebody desperate to score a point would interpret it that way. Look at the first two words 'IF' and 'I'. What does that tell you? Does the word 'hypothetical' mean anything to you? And in any case see my comment to yamiho below. There are many reasons why somebody familiar with a wide-range of apps has prefences for some in one respect and another in other respects. Show me an experienced user for whom this is not so?
Finally, out of curiosity can you please explain how any perceived lack of knowledge about video editing on my part can possibly lead you to the conclusion that I have a grudge!! Doesn't that sound a touch silly to you? I'm irritated and I have explained why. Also, If I'm so inept why do you keep passing up the opportunity to educate me?
Oh, and i didn't expect to see a VirtualDub versus QTPro synopsis at apple's site. I was just saying that apple's site might just over-sell the strengths of QTPro and would not be relevant as one half of a comparison. And, if you think about it, VirtualDub's site is not going to be over-the-top in this respect because it is not a commerial product. Equally, the mentality of a typical freeware developer is not such that they are given over to bragging at their download sites. Obvious, isn't it. This is known as thinking laterally.
OK, maybe you won't post any more in this thread - but you will read this. Also, look out for a whole bunch of new questions in this thread. You will no doubt provide me with the answers I was looking for in exchange for the points. And don't say anything about my doing this. They're my points and I really want to know the answers. Got nothing better to spend them on and the Knowledge Base will have the info available for others.....
Yamiho,
yes, really do take a close look at the options. Ask here if you want to do a particualr job for the price of a download. Some apps are good at editing, some are good at applying effects and transitions, some have great capture interfaces. For instance I like Videotrope for editing files not VirtualDub as weed might be surprised to hear. In the same way that I use Notepad and not Word for small documents, I find that Videotrope has the most intuitive keyboard interaction for navigating through a video if you are just chopping out and pasting frames here and there. I tend to use VirtualDub for its powerful filters and TMPGEnc for encoding to MPEG. Cinax's iFilmEdit is useful for cutting and pasting MPEGS without recompressing the file again (i.e you will retain quality). QTPro and TMPGEnc are the best for converting MOV to AVI.
Anyway, please show me where I have said:
a) QTPro wasn't cross-platform.
If you read my post properly you will notice quite clearly that I was referring to the Sorenson codec being tied in with QTPro if you want to avoid paying several hundred dollars for it! If people produce content for such a codec doesn't that mean that people need to have it installed in order to view that content? So where do they get it from?
So you can spare me the mis-placed sarcasm.
b) That I don't like QuickTime
All I have said all along is that it is not always the best suggestion for the job at hand and that you might consider providing a solution to somebody that achieves what they want for free. I don't see how you can assert that my not sharing your opinion that it is brilliant means that I think it is crap! You make it up as you go along, I'm sure!
So spare me your fabrications.
c) that it takes 5 good sharware apps to create the equivalent QTPro functionality.
I was well aware of what I was writing and I don't say anything like that at all. You have an interpretation problem, I'm afraid. It was an illustration only (although I can appreciate that you are left only with straws to clutch at)...
So spare me your mis-interpretations
d) that I don't like Macs
If you again re-read my post (sigh) you will see that I say Macs are better than PCs and that the Windows OS is crap!!!!
So spare me your paranoia
e) that VirtualDub is better than QTPro
I don't say that anywhere! I have said where it is specifically the best freeware app that I am aware of for the job at hand. Several people have accepted it as a valid answer to the question here at EE. Lets assume that QTPro has it beat hands down. Why would somebody prefer VirtualDub to QTPro? Is it because it does what they want and is free? Well, go figure. Maybe that's why they accepted the answer?
So spare me your defensiveness
>>
you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro
<<
And golly-gee what are they running QTPro on? Macs, by any chance?
>>
---The fact that QT uses a scroll wheel for volume isnt a reason i wouldnt suggest using QTPro..heh.
That would be silly. Its like saying "golly, photoshop 6 has confusing icons in the top of the layers
palette, better not use it then!"
<<
I didn't say that, now did I? You know as well as I do that there are other anomolies and behavioural differences. You're the one who keeps banging on about the freaking scroll-wheel. I have already said that I agree with you that most of the criticisms are petty, have I not? If you honestly do not appreciate the principles behind the consistent look-and-feel approach then there's not more we can exchange on this point. I only pointed it out in the first place because you had the gall to say it was a nice interface!
>>
Your demonstrated lack of knowledge about video and video editors in other questions
<<
Which questions would these be? I'm not saying they don't exist but I don't recall your ever correcting me in other threads. Refresh my memory....i.e. don't spare me my blushes.
regarding the argument about the abilities of users do you really think I was talking about making such a recommendation to somebody who was a new user? Only somebody desperate to score a point would interpret it that way. Look at the first two words 'IF' and 'I'. What does that tell you? Does the word 'hypothetical' mean anything to you? And in any case see my comment to yamiho below. There are many reasons why somebody familiar with a wide-range of apps has prefences for some in one respect and another in other respects. Show me an experienced user for whom this is not so?
Finally, out of curiosity can you please explain how any perceived lack of knowledge about video editing on my part can possibly lead you to the conclusion that I have a grudge!! Doesn't that sound a touch silly to you? I'm irritated and I have explained why. Also, If I'm so inept why do you keep passing up the opportunity to educate me?
Oh, and i didn't expect to see a VirtualDub versus QTPro synopsis at apple's site. I was just saying that apple's site might just over-sell the strengths of QTPro and would not be relevant as one half of a comparison. And, if you think about it, VirtualDub's site is not going to be over-the-top in this respect because it is not a commerial product. Equally, the mentality of a typical freeware developer is not such that they are given over to bragging at their download sites. Obvious, isn't it. This is known as thinking laterally.
OK, maybe you won't post any more in this thread - but you will read this. Also, look out for a whole bunch of new questions in this thread. You will no doubt provide me with the answers I was looking for in exchange for the points. And don't say anything about my doing this. They're my points and I really want to know the answers. Got nothing better to spend them on and the Knowledge Base will have the info available for others.....
Yamiho,
yes, really do take a close look at the options. Ask here if you want to do a particualr job for the price of a download. Some apps are good at editing, some are good at applying effects and transitions, some have great capture interfaces. For instance I like Videotrope for editing files not VirtualDub as weed might be surprised to hear. In the same way that I use Notepad and not Word for small documents, I find that Videotrope has the most intuitive keyboard interaction for navigating through a video if you are just chopping out and pasting frames here and there. I tend to use VirtualDub for its powerful filters and TMPGEnc for encoding to MPEG. Cinax's iFilmEdit is useful for cutting and pasting MPEGS without recompressing the file again (i.e you will retain quality). QTPro and TMPGEnc are the best for converting MOV to AVI.
Yet again im getting sucked into the absurdity. Im only going to comment on your first point because its the only one with any relevance to this question. The rest of it is just anger and misinterpretation not to mention blatant lack of knowledge about QuickTime which you yourself admit to having used only briefly.
The Sorenson Codec comes with QuickTime Player. QuickTime Player is FREE. QuickTime Player CANNOT save with the sorenson codec but it can use it. QuickTime Player is cross platform. Im sure you can put 2 and 2 together.
The Sorenson Codec comes with QuickTime Player. QuickTime Player is FREE. QuickTime Player CANNOT save with the sorenson codec but it can use it. QuickTime Player is cross platform. Im sure you can put 2 and 2 together.
Dunno about the Mac version, but in my experience the Windows version of the QuickTime player is chunky, ugly, and annoying. Go figure.
Yeah, whatever you say weed.
Whast do you call a codec that you can't save 'save with' then? All codecs can do both. Otherwise they aren't codecs now are they? Had you made this clear I can assure you that I could ahve kept up with you. But obviously you don't actuallt know what a codec is!!!
codec = compressor/decompressor for your info.
Whast do you call a codec that you can't save 'save with' then? All codecs can do both. Otherwise they aren't codecs now are they? Had you made this clear I can assure you that I could ahve kept up with you. But obviously you don't actuallt know what a codec is!!!
codec = compressor/decompressor for your info.
Ooh, one of those funky quasi-acronyms like Modem. :)
You learn something new every day.
You learn something new every day.
TRG: heh well, believe it or not, QTPlayer will PLAY sorenson video but not SAVE it. QTPro will PLAY and SAVE to sorenson. Its EXACTLY the same plugin but when you upgrade QuickTime Player to QuickTime Pro it enables the export features.
>>QT Pro is just a beautifully written program.<<
>>The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic but QTPro packs in alot of features into a very
small app. Its stable, and it works very very well. That is a well written app. I dont care what the
code looks like<<
As a programmer I take offense to such a remark!!! Just because it is stable and works well doesn't mean it is well written! Saying something is a well written app implies it can be understood with minimal effort by another programmer who never wrote the app. It is modular, and can be maintained with ease and is flexible enough that it can be altered if necessary.
You could have said "QT Pro is a beautiful program, full featured, and stable." but saying it is "beautifully written" is something you can not know and your rational behind your comment is seriosly flawed.
The initial mistake doesn't bother me but saying "...well written code...I dont care what the code looks like..." is just contradicting yourself and I find that pathetic.
Also your argument about "...If you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, Golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro with FinalCut. Even the big schools that teach video editing use QTPro and FinalCut. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why with the given features, and codec options. You can rant and rave and attempt to insult people all you like but those are the facts..." is absolute BS considering in my Computer Analyst/Programmer course at college they are teaching COBOL still but it doesn't mean that it is the BEST or ONLY OPTION b/c of all its FEATURES!?!?!
>>The whole "well written code" thing is a bit off topic but QTPro packs in alot of features into a very
small app. Its stable, and it works very very well. That is a well written app. I dont care what the
code looks like<<
As a programmer I take offense to such a remark!!! Just because it is stable and works well doesn't mean it is well written! Saying something is a well written app implies it can be understood with minimal effort by another programmer who never wrote the app. It is modular, and can be maintained with ease and is flexible enough that it can be altered if necessary.
You could have said "QT Pro is a beautiful program, full featured, and stable." but saying it is "beautifully written" is something you can not know and your rational behind your comment is seriosly flawed.
The initial mistake doesn't bother me but saying "...well written code...I dont care what the code looks like..." is just contradicting yourself and I find that pathetic.
Also your argument about "...If you walk into any midlevel video lab these days, Golly gee, guess what theyre using. QuickTime Pro with FinalCut. Even the big schools that teach video editing use QTPro and FinalCut. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why with the given features, and codec options. You can rant and rave and attempt to insult people all you like but those are the facts..." is absolute BS considering in my Computer Analyst/Programmer course at college they are teaching COBOL still but it doesn't mean that it is the BEST or ONLY OPTION b/c of all its FEATURES!?!?!
Um...sorry about that I KNOW I did not propose that as an answer??? Please reject it!!!
Yamiho: I did a little digging around and found that Golive, which you mentioned in your question, does have the ability to do QuickTime editing within the Golive app. Have a poke at the tutorials at for a full runthrough on the details. http://www.adobe.com/web/tips/glvvtco/main.html
------
Gibble: Nobody in the film industry is using COBOL to composite video. You will find Avid, Media 100, Final Cut Pro, some Premier, and QuickTime. Im not sure what your Computer Analyst/Programmer course in college has to do with Video Compositing for real world applications. They may be using COBOL to work with video as an example of what it could do in order to teach it but its not something that is used on a real world level. CNN and MTV programming for example (fairly high end, time intensive work) is done in FinalCut Pro with the aid of QuickTime.
I dont consider a well written app "one that any programmer can open and understand" since most end users arent looking at the source code. Well written means that the finished product is clean, stable, and powerful. See my analogy above about photoshop.
------
Gibble: Nobody in the film industry is using COBOL to composite video. You will find Avid, Media 100, Final Cut Pro, some Premier, and QuickTime. Im not sure what your Computer Analyst/Programmer course in college has to do with Video Compositing for real world applications. They may be using COBOL to work with video as an example of what it could do in order to teach it but its not something that is used on a real world level. CNN and MTV programming for example (fairly high end, time intensive work) is done in FinalCut Pro with the aid of QuickTime.
I dont consider a well written app "one that any programmer can open and understand" since most end users arent looking at the source code. Well written means that the finished product is clean, stable, and powerful. See my analogy above about photoshop.
"...Nobody in the film industry is using COBOL to composite video..."
I never said we used COBOL for video editing I was pointing out that just what a college or other institution uses does not mean that industry and real life use the same things.
COBOL was very popular once upon a time for computer programming but now it is of little value to anyone except those who have time and money tied up in programs allready written in COBOL.
IT WAS AN ANALOGY!!!
I never said we used COBOL for video editing I was pointing out that just what a college or other institution uses does not mean that industry and real life use the same things.
COBOL was very popular once upon a time for computer programming but now it is of little value to anyone except those who have time and money tied up in programs allready written in COBOL.
IT WAS AN ANALOGY!!!
Ahhh ok i see. I think its comparing apples and oranges though. With programming you work your way up to more and more complex levels of code. Often theyll start out with Basic or somesuch and work up from there. Most people dont start with C++. With film editing you either learn one of the solutions it or you dont and when a school is preparing students for life at a company like CNN or MTV, or any number of other entities, theyre going to teach what those companies are using. And in fact, they do. It's also limited a bit by the number of options. The schools only have so many options for video compositing solutions where they have loads of options in the programming arena. The choices we have, have been around a long time, FinalCut Pro being the newest on the ballfield. You pick one, or several, and learn them because there arent any other choices that are used in the real world. Obviously a school isnt going to spend years teaching people to use SuperDuperMegaVideoEditorP
In any case, no need to get angry or yell. Try to keep it mellow so we dont end up with more of the same kind of stuff that TRG and I went through. Its not fun for anyone.
In any case, no need to get angry or yell. Try to keep it mellow so we dont end up with more of the same kind of stuff that TRG and I went through. Its not fun for anyone.
<zoom, the point flies past weed>
*Notif OFF*
*Notif OFF*
Then you either need to explain it better, or make sure you fully understood the gist of my last post, without getting angry or flippant. Again, its not welcome here.
Yamiho: are you still out there or did you get disgusted and leave? Want to close this question out? I think weve pretty much beat the relevant issues to death so its in your court now.
ASKER
see guyz i dont understand now to whom i've to give the points.. coz all of your comments are really interesting and i gained some knowledge about the different kind of softwares.. thanx a lot anyway to all of them, who took part in this questions. i'm glad to know the helping ppl. int his world.. :)
if you guyz wanna discuss then i'll keep open this question.. but plz dont criticize each other. actually now the other guyz who is professional in video editing, he is going to do for me. so my job is done. i'm not a video editor, i'm a just Web Developer. so i just need avi,mpeg format. so that i'll put on the web that's it :).
thanx and regards
YamihO
if you guyz wanna discuss then i'll keep open this question.. but plz dont criticize each other. actually now the other guyz who is professional in video editing, he is going to do for me. so my job is done. i'm not a video editor, i'm a just Web Developer. so i just need avi,mpeg format. so that i'll put on the web that's it :).
thanx and regards
YamihO
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
thanx a lot for discussing for me and coz of your discussion i learn't something good, which'll help me in future.. thanx a lot guyz...
regards
YamihO
regards
YamihO
All's well that ends well....
:-)
:-)
Hello everyone,
Please try to refrain from having confrontations similar to the one above within a thread. Constructive criticisms and opinionated statements are always acceptable, so long as points are made in a professional manner and still hold bearing on the topic at hand. If you wish to argue about these things, try to do so off-thread, perhaps privately in email. These long on-going battles often diminish the value of a thread and flood other participant's email boxes with unneeded notifications. It also draws attention away from the original focus of the question.
Thank You,
TonyS
Community Support Moderator @ Experts Exchange
Please try to refrain from having confrontations similar to the one above within a thread. Constructive criticisms and opinionated statements are always acceptable, so long as points are made in a professional manner and still hold bearing on the topic at hand. If you wish to argue about these things, try to do so off-thread, perhaps privately in email. These long on-going battles often diminish the value of a thread and flood other participant's email boxes with unneeded notifications. It also draws attention away from the original focus of the question.
Thank You,
TonyS
Community Support Moderator @ Experts Exchange
for this you also need to capture the video to your harddisk. for that you need either a graphics card with video input or a tv-card with video input or a special capture card (they normally come with video editing software).
Depends on how much money you want to spend ...
and not to forget you need much hd-space and fast hds.