mediaDS wrote:


Hi Dieter,
I just looked at your system specs in your profile, and I am betting that your higher quality equipment is what is allowing you to use H.264 MOV files natively in LW. My system only has 4GB of ram, expandable to 8 GB (which I will be doing today) and you have 16GB! Not to mention the quad core processor.
I guess mainly I am jealous!

Hopefully later on when I add some memory to my system it will perform better.

Thanks for the reply,
Ken

AVCHD is storage efficient, but for that very reason it is a resource hog when editing. Takes a lot of processing power to create 14 out of 15 frames on the fly from partial frame data.

You're welcome, Ken. And no need to be jealous

Memory is quite cheap at the moment, fortunately. And if it comes to video editing, you can't have enough of it.

Just let me know if I can be of any help with your system.

regards

Dieter

Hi all,

first post here.

I'm a GH2 owner too and I'm reading about the import/transcoding problem or maybe workflow.
For what I've read and understood, with the free license I need an external tool to transcode the MTS files for importing. With the pro version I don't need to transcode. Is it right?

I read that DSLR Post Prep could do the job and it uses ffmpeg under the rimes...

I know that codec licensing it a real jungle but could someone explain why ffmpeg is open source and free and it can decode the AVCHD mts files while LWKS needs a paid license?

Thank you in advance

Hi and welcome

M43user wrote:


Yes. But keep in mind that even the Pro version cannot import AC3 audio at the moment. The next update might resolve this issue.



Well, thats easy: They just don't care, nobody complained so far - but only as long as ffmpeg and its codecs is used for private purposes. If you use ffmpeg inside a commercial product then you might face legal actions.

Thats, by the way, the reason for Linux Distributions not to include those software packages.

A quote from the ffmpeg web site:



You may read more about the legal problems of ffmpeg on their web site.

Dieter

Dear M43user and Dieter,





I think the main reason that Lightworks Pro costs money is that EditShare needs to make a profit somewhere, so that they can stay in business and keep providing the whole shebang for such a low cost, as well as the free version. I'm grateful that they are doing what they're doing. It's a lot easier to pay $60 a year than a whole lot more. They also have to pay for licensed software that's included in the program.

I don't believe that using ffmpeg to transcode files that will be used commercially is a violation -- it's only when you include the ffmpeg program as a library or utility in a commercial program that's a problem (as you said, Dieter). The *media* that is transcoded is not impacted either way.

Yours,

Peter