Lightworks has a much better layout (window management + workspaces). It's plugins/filters and plugin system seem to be better / of a higher quality, imo. I personally find it much more intuitive and a _much_ nicer experience to use than kdenlive. The timeline is much nicer, their toolkit is awesome. (it feels like a professional Video editor - kdenlive feel kinda quaint / unfinished / cheap). I'm pretty sure Lightworks supports formats that kdenlive doesnt. (pro version, probably). Performance seems to be better (in Lightworks) than with kdenlive (on my machine). It's an application that's been designed with the film industry in mind (thus it's features reflect that. ie: all of the multi-camera / synchronization stuff) and is _actually_ used in the film industry. Importing / organizing material is a breeze.... Generally speaking, it seems like Lightworks is more on Par with other pro-grade video editors (like AVID), so i find it hard to compare to kdenlive...
Originally Posted by Del_
but honestly, you should just take a look yourself (since you can!). You will be able to tell a lot more by looking yourself, than asking around here... There's also some videos on youtube, obviously not all are linux versions - but you'll get some tutorials, that go in depth on certain features.
Last edited by ninez; 04-30-2013 at 11:21 PM.
What makes you think all software on Linux should cater to your views?
Originally Posted by uid313
Why can't you just not comment on it if you're not going to use it instead of acting like a child? I don't understand.
This is why nobody takes FSF seriously.
Oh you guys...
...come off it already. F*** this and f*** that.
There are FOSS evagelists out there alright. I've just never met one - not on the Internet nor in real life. If you explained FOSS to an intelligent person who understands the concept engineering, you'll most likely be met with praise. However, what we have these days is a bunch of whingers. They do those things like sue MacDonalds after scalding themselves with hot coffee. Now MacDonalds prints warnings on their hot coffee that the coffee is hot. It's all good to have nice customer service. However, then comes along someone who thinks they are clever and might even gain something out of their FOSS project or maybe they are just trying to be nice. So they package it up all nice and sweet so it's easy for *more* (not all) users to *being* to use creations. Then the whingers come along and complain that "it doesn't install and what is all this hype about FOSS. You guys suck and I'm gonna sue you... blah blah blah".
So the problem I personally have with companies who try to wave the FOSS flag is exactly what Lightworks are doing. They said they were open sourcing it. This created a huge media hype and massive following. If they had not done it, perhaps many of their current users would not even know what Lightworks is.
This is my issue with Editshare. If it was a bunder or there are delays - admit it to your eager audience. Keep them up to date. Red did the same thing, They told a big story and in the end it turned out to be a lie - even if not intentional. Please stop this.
FOSS is for engineers. Yes, there may be some trickle down effect to users who benefit from *quality* (not crappy) FOSS. However, the intelecual concept of FOSS is for engineers. Users for the most part do not understand that. So there is no point in waving the FOSS flag. If you're waving the Linux flag, it's almost worse. Linux is no state to be consumed by the average user. Since the intelligence of the average user is dropping by the hour, I think anyone who even understands what a computer does or even what an OS sort of is, should be careful about talking users into using any software. Let them use the appstore or some other shrinkwrapped offering.
I would never connect a DAW or NLE to the Internet. Licensing out your BETA with an iron grip, which was said would be released as open source, does not inspire confidence. Wank on Editshare. Source or GTFO. I say that not because I think closed source is bad or that I would not use it. I use . I say that because they said they would. So live up to your word and hand over the source code, Editshare.
If they'd never mentioned "open source", they'd be a wonderful company, IMHO. It's really great software from what I can tell from the Windows version.
They still only supply an Ubuntu package, though. As long as they're doing that, Lightworks will be useless to me.
I don't have much interest in this project. It was nice when it was first announced. Now after all these delays, i think openshot after it's succesfull kickstarter will kick lightwork's ass in being totally free and still pack all the features 99% of us video editor hobbyists could ever want..
Hm, so it is not about missing features, but rather subjective preferences on various aspects? Personally, I find Kdenlive very well organized, and for anybody familiar with Sony Vegas it should be easy to get started. Hence, I actually disagree on that point, it is just as inuitive and userfriendly as the most expensive alternatives (I have gone through a number of youtube clips looking for hints, and tried a number of alternatives). This article series:
Originally Posted by ninez
did all the difference for me. Reading through it gives you a good overview and should make using kdenlive a breeze. To you it may feel cheap, to me it feels top notch. Beautifully integrated in KDE, no other editor comes close on that part.
You are very hard pressed to find formats Kdenlive does not support, Kdenlive taps into the multimedia framework in linux, basically whatever ffmpeg supports, kdenlive supports. You will find that this point often favours kdenlive over alternatives. This also goes to performance. Since kdenlive uses ffmpeg you are basically complaining about ffmpeg's performance. From what I have heard, render farms in Hollywood uses ffmpeg, so I believe you are at odds here too. Actually, before you set off any rendering job in kdenlive it will show you the exact ffmpeg commands, so you can easily run the rendering anywhere, e.g., through ssh, freeing you desktop to continue heavy editing. That is professional. How is the proprietary competition stacking up with respect to such functionality? Generally speaking I still see kdenlive as more pro grade than lightwoorks. For the multi-camera sync stuff, kdelive has had functionalty for that for a year now:
EDIT: Actually, kdenlive has an excellent online manual: http://userbase.kde.org/Kdenlive/Manual
There you will find how to generate scripts to do the rendering on any machine easily, in batch mode or whatever you refer:
Last edited by Del_; 05-01-2013 at 08:48 AM.
It's one thing to be proprietary, it's another to do it after shouting 'Open Source!'
I don't have a problem with Lightworks being proprietary. I do have a bit of a problem with them announcing that it would be open sourced, but then only using that to draw publicity for multi-platform closed source versions.
Incidentally, the only open source effort I can think of which seems to have been abandoned is Kino. Openshot, Avidemux, and Kdenlive are all still in active development. They're not really competition for the more serious closed source programs, like Lightworks, yet, but they haven't been abandoned yet either.
Who would have thought -an app called KDEnlive, integrates into KDE well...omfg..lmfao (at you). KDE integration _only_ matters to KDE users. it also has NO relevance to how well an NLVE works, nor any bearing on non-KDE users - ie: it's not a selling feature to most people using lightworks (or any NLVE) - and really isn't that just your 'subjective experience' (which shouldn't count at all, by your own logic - bitching at me about mine... seems a bit hypocritical of you).... And Lightwork's layout - isn't a subjective experience. it is WAY more organized than Kdenlive - being able to save all of my workspaces layouts is awesome. The toolkit integrated in lightworks is _much_ better than what Kdenlive offers (with how/what it uses from Qt) and the timeline absolutely destroys kdenlive's timeline.
Originally Posted by Del_
I am more interested in having a decent video editor, than KDE integration. You may find kdenlive intuitive - i found it to be to the contrary, and since i have used other higher end solutions at various times in my life, in no way shape or form, do i agree that kdenlive provides a nice workflow in comparison to anything else that i have used.... It lacks polish, is sometimes unstable and to not be comparable to *any* of the well-established NL video editors on the market. Lightworks is actually comparable to AVID to some degree..
Out of curiousity - are you / have you run Lightworks, on your machine? (just curious, based on your response)...
-> hard pressed, or *lazy and don't care?* (it's the latter). that's exactly why i told you to *go look for yourself*... but i should note: even on Kdenlive's website, it mentions this:
Originally Posted by Del_
where as EditShare mentions this;
Originally Posted by kdenlive features
I'm not sure what the status is on various professional codecs in Kdenlive/ffmpeg (specifically). But it appears ffmpeg may not support some of these professional codecs *properly*, which means Kdenlive cannot be considered a professional NLVE, on that point alone. ..and contrary to your claim that i would be hard-pressed to find codecs it doesn't support, that was easy to find. (dude, all i had to do was go to their own damn website and compare to Lightworks codec offerings.).
Originally Posted by EditShare
Do you care to explain why NOBODY is using Kdenlive professionally??? - by your logic shouldn't almost everyone be using Kdenlive? after all it's the best right, or at least more pro-grade than lightworks, right? (...maybe it's not all you're cracking it up to be, which is more likely the case). i don't know a single person (personally), who would use Kdenlive over Lightworks, Final cut, Avid, etc.... and performance comes down to more than just renders with ffmpeg, so NO i am not complaining about ffmpeg ~ it's like you took what i wrote and ignored the rest of the application. ie: i don't base Ardour's performance solely on it's rendering of wave files. What about all of the other performance related stuff, like realtime FX, various operations/tasks, responsiveness. ...And the multi-camera stuff was one example, fyi. I don't feel like compiling Kdenlive - but i'm guessing Lightworks implementation is better... Kdenlive is pretty lack-luster, all around.
It's also funny how you go on about how Kdenlive is stacking up against the proprietary solutions, yet i don't see any integration / interoperability between Kdenlive and (film/broadcasting) industry standards, such as storage solutions, nor do i see much interoperability between other NLVEs... Does Kdenlive offer 'project sharing' at the level that Lightworks does?? - and if so and you think it is better -> then why didn't Apple and Avid both hire Kdenlive developer to create solutions for their environments? (*they did hire EDitShare to do just that*) ~ you say Kdenlive is better, if it is -> this would certainly be an area it's developers should have made a whack of money, if they had "all of the know how", right?
Yeah, the documentation is okay. but I'm not even slightly interested in using Kdenlive, it was disappointing every time i tried it and it's not as good as lightworks, imo....not even close. - it's had plenty of opportunities to convince me and other people i know, of it's usefulness and it *failed* every time. Development is slow, it's unpolished (especially, if NOT running KDE) and it doesn't stack up against professional solutions.
Originally Posted by Del_
that being said - if you are happy with it. that's great. But i won't be using it.
That isn't what they are doing; http://www.lwks.com/index.php?option...=51&Itemid=177
Originally Posted by CFWhitman
Releasing source code wasn't planned until well after MacOSX and Linux ports. Plus, honestly, the average consumer is not drawn in that much by 'open source', beyond the odd person.(however, the film industry is, since they prefer tools that they can modify as needed. - which you can bet is a big reason/motivation for EditShare to open up the codebase, if i had to guess).
Originally Posted by Lightworks Roadmap