We are looking for a video editor at work for some of our non-video people to use in small projects. We are evaluating a few different editors and one if the first criteria is simple process flow.

My first experience was an error stating a debugger was found and lightworks died... Ok, killed VS2010 and it ran. That was a first for me. Never had production software do that before, not a good sign.

My second experience was not a good one as lightworks ( free / evaluation ) will not open a simple mpeg-4 file. So I trans coded it in another program thinking I would test it with files from the other camera's later but was blocked a third time because of the audio bit rate. Really? So I trans coded it again and it died again for an unknown error. ????

ok, I assume ( dangerous I know ) your company wants my company to pay for the full version ( multiple copies if we did ). But that's not going to happen now as I have uninstalled the program and most likely will not try again in the evaluation process we are currently doing.

My suggestion is to change your software to open any standard video file. Restrict all the pro stuff to your hearts desire but don't restrict getting the files in. If people can't test, your just hurting yourselves.

Just my opinion, disregard as needed...

Just a few comments about your post. Hopefully they don't come across as retorts. Now, let's get right to it...

Lightworks won't run when using a debugger. This is to keep it's copy protection from being hacked. Probably for other reasons as well. I'm not sure, but I would assume that a lot of other programs do this as well.

The codec situation is a tricky one. How many quality editors do you know of that are free? There's VirtualDub and others but I wouldn't really call that an editor. Yes it does editing and some other stuff, but it isn't in the editors category when I think of editors. Sorry everyone who loves vDub. I use it too though!

The other thing about codecs is that they cost money. Someone somewhere is paying money for the use of the codec... unless it is open source. I don't know the "ins and outs" of that, but I think it was explained that technically they aren't allowed to be used for commercial purposes or to be charged for personal use. Read that somewhere I think. Don't quote me on that. As an example of someone somewhere paying, Microsoft pays for the codecs in its OS. Not to mention, Adobe charges an arm and a leg for their product and so does Avid/Apple/Sony.

Yes, EditShare, wants you to purchase the Pro version. That is kind of the idea behind having a business. It certainly isn't to loose money. However, the functions in the Free version are more than generous and enough for anyone who wants to transcode themselves. Lightworks has standards... you may think they are on the heavy side but they are standards and you have to adhere to them. Looking at its long history of professional Hollywood feature films, using it must be possible. You just have to understand it. Also, the fee goes towards more than just codec support. They are constantly improving the software and that comes "free".

As for your suggestion, wouldn't that be nice? That is not sarcastic, that really would be awesome and I'd be all for it, but then they would probably be loosing money at my expense and I don't think that is right.

Just a few thoughts... hopefully they came across calm. If you have a sample file and would upload a copy, I'm sure someone on the forum can help you with converting it so that you can try Lightworks. The forum is truly a "friendly" place to find helpful advice.

Last but not least, Lightworks is a great editor with good developers behind it. I think anyway... many others too. It's a shame that you won't give it a "fair" shot, but if you must move on... best of luck with your future work!

I was thinking about the comments about a "free trial". It seems to me the free trial model is not like a lot of the other free trial models. I never use a limited time trial offer. Usually, I don't want to buy the software so I am not going to download and use the trial model. Some of the "freeware" is mostly adware. Lightworks says this editor is free and always will be. I notice, too, the only suggestion that I should upgrade is the little red line of text at the bottom of the project selection window. However, it does bug me I don't have a pink shark. Those things indicate a fairly high level of integrity to me.

My impression of the intent is they would like you to try the editor. I know when I tried it, I was overwhelmed by the intuitive nature of the editing process in the software. I have read the statements about the licensing issues. Even though I'm not in the industry, I am positive there are codecs out there that are strictly proprietary by design. So that part is a pipe dream.

All I have to do is accept that Lightworks is one tool in my workflow. This one tool is a good tool. I have some audio analysis tools. I don't want a full featured DAW to be part of my analysis software. In the same way, I don't expect my DAW to have an excellent analysis tool. I kind of look at Lwks in the same way. I turn to Lwks to use an excellent editor.

I do believe the plug--in and assistant application features have great potential. Let the people who develop excellent analysis tools or effects tools or colorizing tools or whatever make those tools. Then let Lightworks be the core of the workflow.

On the educational front, it may be heretical to say editing requires a fairly low level of technical knowledge. Understanding how the picture is packaged into data... You get my point. You can take ffmpeg, ffmbc, Mencoder, etc. and make a library of presets and off you go. Presets is what you get when you can load "anything" into a program. I don't know how much educational value is in that.

Focusing on the business model. First you need a product that works. Then you have to get it into the hands of the consumers. The market includes a large proportion of casual users, like me. Here is the fork in the road. Either you can make a glitzy program with lots of one-size-fits-all features or you can focus on a narrower market, refine the product, and apply limited resources into producing a program whose hallmark is excellence. It's difficult to judge from the outside where in the timeline the development is.

That's my take right now.

@donkpow:

Casual user? You? Really? You? I'll put your name in for the diamond award! J.

Well, maybe "casual" isn't a word I should use to describe myself. I pretty much run around all the time looking like this guy.-->

Really though, I'm not a pro editor. I am a beginning hobbyist and I get more than I give with my participation. I have completed only one project. That being less than 5 minutes in length. I have started about a million. Have you ever wondered what it is like to test drive the same automobile a million times? I may have the answer for you.

donkpow wrote:

You're joking, right? Casual? Yeah, sure (even if you're not earning your living this way).

donkpow wrote:

Yes, and I totally agree if you're just doing the cut. But finishing does require a high degree of technical knowledge. Unfortunately a lot of editing nowadays is actually editing resulting in a finished product, and equally unfortunately a lot of current editors are horrifyingly ignorant of the technical requirements to achieve that finish. They may know some rules that get them a result with their usual workflow, but when faced with something unusual they fall over.

In the days of film cutting if you'd suggested that an editor didn't need to know the complete post path from exposed stock to finished distribution prints you would have been laughed at.

I can honestly say that I have never done a film, tape, or digital media project that has not been able to be finished smoothly to the best possible quality where I have had full control of the post. If I'm working with a new process I research it. If I'm finishing that's obvious; but usually I'm not, so why bother?

You bother because if you supply the lab/finishing facility what they need without them having to do unnecessary conversions or workarounds it will save your client money and preserve quality. And that can only make you look better. If you're working for yourself it will save you money. If you're a hobbyist you won't get irritated needlessly by technical hiccups and you will always be able to produce a finished result.

Just my two cents.