What do you guys use for video encoding, editing, etc?

waylay00 · #1 02-18-2008, 10:05 PM

What do you guys use to make Youtube videos of your playing, etc...?

Anyway,s I ask because I just received my new Panasonic PV-GS320 camcorder. I shot some footage last night, and I've captured it onto my hard drive as a raw AVI file.

Now, I would like to be able to take this footage and do the following:

Add a title
Trim the length
Export as H.264 with AAC or MP3 audio

What tools do I need to do this? I've tried Avid Free DV, but all the audio codecs are either obscure or antiquated (no MP3 or AAC, etc). And of course, Windows Movie Maker will only let me output files as WMV or AVI. I'm running Windows XP.

Any help on my situation?

Thanks,
Wade

Tubarão Guitars · #2 02-19-2008, 01:41 AM

I'm using Sony Vegas for vid edit.
Then, 'Any Video Converter Free' for rendering in any format i want:
http://www.any-video-converter.com/p...or_video_free/

Tubarão Guitars · #3 02-19-2008, 01:43 AM

edited. sorry.

microdmitry · #4 02-19-2008, 02:20 AM

Why do people still buy SD camcorders in 2008? That I'll never understand.

Tank · #5 02-19-2008, 02:23 AM

Just get a Mac

richard1973 · #6 02-19-2008, 04:16 AM

Adobe Premier is easy to use to edit add titles etc (make title screens in Photoshop and add the images as frames in Premier) or if you just want text titles on top of footage Premier can do that. Premier also has various options for output types.

Batchimp RG · #7 02-19-2008, 05:32 AM

Yeah, Avid Free and Windows Movie Maker are inadequate. I use Pinnacle Studio 9 for PC or iMovie if I'm on a Mac.

Pinnacle Studio 9 is cheap and lets you easily edit bits you don't want, add a menu (for making DVDs) and convert your AVI (raw digital movie footage) to almost any output file...for emailing, web-streaming, you-tubing, dvd making etc etc....

microdmitry · #8 02-19-2008, 05:40 AM

Y'all should watch iMovie '08 video to even have a point of reference wrt what's "easy" these days: http://www.apple.com/ilife/imovie/

And the main strength is not even ease of use. One other important aspect of it is it helps you make sense of your digital video by creating a library. Even if you capture your video to an external hard drive, you still have "scrollable" thumbnail previews to see what it was about, even when your drive is disconnected. So you can find your clips, and THEN connect the right hard drives and piece a movie together. Clips "come online" automatically as you connect the drives.

This feature is very important for HD video, because one tape takes up over 50GB, and you really don't want to store it locally. Seriously, this program has so many "how come no one thought of this before" moments, it's crazy.

waylay00 · #9 02-19-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by microdmitry

Why do people still buy SD camcorders in 2008? That I'll never understand.

The PV-GS320 was $300. I'd be hard press to find anything better for that price point.

microdmitry · #10 02-19-2008, 02:55 PM

Presumably the goal when buying a camcorder is to shoot video with it, not just pay as little money as possible. And compared to HD, SD camcorder picture quality is very bad. It's much more than a difference than between DVD and high def disks, there's simply no comparison.

Rotti · #11 02-19-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubarão Guitars

I'm using Sony Vegas for vid edit.
Then, 'Any Video Converter Free' for rendering in any format i want:
http://www.any-video-converter.com/p...or_video_free/

Another vote for Vegas. Very nice software. I also find quicktime pro usefull for downsizing videos to something you can use on the web. And not just quicktime videos but small mpegs, wmv's, avi's etc.

waylay00 · #12 02-19-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by microdmitry

Presumably the goal when buying a camcorder is to shoot video with it, not just pay as little money as possible. And compared to HD, SD camcorder picture quality is very bad. It's much more than a difference than between DVD and high def disks, there's simply no comparison.

But that's not a very valid point. The goal of buying a guitar is to play a guitar, but not everyone spends $1000+ on their first one. Some people, like myself, don't use a camcorder enough to justify spending $800+ on one either...

Plus, it's not as if I'm shooting a Hollywood blockbuster. The quality I'm getting on this Pansonic is suitable enough for me.

Batchimp RG · #13 02-20-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by microdmitry

Presumably the goal when buying a camcorder is to shoot video with it, not just pay as little money as possible. And compared to HD, SD camcorder picture quality is very bad. It's much more than a difference than between DVD and high def disks, there's simply no comparison.

I am a keen videographer. I own a Sony HD FX-1, a sony mini dv from 2003, and a Panasonic CCCD mii-dv from last year. There is a difference in picture quality when viewing raw footage but when you compress it in programs like Pinnacle, DVD Studio Pro, FCE, i Movie the final product is not that diferent, or at least not that bad that it bothers me.

Ofcourse, the FX-1 is broadcast quality but you need to spend money on grading and pro authoring the footage for it to reach that stage.

9 times out of 10 I use my Sony mini-dv as it's so versatile and I actually prefer the finished product shot on that.
When it finally dies on me I'll buy another £300 camera...not HD.

Batchimp RG · #14 02-20-2008, 05:46 AM

I'm just saying mini-dv is great and you really don't have to go expensive tyo shoot good footage. Thank goodness

microdmitry · #15 02-20-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimp RG

There is a difference in picture quality when viewing raw footage but when you compress it in programs like Pinnacle, DVD Studio Pro, FCE, i Movie the final product is not that diferent, or at least not that bad that it bothers me.

You haven't seen the results you'd get from a decent HD camcorder (even consumer grade - Canon HV20 is a great example). It really blows the doors off anything standard def mini DV. We're talking 0.3MP poorly compressed picture compared to 2MP (actually a bit less, they cheat), compressed with MPEG2. On top of that, you get 24P and proper widescreen if you'd like, all for well under $1K.