Recommendation for best video editing shareware?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:19:44 GMT, fitwell <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote:

>I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
>http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
>You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.

No you don't. That page is about paying $39.95 per year for online
storage of your videos and photos. It's also called Screenblast, but
it's not Screenblast Movie Studio. Confusing, but they have a link on
the same page to Movie Studio and ACID.
http://www.screenblast.com/main/co [...] Findex.jsp

This is another page for Screenblast Movie Studio 3.0 ($99.95):
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures. [...] sp?PID=856
Trial: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures. [...] sp?DID=473

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:57 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>If you are running XP them movie maker will do what you want. It's basic but
>you get what you pay for.

Neat. No, having Win98SE, I don't have that one.

Thanks for the tip. When I go to my friends' house or my cousin's,
I'll check it out on their XP box.

Cheers!

>"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>news:jro7h0l0rs1ogm15jh7grlhp2ijpitvcdq@4ax.com...
>> I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
>> http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
>> You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.
>>
>> But I saw some music videos someone made that incorporate ripped avi
>> portions with music and he added fads and titles, etc. I'd also like
>> to be able to put insets in my choice of size, add stills and be able
>> to add sound where I need to.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend the best shareware for this type of thing that is
>> also easy or intuitive enough to use but that doesn't require a yearly
>> fee to use forever?
>>
>> Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:20:39 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>If your PC can handle it then XP is a good upgrade. You would need at least
>a 800meg CPU and 384 Mb memory.

Yes, that's nice. And, no, I can't <g>. Money is an issue. Space is
an issue. The computer hardware is an issue <g>. (Plus I don't like
XP.)

600MHz, P3, 128SDRAM.

Thanks just the same. <g>

(btw, I _still_ have to install my shell extensions on XP. They
haven't fixed things yet in XP that were a problem in mine. Too funny
that.)

>"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>news:3id8h0525hgefd092cvqsk0tph9i81lmin@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:57 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you are running XP them movie maker will do what you want. It's basic
>but
>> >you get what you pay for.
>>
>> Neat. No, having Win98SE, I don't have that one.
>>
>> Thanks for the tip. When I go to my friends' house or my cousin's,
>> I'll check it out on their XP box.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jro7h0l0rs1ogm15jh7grlhp2ijpitvcdq@4ax.com...
>> >> I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
>> >> http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
>> >> You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.
>> >>
>> >> But I saw some music videos someone made that incorporate ripped avi
>> >> portions with music and he added fads and titles, etc. I'd also like
>> >> to be able to put insets in my choice of size, add stills and be able
>> >> to add sound where I need to.
>> >>
>> >> Can anyone recommend the best shareware for this type of thing that is
>> >> also easy or intuitive enough to use but that doesn't require a yearly
>> >> fee to use forever?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:33:23 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>Really you are not going to have that good an experience doing video with
>that setup then, get someone else to do it.
>
>Don't like XP............ get over it, if you are staying with 98 then you
>are lost, bye.

<lol> You crack me up. Thanks for the laugh.

Doing quite well on 98, thanks. And no need for you to even read any
of my posts from now on.

Cheers.

>"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>news:3hi9h05248ti722uab0esp7614lm225tsg@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:20:39 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If your PC can handle it then XP is a good upgrade. You would need at
>least
>> >a 800meg CPU and 384 Mb memory.
>>
>> Yes, that's nice. And, no, I can't <g>. Money is an issue. Space is
>> an issue. The computer hardware is an issue <g>. (Plus I don't like
>> XP.)
>>
>> 600MHz, P3, 128SDRAM.
>>
>> Thanks just the same. <g>
>>
>> (btw, I _still_ have to install my shell extensions on XP. They
>> haven't fixed things yet in XP that were a problem in mine. Too funny
>> that.)
>>
>> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3id8h0525hgefd092cvqsk0tph9i81lmin@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:57 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If you are running XP them movie maker will do what you want. It's
>basic
>> >but
>> >> >you get what you pay for.
>> >>
>> >> Neat. No, having Win98SE, I don't have that one.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the tip. When I go to my friends' house or my cousin's,
>> >> I'll check it out on their XP box.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >>
>> >> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:jro7h0l0rs1ogm15jh7grlhp2ijpitvcdq@4ax.com...
>> >> >> I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
>> >> >> http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
>> >> >> You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But I saw some music videos someone made that incorporate ripped avi
>> >> >> portions with music and he added fads and titles, etc. I'd also
>like
>> >> >> to be able to put insets in my choice of size, add stills and be
>able
>> >> >> to add sound where I need to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can anyone recommend the best shareware for this type of thing that
>is
>> >> >> also easy or intuitive enough to use but that doesn't require a
>yearly
>> >> >> fee to use forever?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bariloche wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:45:23 GMT, fitwell <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Doing quite well on 98, thanks.
>
> I'm doing it on WinMe, just because my mobo didn't want to install
> itself of Win98. But it's pretty close to Win98, and I have nothing to
> complain about.

Do you use Windows Movie Maker with that ME box? If I remember I had it
with on an HP system which now is running Win98se. I agree that XP and a
fast system is nicer if you can afford it.

Cliff

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

600mhz P3? forget about editing video, how do you play music on that?
I tried to show my brother something on his P3 ( I believe it was 1.3ghz)
and I gave up
cause I didn't have the patients to wait anymore!!!
Upgrading isn't a luxury when you can buy an athlon xp 2400+ cpu and
motherboard for less than
it takes to have the family eat at McDonalds. Just find a motherboard that
fits your case
and uses your memory and video card, although you can find one with a video
card built in,
cause I doubt there was a decent pci video card in any P3, 600 mhz machine.
Go to www.newegg.com and do it yourself.

AnthonyR.

"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
news:3hi9h05248ti722uab0esp7614lm225tsg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:20:39 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> >If your PC can handle it then XP is a good upgrade. You would need at
least
> >a 800meg CPU and 384 Mb memory.
>
> Yes, that's nice. And, no, I can't <g>. Money is an issue. Space is
> an issue. The computer hardware is an issue <g>. (Plus I don't like
> XP.)
>
> 600MHz, P3, 128SDRAM.
>
> Thanks just the same. <g>
>
> (btw, I _still_ have to install my shell extensions on XP. They
> haven't fixed things yet in XP that were a problem in mine. Too funny
> that.)
>
> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3id8h0525hgefd092cvqsk0tph9i81lmin@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:57 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you are running XP them movie maker will do what you want. It's
basic
> >but
> >> >you get what you pay for.
> >>
> >> Neat. No, having Win98SE, I don't have that one.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the tip. When I go to my friends' house or my cousin's,
> >> I'll check it out on their XP box.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:jro7h0l0rs1ogm15jh7grlhp2ijpitvcdq@4ax.com...
> >> >> I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
> >> >> http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
> >> >> You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I saw some music videos someone made that incorporate ripped avi
> >> >> portions with music and he added fads and titles, etc. I'd also
like
> >> >> to be able to put insets in my choice of size, add stills and be
able
> >> >> to add sound where I need to.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can anyone recommend the best shareware for this type of thing that
is
> >> >> also easy or intuitive enough to use but that doesn't require a
yearly
> >> >> fee to use forever?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:10:57 GMT, "Cliff" <cliff-f@xemaps.com> wrote:

>Bariloche wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:45:23 GMT, fitwell <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doing quite well on 98, thanks.
>>
>> I'm doing it on WinMe, just because my mobo didn't want to install
>> itself of Win98. But it's pretty close to Win98, and I have nothing to
>> complain about.
>
> Do you use Windows Movie Maker with that ME box? If I remember I had it
>with on an HP system which now is running Win98se. I agree that XP and a
>fast system is nicer if you can afford it.
>
>Cliff

Thanks, it's also the "if you can afford it" bit that's the trouble!
<g>

I was on an XP box again yesterday for two hours training a friend.
There's nothing on it FOR ME that I can't do on my Win98SE box so it's
a moot point. I'd much rather have a larger hdd, truthfully (oh, and
more RAM would be nice).

There are even more "deficiencies" in XP than I had thought. I'd have
to hunt around for more shell extensions for it as XP went a couple of
steps back in a few areas.

But I'm a power user if not a technical or hardware expert. All I
know is how it works and feels. None of those XP boxes are
appreciably faster or better for what I do (even the video stuff I
have done). And I've worked on a some boxes here and there. Don't
know what that means in many ways but all I know is that I'm still
quite alright with my Win98SE. The day I don't do alright is the day
I'll switch once money allows. That's always been the case in
everthing in life, period. <g>

I've been doing okay re the video stuff I've done up till now on this
OS. The real trouble will be my lack of hdd space more than anything.
Luckily I'm not interested in ripping movie DVDs at all. My interest
is in editing workout videos which are always well under one hour and
my free hdd space seems to be able to handle that.

Anyway, thanks. Have a good one.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hey, you asked a question in an open forum, these are the answers, like it
or not.

By the way adding more RAM to a Win98 box will give you little or no
improvement, adding it to a Win2k, XP or Linux box will give huge
improvements, as a power user you will know that of course.

Anyway, there is your answer, Linux, but you will have to get an older
Kernal.

I wonder if you would tell us about all the things in XP that don't work for
you?

Cheers.

"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
news:5v6fh05kqj39p0rbgnl8r4kue4hlc1seec@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:22:56 GMT, "AnthonyR"
> <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
> >600mhz P3? forget about editing video, how do you play music on that?
> >I tried to show my brother something on his P3 ( I believe it was 1.3ghz)
> >and I gave up
>
> Where have you been??
>
> I edit mp3s in an ordinary way, do mixing in DJ-style with MixMeister
> pro, make complex autorun programs, video editing and "re-sampling"
> with VirtualDub, make screensavers, do up my own presentations, flash
> tutorials etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. I haven't felt any
> deficiencies doing all this on Win98SE at all! I've done graphics in
> Bryce, Poser and PaintShopPro (though I'm very new to Poser must
> admit), do animated GIFs. I'm a super eclectic power user and there's
> isn't anything I've done _yet_ in the four years I've had this
> machine, and I've done virtually everything except serious video
> editing.
>
> I'm more concerned with hdd space and RAM, but like Poser, that's a
> real hog, I just use the one app and my email client if need be.
>
> I'd rather have this machine than none and it works darn well. I
> never would have thought I could have done everything I have done on
> it in the four years since I bought it. Time and time again, I
> hesitated a bit listening to you types saying only the latest will
> work only to be pleasantly surprised when my machine handled it just
> fine.
>
> Wonder what you'd say about the 16-bit souped up computers built by
> guys/gals who know what they're doing. The stats they report back are
> astounding. <lol>
>
> The day that I don't do alright is the day I switch ONCE MONEY ALLOWS.
>
> And you might have money, but I don't <g>. I can handle my cable
> internet and other expenses but no way, no how can I put up for a
> whole new computer. So the UPGRADING ISN'T A LUXURY is a joke. Yeah?
> Well, I don't eat at McDonalds and don't have a family and I still
> can't afford anything new.
>
> Kinda arrogant for you to make assumptions like that, sorry to say.
> Not looking to start an argument, it just gets my goat that we all
> have to live within our means, whatever they are yet people can make
> these broad sort of statements. Yeah, went that route of looking for
> parts. Since I have a working computer was not going to jeopardize it
> experimenting with putting something together myself since all the
> places I've been charge a fortune to install even when I did find one
> or two deals. That wiped out any savings, actually.
>
> I know all this will go in one ear and out the other, but I had to
> write something. Hopefully you will be more sensitive to other
> people's condition in future. This is not a helpful type of message.
> We all do the best we can and some can do better than others. I'm not
> on the street, I live in a nice neighbourhood in a nice enough
> bachelor apartment and I'm not in debt and have no credit cards. I
> eat right and take care of my needs. So I can't afford a new
> computer? It'd be a sin, though, since this one does a super
> fantastic job.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >cause I didn't have the patients to wait anymore!!!
> >Upgrading isn't a luxury when you can buy an athlon xp 2400+ cpu and
> >motherboard for less than
> >it takes to have the family eat at McDonalds. Just find a motherboard
that
> >fits your case
> >and uses your memory and video card, although you can find one with a
video
> >card built in,
> >cause I doubt there was a decent pci video card in any P3, 600 mhz
machine.
> >Go to www.newegg.com and do it yourself.
> >
> >AnthonyR.
> >
> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3hi9h05248ti722uab0esp7614lm225tsg@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:20:39 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If your PC can handle it then XP is a good upgrade. You would need at
> >least
> >> >a 800meg CPU and 384 Mb memory.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's nice. And, no, I can't <g>. Money is an issue. Space is
> >> an issue. The computer hardware is an issue <g>. (Plus I don't like
> >> XP.)
> >>
> >> 600MHz, P3, 128SDRAM.
> >>
> >> Thanks just the same. <g>
> >>
> >> (btw, I _still_ have to install my shell extensions on XP. They
> >> haven't fixed things yet in XP that were a problem in mine. Too funny
> >> that.)
> >>
> >> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3id8h0525hgefd092cvqsk0tph9i81lmin@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:57 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If you are running XP them movie maker will do what you want. It's
> >basic
> >> >but
> >> >> >you get what you pay for.
> >> >>
> >> >> Neat. No, having Win98SE, I don't have that one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the tip. When I go to my friends' house or my cousin's,
> >> >> I'll check it out on their XP box.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers!
> >> >>
> >> >> >"fitwell" <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:jro7h0l0rs1ogm15jh7grlhp2ijpitvcdq@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> I don't like how Sony Screenblast Movie Studio operates:
> >> >> >> http://www.screenblast.com/main/home/index.jsp
> >> >> >> You have to pay $39.95 per year to use it from the looks of it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But I saw some music videos someone made that incorporate ripped
avi
> >> >> >> portions with music and he added fads and titles, etc. I'd also
> >like
> >> >> >> to be able to put insets in my choice of size, add stills and be
> >able
> >> >> >> to add sound where I need to.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can anyone recommend the best shareware for this type of thing
that
> >is
> >> >> >> also easy or intuitive enough to use but that doesn't require a
> >yearly
> >> >> >> fee to use forever?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

fitwell wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:10:57 GMT, "Cliff" <cliff-f@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>> Bariloche wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:45:23 GMT, fitwell <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doing quite well on 98, thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm doing it on WinMe, just because my mobo didn't want to install
>>> itself of Win98. But it's pretty close to Win98, and I have nothing
>>> to complain about.
>>
>> Do you use Windows Movie Maker with that ME box? If I remember I had
>> it with on an HP system which now is running Win98se. I agree that
>> XP and a fast system is nicer if you can afford it.
>>
>> Cliff
>
> Thanks, it's also the "if you can afford it" bit that's the trouble!
> <g>
>
> I was on an XP box again yesterday for two hours training a friend.
> There's nothing on it FOR ME that I can't do on my Win98SE box so it's
> a moot point. I'd much rather have a larger hdd, truthfully (oh, and
> more RAM would be nice).
>
> There are even more "deficiencies" in XP than I had thought. I'd have
> to hunt around for more shell extensions for it as XP went a couple of
> steps back in a few areas.
>
> But I'm a power user if not a technical or hardware expert. All I
> know is how it works and feels. None of those XP boxes are
> appreciably faster or better for what I do (even the video stuff I
> have done). And I've worked on a some boxes here and there. Don't
> know what that means in many ways but all I know is that I'm still
> quite alright with my Win98SE. The day I don't do alright is the day
> I'll switch once money allows. That's always been the case in
> everthing in life, period. <g>
>
> I've been doing okay re the video stuff I've done up till now on this
> OS. The real trouble will be my lack of hdd space more than anything.
> Luckily I'm not interested in ripping movie DVDs at all. My interest
> is in editing workout videos which are always well under one hour and
> my free hdd space seems to be able to handle that.
>
> Anyway, thanks. Have a good one.

I still have many Win98se boxes I use every day. You don't need XP for
large drives. I have many 100Gig drives with Promise card in PCI slots. The
only real limit is the NTFS file system but you can get around this by
breaking up the video files (AVI) to under 20 minutes. The only real reason
I ended upgrading to XP was it comes on the new systems I buy.

Cliff

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "Cliff" <cliff-f@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:x5SRc.275585$Oq2.21185@attbi_s52...
>> fitwell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:10:57 GMT, "Cliff" <cliff-f@xemaps.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bariloche wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:45:23 GMT, fitwell <NoSpam@NoJunkMail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing quite well on 98, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing it on WinMe, just because my mobo didn't want to install
>>>>> itself of Win98. But it's pretty close to Win98, and I have
>>>>> nothing to complain about.
>>>>
>>>> Do you use Windows Movie Maker with that ME box? If I remember I
>>>> had it with on an HP system which now is running Win98se. I agree
>>>> that XP and a fast system is nicer if you can afford it.
>>>>
>>>> Cliff
>>>
>>> Thanks, it's also the "if you can afford it" bit that's the trouble!
>>> <g>
>>>
>>> I was on an XP box again yesterday for two hours training a friend.
>>> There's nothing on it FOR ME that I can't do on my Win98SE box so
>>> it's a moot point. I'd much rather have a larger hdd, truthfully
>>> (oh, and more RAM would be nice).
>>>
>>> There are even more "deficiencies" in XP than I had thought. I'd
>>> have to hunt around for more shell extensions for it as XP went a
>>> couple of steps back in a few areas.
>>>
>>> But I'm a power user if not a technical or hardware expert. All I
>>> know is how it works and feels. None of those XP boxes are
>>> appreciably faster or better for what I do (even the video stuff I
>>> have done). And I've worked on a some boxes here and there. Don't
>>> know what that means in many ways but all I know is that I'm still
>>> quite alright with my Win98SE. The day I don't do alright is the
>>> day I'll switch once money allows. That's always been the case in
>>> everthing in life, period. <g>
>>>
>>> I've been doing okay re the video stuff I've done up till now on
>>> this OS. The real trouble will be my lack of hdd space more than
>>> anything. Luckily I'm not interested in ripping movie DVDs at all.
>>> My interest is in editing workout videos which are always well
>>> under one hour and my free hdd space seems to be able to handle
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks. Have a good one.
>>
>> I still have many Win98se boxes I use every day. You don't need XP
>> for large drives. I have many 100Gig drives with Promise card in PCI
>> slots. The only real limit is the NTFS file system but you can get
>> around this by breaking up the video files (AVI) to under 20
>> minutes. The only real reason I ended upgrading to XP was it comes
>> on the new systems I buy.
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>>
>
> We are very pleased with you Cliff, however if you were so happy
> your would retro load Win98, why do you put up with XP.

Who is WE? You have a mouse in your pocket? I said I got XP with new
systems and am still happy with older Win98se boxes. Both are fine working
OSes for different reasons. YES? NO? What do WE think?