Robert Pogson

One man, closing all the windows.

Video-editing Freed from M$

technology

Video-editing Freed from M$

One of the places touted as a selling-point for that other OS is video-editing. There are a bunch of less than stellar video-editors in GNU/Linux. Now LightWorksTM, a professional-quality video-editor is being ported to GNU/Linux. The reason? Lightworks will not be distributed by M$’s app store for “8″.

Lightworks is free of charge for the standard version but a few extras (professional codecs etc.) cost a bit but are still very reasonable.

see a demo:

The good stuff starts at 43:52

LightWorks roadmap includes these goodies:

  1. Release a free version of Lightworks
  2. Release a full version, which includes the extra professional codecs
  3. Release cross-platform versions of Lightworks for Mac OSX and Linux as well
  4. Release the source code

“With this release, we have reached stage two. It has taken us a little longer to get here, but we’re not far away with phase three – cross-platform support.”

Sadly, the video above is an alpha release for GNU/Linux and is available only to movers and shakers, which I am not. However, we should have a great $free video-editor for GNU/Linux which will also show the code, sooner rather than later. LightWorks for GNU/Linux was demonstrated two months ago.

So, Games and Video-editing are crumbling below M$’s feet as lock-in falls away. Note that the users in the demo are used to various other video-editors and LightWorks can imitate those other user-interfaces so training time should be minimal.

I might be inspired to do more video when this becomes available just to check it out.

30 Comments

  1. oiaohm

    Tiberius James hooker
    You need to go read h264 license.
    That is the right one commercial h264 redistribution license yes is final production sold including software to encode h264.

    So you have to pay commercial h264 redistribution license on each h264 codec installed unless the maker of the program paid for the codec. Guess what most NLE fail todo.

    Tiberius James hooker
    –There’s the provider license (to provide the codec) and the distribution license (to distribute commercial works).–
    There is two levels of the provider license.

    Lightworks and now Editshare have paid Commercial usage level on codec. Where most of there competition only paid the bare min.

    Its a trap. Since a h264 video from a encoder not licensed for commercial usage is not valid to take out a distribution license because the commercial distribution license was not paid on the codec itself so the video was technically illegally produced for commercial usage.

    Mpeg patent pool is kinda evil. GPL/LGPL software does not have to pay the provider license. Still has to pay the distribution license on the codec if wishing to use it commercially.

    This is the problem with most NLE they have only paid half the patent license they should have.

    There is a double requirement to license.

    Next catch if you were not license property when you encoded the video H264 does not allow you to go back and fix it.

    –six and half thousand– No its not that many professions. Yes I do some video editing as part of Architecture presentation. This again does relate back to selling assets.

    Yes H264 you need 3 license grants.
    1 for codec provide. That if you software is LGPL or GPL is free because its classed as non commercial software. If your software is commercial the codec provide fee only covers home usage.
    2 Next the H264 distribution license on the codec. Lightworks and Editshare have paid this one.
    3 Finally the H264 distribution license on the work it self.

    Yes they don’t miss a trick. Only have 1 and 3 and the video you produced is in breach of license.

  2. Tiberius James hooker

    No obfuscation intended Mr. Pogs, dusty old laptop has a dusty old pseudonym, please ignore the previous comment <3 Is it possible to point me in the direction of a list of filtered words, please?

    "The problem when you come to portable set-ups. the SAN and NAS idea falls apart. Being able to run the editor directly on the server does not have break unified storage."

    Portable, as in moving the big NAS all over the place? You're not understanding that the XStream is a purpose-built NAS. You're not understanding that your proposition requires drastically re-engineering and deprecating their core product.

    You're not understanding that the purpose of their NAS is that it's, well, a NAS, nor why shifting back to local storage, while the technology sector as a whole has been shifting to consolidated storage for the past two decades, will be EditShare's death note.

    You're basically arguing that they'll throw away everything that made their successful products successful.

    "Headless form of a NLE for stream processing would be useful. Blender NLE for final video production is used this way in some places. Reason you don’t have someone turn a server off by mistake."

    So, now you're advocating that they'll have to completely re-write how their application works, in addition to reeingineering their hardware solutions to acommodate it. And "turn off the server by mistake", Are you serious? The reason that Editshare should effectively abandon their central product line, that people pay them for specifically because it's a consolidated storage solution, that is the reason they're a profitable company, on the ground that someone can turn it off by accident?

    What, are workstations immune to being turned off?

    "While editshare does not have a Linux fully working NLE placing video hardware in the server is wasted money."

    Turning the NAS product into a workstation is a waste of money, period. What are you even suggesting here, that studios replace their workstations with modified franken Xstreams? That studios thin-client the NLE from the NAS?

    Do you realize how much the hardware needs to be beefed up to from its current configuration to sustain that kind of workflow?Do you understand what that does to costs?

    "The is the big bad legal wolf in the room. Your presume is wrong go read its EULA"

    FCP (and all of apple's pro media apps, for that matter) come bundled with a QuickTime Pro license, which includes h.264. The trouble is the complexity of the licensing scheme. Nobody provides a commercial license for h.264, simply because only people a) distributing patented h264 technology (the NLE provider, or OS vendor, or media framework vendor, for example), and the people distributing the final product directly to end users pays royalties.

    In the context of video production, that's where the producer comes in. The studio itself is free to use h264 as it pleases, your supposition that everyone not using lightworks uses it illegally has no basis in reality.

    Furthermore, it's impossible for lightworks to provide a distribution license with pro, for only $40. The royalty rate isn't static, it's based on the amount of copies moved, ranging from free, to $5,000,000. If EditShare is advertizing that they're providing a commercial h264 redistribution license, they're lying.

    What that $40 gets you is the same as everyone else, it's covering the cost for them to redistribute those codecs to you.

    "Absolute full capacity is correct. But FCP cannot operate anywhere near the same on generic hardware to Lightworks full custom. "

    Tell that to the dozens of big name studios pumping out feature films using FCP. You sound like Sun, AT&T, DEC, HP, SGI and friends when they were in denial about the rise of home computing.

    Random Guy on the internet ranting that it isn't, versus an ever-increasing number of bigname studios proving you wrong every single day.

    "It is faster than FCP on same spec hardware and OS."

    That's impossible to prove, the Macintosh port hasn't even been released, there's no way to make the comparison.

    "So video card on server is not 100 percent required."

    Doing video production, without video hardware, yep, that sounds absolutely brilliant. So you're suggesting thin-clients. For video production. Consider my mind utterly boggled.

    "Lightworks will made good use of a CPUs. Something I will give you avid does not."

    So you're doing professional video production now? What happened to your six and half thousand other professions?

    "Linux by IBM is tested with a 1TB of ram"

    So you're talking going with upper-midrange enterprise class specs? And now we're talking moving from an investment of tens of thousands of dollars, which was already working against lightowrks and avid, tripling or quadrupling it. Conquer the market by pricing yourself out of it, sounds like an awesome plan.

    You really should start up a business strategy consulting firm, you'd be brilliant at it.

    "This is why anyone in the game thinks Lightworks pro is quite reasonably priced and fairly headache free"

    It's only reasonably priced if you ignore the tens of thousands of dollars the custom hardware needed to make it useful. But we've already been over this, and you've already corroborated the assessment in varying degrees.

    "With Lightworks either license full commercial usage or its not included."

    I suggest you read the article you linked in full, and I also suggest reading the relevant MPEG LA documents as well. What that $40 gets you, again, is the ability for EditShare (they need to pay MPEG LA to distribute the codec, this cost is included in QTpro and in Windows) to supply you with the codec, so that you may export to it. It does not grant you a license to distribute the output, this is a separate license, one that a third party like Editshare cannot provide.

    There is no catch-all commercial license for h264. There's the provider license (to provide the codec) and the distribution license (to distribute commercial works).

    "Tiberius James Hooker too many people presume every NLE has to come with commercially licensed codecs."

    The thing is that they do. They all require a license to be sold – and that gets you the ability to USE the codec. What they do not, and legally cannot provide is a distribution license.

    Again, you should seriously consider starting a consulting firm, you're a whiz at this.

    "Lightworks is not expensive."

    The bare NLE isn't. The custom hardware required to make it useful is. Stop beating around the bush on this.

    "Final Cut Pro I don’t think you would be running without getting never version for more than 5 years. "

    Baseless assumption, there's no clause forcing upgrades. But of course, add in the fees for Lightworks' custom hardware into the mix, in the interest of a fair and accurate comparison, of course.

    "One machine failure Final Cut Pro also costs more than lightworks due to the licensing terms on not allowing transfer to new hardware."

    uh, yeah, it does, actually (reuse your serial, call Apple for good measure). Same for Premiere (Call Adobe, and reuse your serial). Same for Avid Media Composer (it's dongle-based, as I've been informed, as long as the dongle matches your software version, you can move from machine to machine).

    "Yes using the open source NLE for commercial usage you still have to license the codecs to be legal."

    you have to pay out royalties on distribution, that, again, is usually where the producer comes in.

    "This is why to Us on Linux. Getting Lightworks is a huge thing. A simple NLE that is simple to legal license to use fully."

    Which I never disputed, Lightworks coming to Linux, is good news for people looking to do video production on Linux.

    This is certainly good news for anyone trying to do video editing on Linux, Lightworks is by far and large a significant step up from Openshot, Kino, Avidemux, KDEnLive, Lumera or Cinelera.

    First paragraph of my first comment in this thread (3rd post from the top).

    The point of contention, again, was that for people working on Windows and MacOS already, this is just background noise, because they’re already invested in a professional environment that works for them (otherwise, they would not be involved in video production, it’s not exactly rocket surgery).
    .

  3. Tiberius James hooker

    No obfuscation intended Mr. Pogs, dusty old laptop has a dusty old pseudonym, please ignore the previous comment <3

    "The problem when you come to portable set-ups. the SAN and NAS idea falls apart. Being able to run the editor directly on the server does not have break unified storage."

    Portable, as in moving the big NAS all over the place? You're not understanding that the XStream is a purpose-built NAS. You're not understanding that your proposition requires drastically re-engineering and deprecating their core product.

    You're not understanding that the purpose of their NAS is that it's, well, a NAS, nor why shifting back to local storage, while the technology sector as a whole has been shifting to consolidated storage for the past two decades, will be EditShare's death note.

    You're basically arguing that they'll throw away everything that made their successful products successful.

    "Headless form of a NLE for stream processing would be useful. Blender NLE for final video production is used this way in some places. Reason you don’t have someone turn a server off by mistake."

    So, now you're advocating that they'll have to completely re-write how their application works, in addition to reeingineering their hardware solutions to acommodate it. And "turn off the server by mistake", Are you **** serious? The reason that Editshare should effectively abandon their central product line, that people pay them for specifically because it's a consolidated storage solution, that is the reason they're a profitable company, on the ground that someone can turn it off by accident?

    What, are workstations immune to being turned off?

    "While editshare does not have a Linux fully working NLE placing video hardware in the server is wasted money."

    Turning the NAS product into a workstation is a waste of money, period. What are you even suggesting here, that studios replace their workstations with modified franken Xstreams? That studios thin-client the NLE from the NAS?

    Do you realize how much the hardware needs to be beefed up to from its current configuration to sustain that kind of workflow?Do you understand what that does to costs?

    "The is the big bad legal wolf in the room. Your presume is wrong go read its EULA"

    FCP (and all of apple's pro media apps, for that matter) come bundled with a QuickTime Pro license, which includes h.264. The trouble is the complexity of the licensing scheme. Nobody provides a commercial license for h.264, simply because only people a) distributing patented h264 technology (the NLE provider, or OS vendor, or media framework vendor, for example), and the people distributing the final product directly to end users pays royalties.

    In the context of video production, that's where the producer comes in. The studio itself is free to use h264 as it pleases, your supposition that everyone not using lightworks uses it illegally has no basis in reality.

    Furthermore, it's impossible for lightworks to provide a distribution license with pro, for only $40. The royalty rate isn't static, it's based on the amount of copies moved, ranging from free, to $5,000,000. If EditShare is advertizing that they're providing a commercial h264 redistribution license, they're lying.

    What that $40 gets you is the same as everyone else, it's covering the cost for them to redistribute those codecs to you.

    "Absolute full capacity is correct. But FCP cannot operate anywhere near the same on generic hardware to Lightworks full custom. "

    Tell that to the dozens of big name studios pumping out feature films using FCP. You sound like Sun, AT&T, DEC, HP, SGI and friends when they were in denial about the rise of home computing.

    Random Guy on the internet ranting that it isn't, versus an ever-increasing number of bigname studios proving you wrong every single day.

    "It is faster than FCP on same spec hardware and OS."

    That's impossible to prove, the Macintosh port hasn't even been released, there's no way to make the comparison.

    "So video card on server is not 100 percent required."

    Doing video production, without video hardware, yep, that sounds absolutely brilliant. So you're suggesting thin-clients. For video production. Consider my mind utterly boggled.

    "Lightworks will made good use of a CPUs. Something I will give you avid does not."

    So you're doing professional video production now? What happened to your six and half thousand other professions?

    "Linux by IBM is tested with a 1TB of ram"

    So you're talking going with upper-midrange enterprise class specs? And now we're talking moving from an investment of tens of thousands of dollars, which was already working against lightowrks and avid, tripling or quadrupling it. Conquer the market by pricing yourself out of it, sounds like an awesome plan.

    You really should start up a business strategy consulting firm, you'd be brilliant at it.

    "This is why anyone in the game thinks Lightworks pro is quite reasonably priced and fairly headache free"

    It's only reasonably priced if you ignore the tens of thousands of dollars the custom hardware needed to make it useful. But we've already been over this, and you've already corroborated the assessment in varying degrees.

    "With Lightworks either license full commercial usage or its not included."

    I suggest you read the article you linked in full, and I also suggest reading the relevant MPEG LA documents as well. What that $40 gets you, again, is the ability for EditShare (they need to pay MPEG LA to distribute the codec, this cost is included in QTpro and in Windows) to supply you with the codec, so that you may export to it. It does not grant you a license to distribute the output, this is a separate license, one that a third party like Editshare cannot provide.

    There is no catch-all commercial license for h264. There's the provider license (to provide the codec) and the distribution license (to distribute commercial works).

    "Tiberius James Hooker too many people presume every NLE has to come with commercially licensed codecs."

    The thing is that they do. They all require a license to be sold – and that gets you the ability to USE the codec. What they do not, and legally cannot provide is a distribution license.

    Again, you should seriously consider starting a consulting firm, you're a whiz at this.

    "Lightworks is not expensive."

    The bare NLE isn't. The custom hardware required to make it useful is. Stop beating around the bush on this.

    "Final Cut Pro I don’t think you would be running without getting never version for more than 5 years. "

    Baseless assumption, there's no clause forcing upgrades. But of course, add in the fees for Lightworks' custom hardware into the mix, in the interest of a fair and accurate comparison, of course.

    "One machine failure Final Cut Pro also costs more than lightworks due to the licensing terms on not allowing transfer to new hardware."

    uh, yeah, it does, actually (reuse your serial, call Apple for good measure). Same for Premiere (Call Adobe, and reuse your serial). Same for Avid Media Composer (it's dongle-based, as I've been informed, as long as the dongle matches your software version, you can move from machine to machine).

    "Yes using the open source NLE for commercial usage you still have to license the codecs to be legal."

    you have to pay out royalties on distribution, that, again, is usually where the producer comes in.

    "This is why to Us on Linux. Getting Lightworks is a huge thing. A simple NLE that is simple to legal license to use fully."

    Which I never disputed, Lightworks coming to Linux, is good news for people looking to do video production on Linux.

    This is certainly good news for anyone trying to do video editing on Linux, Lightworks is by far and large a significant step up from Openshot, Kino, Avidemux, KDEnLive, Lumera or Cinelera.

    First paragraph of my first comment in this thread (3rd post from the top).

    The point of contention, again, was that for people working on Windows and MacOS already, this is just background noise, because they’re already invested in a professional environment that works for them (otherwise, they would not be involved in video production, it’s not exactly rocket surgery).
    .

  4. John Stamos

    “The problem when you come to portable set-ups. the SAN and NAS idea falls apart. Being able to run the editor directly on the server does not have break unified storage.”

    Portable, as in moving the big NAS all over the place? You’re not understanding that the XStream is a purpose-built NAS. You’re not understanding that your proposition requires drastically re-engineering and deprecating their core product.

    You’re not understanding that the purpose of their NAS is that it’s, well, a NAS, nor why shifting back to local storage, while the technology sector as a whole has been shifting to consolidated storage for the past two decades, will be EditShare’s death note.

    You’re basically arguing that they’ll throw away everything that made their successful products successful.

    “Headless form of a NLE for stream processing would be useful. Blender NLE for final video production is used this way in some places. Reason you don’t have someone turn a server off by mistake.”

    So, now you’re advocating that they’ll have to completely re-write how their application works, in addition to reeingineering their hardware solutions to acommodate it. And “turn off the server by mistake”, Are you bloody serious? The reason that Editshare should effectively abandon their central product line, that people pay them for specifically because it’s a consolidated storage solution, that is the reason they’re a profitable company, on the ground that someone can turn it off by accident?

    What, are workstations immune to being turned off?

    “While editshare does not have a Linux fully working NLE placing video hardware in the server is wasted money.”

    Turning the NAS product into a workstation is a waste of money, period. What are you even suggesting here, that studios replace their workstations with modified franken Xstreams? That studios thin-client the NLE from the NAS?

    Do you realize how much the hardware needs to be beefed up to from its current configuration to sustain that kind of workflow?Do you understand what that does to costs?

    “The is the big bad legal wolf in the room. Your presume is wrong go read its EULA”

    FCP (and all of apple’s pro media apps, for that matter) come bundled with a QuickTime Pro license, which includes h.264. The trouble is the complexity of the licensing scheme. Nobody provides a commercial license for h.264, simply because only people a) distributing patented h264 technology (the NLE provider, or OS vendor, or media framework vendor, for example), and the people distributing the final product directly to end users pays royalties.

    In the context of video production, that’s where the producer comes in. The studio itself is free to use h264 as it pleases, your supposition that everyone not using lightworks uses it illegally has no basis in reality.

    Furthermore, it’s impossible for lightworks to provide a distribution license with pro, for only $40. The royalty rate isn’t static, it’s based on the amount of copies moved, ranging from free, to $5,000,000. If EditShare is advertizing that they’re providing a commercial h264 redistribution license, they’re lying.

    What that $40 gets you is the same as everyone else, it’s covering the cost for them to redistribute those codecs to you.

    “Absolute full capacity is correct. But FCP cannot operate anywhere near the same on generic hardware to Lightworks full custom. ”

    Tell that to the dozens of big name studios pumping out feature films using FCP. You sound like Sun, AT&T, DEC, HP, SGI and friends when they were in denial about the rise of home computing.

    Random Guy on the internet ranting that it isn’t, versus an ever-increasing number of bigname studios proving you wrong every single day.

    “It is faster than FCP on same spec hardware and OS.”

    That’s impossible to prove, the Macintosh port hasn’t even been released, there’s no way to make the comparison.

    “So video card on server is not 100 percent required.”

    Doing video production, without video hardware, yep, that sounds absolutely brilliant. So you’re suggesting thin-clients. For video production. Consider my mind utterly boggled.

    “Lightworks will made good use of a CPUs. Something I will give you avid does not.”

    So you’re doing professional video production now? What happened to your six and half thousand other professions?

    “Linux by IBM is tested with a 1TB of ram”

    So you’re talking going with upper-midrange enterprise class specs? And now we’re talking moving from an investment of tens of thousands of dollars, which was already working against lightowrks and avid, tripling or quadrupling it. Conquer the market by pricing yourself out of it, sounds like an awesome plan.

    You really should start up a business strategy consulting firm, you’d be brilliant at it.

    “This is why anyone in the game thinks Lightworks pro is quite reasonably priced and fairly headache free”

    It’s only reasonably priced if you ignore the tens of thousands of dollars the custom hardware needed to make it useful. But we’ve already been over this, and you’ve already corroborated the assessment in varying degrees.

    “With Lightworks either license full commercial usage or its not included.”

    I suggest you read the article you linked in full, and I also suggest reading the relevant MPEG LA documents as well. What that $40 gets you, again, is the ability for EditShare (they need to pay MPEG LA to distribute the codec, this cost is included in QTpro and in Windows) to supply you with the codec, so that you may export to it. It does not grant you a license to distribute the output, this is a separate license, one that a third party like Editshare cannot provide.

    There is no catch-all commercial license for h264. There’s the provider license (to provide the codec) and the distribution license (to distribute commercial works).

    “Tiberius James Hooker too many people presume every NLE has to come with commercially licensed codecs.”

    The thing is that they do. They all require a license to be sold – and that gets you the ability to USE the codec. What they do not, and legally cannot provide is a distribution license.

    Again, you should seriously consider starting a consulting firm, you’re a whiz at this.

    “Lightworks is not expensive.”

    The bare NLE isn’t. The custom hardware required to make it useful is. Stop beating around the bush on this.

    “Final Cut Pro I don’t think you would be running without getting never version for more than 5 years. ”

    Baseless assumption, there’s no clause forcing upgrades. But of course, add in the fees for Lightworks’ custom hardware into the mix, in the interest of a fair and accurate comparison, of course.

    “One machine failure Final Cut Pro also costs more than lightworks due to the licensing terms on not allowing transfer to new hardware.”

    uh, yeah, it does, actually (reuse your serial, call Apple for good measure). Same for Premiere (Call Adobe, and reuse your serial). Same for Avid Media Composer (it’s dongle-based, as I’ve been informed, as long as the dongle matches your software version, you can move from machine to machine).

    “Yes using the open source NLE for commercial usage you still have to license the codecs to be legal.”

    you have to pay out royalties on distribution, that, again, is usually where the producer comes in.

    “This is why to Us on Linux. Getting Lightworks is a huge thing. A simple NLE that is simple to legal license to use fully.”

    Which I never disputed, Lightworks coming to Linux, is good news for people looking to do video production on Linux.

    This is certainly good news for anyone trying to do video editing on Linux, Lightworks is by far and large a significant step up from Openshot, Kino, Avidemux, KDEnLive, Lumera or Cinelera.

    First paragraph of my first comment in this thread (3rd post from the top).

    The point of contention, again, was that for people working on Windows and MacOS already, this is just background noise, because they’re already invested in a professional environment that works for them (otherwise, they would not be involved in video production, it’s not exactly rocket surgery).

    If you’re going to redistribute you video in h264, you need to pay MPEG LA. There’s no way around this.

  5. oiaohm

    Something I missed. To compare Lightworks NLE price to the the other NLE out there. Take the education price. 20 pound a year. Why because that is the one with the non commercial codecs. This tells you how far over priced those other NLE are. They over change you and fail to pay or codecs.

    Adobe Premiere Pro is like 799 dollars no codec license. 45 + 40×5 245 pounds what is basically lightworks for 5 years with all codec. $392 USD Yes you can contact editshare and decide to pay 1,2,3, 5 and 10 years in advance. That includes free upgrades for that time frame.

    45 + 20×5 145 or about $232 USD in codec you have to pay extra on the top of Adobe Premiere Pro to be able to use it fully and legally.

    Final Cut Pro I don’t think you would be running without getting never version for more than 5 years. $299 + $232 $522 dollars per user for 5 years. Only reason Final Cut Pro appears cheaper than Lightworks Pro is a failure to license codec anyone having to license codec don’t find final cut pro cheap at all.

    One machine failure Final Cut Pro also costs more than lightworks due to the licensing terms on not allowing transfer to new hardware.

    Yes using the open source NLE for commercial usage you still have to license the codecs to be legal.

    This is why to Us on Linux. Getting Lightworks is a huge thing. A simple NLE that is simple to legal license to use fully.

    Yes its wrong that Final Cut Pro takes as much as it does and does not give you a codec license.

  6. oiaohm

    40 dollars a year is not bad. Opps I ment pounds. Its 60 dollars a years.

  7. oiaohm

    http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
    Tiberius James Hooker this is only over one codec final cut pro allows you to produce. You are not licensed with final cut pro to legally produce a h-264 video that is commercial without going to mpegla and buying an extra license. Lightworks pro that 40 pound a year does include a commercial license to produce h-264 and others like blueray codecs. Out of all the NLE its the only one that is fully licensed that everything you can export from it is legal to do so is Lightworks. Every other NLE you can get yourself into legal trouble.

    This is why anyone in the game thinks Lightworks pro is quite reasonably priced and fairly headache free. Only have to deal with 1 part to sort out codec licensing makes life many times simpler. 40 dollars a year is not bad.

    In fact that the codecs are properly licensed in Lightworks is something that makes it unique between all the NLE out there. The free version does not export anything you need a license for.

    Yes a lot of people using final cut pro are producing commercial videos against the rules. Yes you spend big money and buy Avid and it don’t include proper licensed codecs.

    Tiberius James Hooker so for the same host hardware cost Lightworks is faster than final cut pro. You cannot land in legal trouble using Lightworks because you missed licensing a codec. Even without Lightworks custom control Lightworks does not seam that bad.

    So yes I do expect to see a lot leave final cut pro and go to Lightworks even if it means some retraining just to get away from having to do like 8 different license buys a year.

    Lightworks standard that was free was crimpled the same way. Lightworks does not include anything that is just licensed for home usage. With Lightworks either license full commercial usage or its not included.

    This is why I really put Lightworks in a class of its own. All the other NLE mix home and commercial licensed codecs up with each other.

    Tiberius James Hooker too many people presume every NLE has to come with commercially licensed codecs.

    Due to the fact with final cut pro they have to pay the codec license fees every year anyhow if you are legal. Lightworks is not expensive.

  8. oiaohm

    Tiberius James Hooker I did not say what I was talking about was for the current generations of editshare hardware.

    –The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.–

    The problem when you come to portable set-ups. the SAN and NAS idea falls apart. Being able to run the editor directly on the server does not have break unified storage. Its like being able to run blender headless on the server. Headless form of a NLE for stream processing would be useful. Blender NLE for final video production is used this way in some places. Reason you don’t have someone turn a server off by mistake.

    While editshare does not have a Linux fully working NLE placing video hardware in the server is wasted money.

    Tiberius James Hooker
    –Uh, yes it was. the basic codecs are bundled into the cost of OSX, and the advanced ones, presumably bundled in the cost of FCP.–
    The is the big bad legal wolf in the room. Your presume is wrong go read its EULA and take note of the codecs that are marked as requiring independent licenses for commercial usage. Like you can encode dvd right. You can do it for home yes legally. You want to do a weding video for someone that is a commercial action you are not licensed to because you were required somehow to pay a fee yearly or per item fee to mpegla for the privilege.

    These costs are not bundled in FCP if you read the EULA you are meant to acquire you commercial usage rights of codecs individually. Lightworks provides a bundle.

    Lot of people make the incorrect presume that the NLE they have has bundled commercial codecs. mpegla does not provide multi year commercial codecs. Due to the wording the upstream cannot pay a multi year for you. So yes it pay 1 year at a time for commercial usage.

    –Remember that you can’t use Lightworks to it’s full capacity without the custom hardware.–
    Absolute full capacity is correct. But FCP cannot operate anywhere near the same on generic hardware to Lightworks full custom. Lightworks unlike avid will use the standard GPU video cards. So when operating with its full custom hardware its not slow. It is faster than FCP on same spec hardware and OS. What you lose off of Lightworks not having it captures is it means to run a real-time video editing live studio setup. Also you lose is simpler interface. Its keyboard interface can replicate FCP. Its work flow is a little different.

    Also remember in the video robert has found. Lightworks is running inside a virtual machine. There is no GPU acceleration that really works in those setups. Crippled to CPU Light-works is not that slow either. So video card on server is not 100 percent required. Lightworks will made good use of a CPUs. Something I will give you avid does not.

    Tiberius James Hooker watch the video again and think how well FCP would be running in a virtual machine. Then also remember current Lightworks runs on anything windows can it will be able to run on anything Windows OS X and Linux can. If you are after big hardware todo processing quickly you don’t want OS X. You want Windows or Linux.

    FCP has its hands tied behind it back by its selection to only run on OS X. Hackintoshs cannot use all the generic hardware out there.

    –The NLE itself is a midrange product amongst dozens, unless you invest a few arms and legs, maybe a kidney, lung and torso in it’s custom peripherals.–
    The reality here is Lightworks on standard hardware can use large hardware than most of the other NLE can. Linux by IBM is tested with a 1TB of ram. Windows and OS X are not tested with standard hardware to 1TB of ram in fact Windows will refuse to install on system with 1TB of ram.

    Bang for buck in hardware your generic hardware without apple label is also cheaper for faster.

    Lightworks client side needs a screen. A times being able to tell the server I need these videos transcoded and batched processed into this and the means to turn workstation off would be a god send. So a NLE that has a server mode form would be really nice.

    –for what you propose, assuming they have their XStream already, they’d have to buy a newer, much more expensive one to do this.–
    You are presume everyone bought there Xstreams some are leased from editshare. Editshare is more than just one model. All profit making.

  9. Lutz D. Meier

    The post was held for moderation because of a four-letter word.

    MSFT? Don’t be too harsh.

  10. Robert Pogson

    TJH wrote, “not even and indication of why the post won’t go through”

    The post was held for moderation because of a four-letter word.

  11. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.
    c) There is no screen on an Xtream, there isn’t even any video hardware.
    d) for what you propose, assuming they have their XStream already, they’d have to buy a newer, much more expensive one to do this.
    e) Plain and simple cost.

  12. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  13. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.
    c) the Xstream doesn’t have a screen, nor any video hardware.

  14. Tiberius James Hooker

    I give up, not even and indication of why the post won’t go through, one last try:

    “Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.”

    Oh, I never said it didn’t work at all. I said that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom hardware, and you’ve conceded that point a few times already.

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.
    c) the Xstream doesn’t have a screen, nor any video hardware.

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  15. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.”

    Oh, I never said it didn’t work at all. I said that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom hardware, and you’ve conceded that point a few times already.

    “Lightworks NLE is effective free once you have to start paying the license costs on the others to use those codecs. Remember Lightworks NLE from editshare will not require you to buy any Editshare hardware to use it if you don’t want to.”

    Remember that you can’t use Lightworks to it’s full capacity without the custom hardware. This was my argument to begin with. The NLE itself is a midrange product amongst dozens, unless you invest a few arms and legs, maybe a kidney, lung and torso in it’s custom peripherals.

    “Just to be shocking its the so called inroads of the two you listed that gave editshare the money to buy lightworks.”

    There’s nothing shocking about it, if their NAS products weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t be making them, would they?

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.
    c) the Xstream doesn’t have a screen.

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  16. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Lot of those movies you listed did use Editshare Linux based storage for video production.”

    Care to provide a citation, or are you just guessing that they did?

    “Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.”

    Oh, I never said it didn’t work at all. I said that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom hardware, and you’ve conceded that point a few times already.

    “Lightworks NLE is effective free once you have to start paying the license costs on the others to use those codecs. Remember Lightworks NLE from editshare will not require you to buy any Editshare hardware to use it if you don’t want to.”

    Remember that you can’t use Lightworks to it’s full capacity without the custom hardware. This was my argument to begin with. The NLE itself is a midrange product amongst dozens, unless you invest a few arms and legs, maybe a kidney, lung and torso in it’s custom peripherals.

    “Just to be shocking its the so called inroads of the two you listed that gave editshare the money to buy lightworks.”

    There’s nothing shocking about it, if their NAS products weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t be in business.

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.
    c) the Xstream doesn’t have a screen.

    “Editshare will allow there server side to be installed on non editshare hardware. Avid is a complete pain.”

    Their server side is a complete hardware solution, your whole schtick was that they can practically give away their software because they make money on their hardware, now you’re arguing that they’re going to give that away, too.

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  17. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Editshare as been very careful to be storage compatible with everyone.”

    They didn’t really have a choice, did they, with no NLE of their own?

    “Lot of those movies you listed did use Editshare Linux based storage for video production.”

    Care to provide a citation, or are you just guessing that they did?

    “Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.”

    Oh, I never said it didn’t work at all. I said that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom hardware, and you’ve conceded that point a few times already.

    “The 40 dollars a year. If you go read you EULA you will find to use a lot the codecs for commercial usage you have to pay about 40 dollars per year to use all of final cut studio. Yes that 40 dollars was not include in the up front costs.”

    Uh, yes it was. the basic codecs are bundled into the cost of OSX, and the advanced ones, presumably bundled in the cost of FCP.

    “Lightworks NLE is effective free once you have to start paying the license costs on the others to use those codecs. Remember Lightworks NLE from editshare will not require you to buy any Editshare hardware to use it if you don’t want to.”

    Remember that you can’t use Lightworks to it’s full capacity without the custom hardware. This was my argument to begin with. The NLE itself is a midrange product amongst dozens, unless you invest a few arms and legs, maybe a kidney, lung and torso in it’s custom peripherals. Allow me to make another comparison to unrelated software, it’s like Serrato, on its own it’s a pretty average mixer, until you buy the custom digital turntables.

    “Just to be shocking its the so called inroads of the two you listed that gave editshare the money to buy lightworks.”

    There’s nothing shocking about it, if their NAS products weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t be in business. You’re acting like they’re the only SAN/NAS solution in existence, and just to be shocking, they aren’t. Just to be further shocking, did you know that Lightworks had been sold at least 3 times before?

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.

    “Editshare is not that interested in making any profit from the lower end.”

    Nobody in the video production industry other than Corel and Sony are.

    “Lot of studios after the experiences with blender have been after the source code to the NLE as well.”

    Care to provide a citation? I mean, I provided a list of feature films edited in FCP, didn’t I? Can you provide a list of studios actually using Blender (as opposed to say, SoftImage XSI (amusingly, formerly owned by Avid), Maya or 3DS(amusingly, all now owned by AutoDesk))?

    “Editshare long term plan is quite nasty. We sell you the storage server and the workstations job done or we rent you those. Turns out a lot of the NLE licenses don’t allow them to be rented.”

    You know, you can at least state clearly that you’re conjecturing, rather than acting as though you’re some sort of industry insider.

    “Editshare will allow there server side to be installed on non editshare hardware. Avid is a complete pain.”

    Their server side is a complete hardware solution, your whole schtick was that they can practically give away their software because they make money on their hardware, and that their server-end hardware business was the reason they were able to afford to get into the software end, and now you’re arguing that they’re going to give that away, too.

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  18. Tiberius James Hooker

    Trying the first response to hammie again, part 1:

    “Lightworks can use all the capture hardware other than some of the Avid custom. Also Lightworks free you are also seeing like Debug Mode Wax and other solutions bolted in. These link on will increase once Lightworks go open source.”

    So you’re arguing that they can give their NLE away because they make money on hardware (and we can agree that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom harware), but that you don’t have to use EditShare’s own hardware, which seems like a pretty poorly thought out business model.

    “There is a major difference between final cut studio and Lightworks. Video tracks and Audio tracks in Lightworks are unlimited other than hardware to support them. Final Cut dies at 99 per sequence.”

    yes, there’s a limit of 99 clips per scene (sequence) though the amount of scenes is limited only by hardware (so “unlimited”). In practice, you’d run into this limitation if you were to try to edit a feature-length production as a single scene; in practice, people don’t work that way (you’d cut up your production into scenes).

    “EditShare acquired Lightworks to be able to make preconfigured production consoles. As edit-share sells preconfigured large movie storage solution.”

    Eeeh, that’s not entirely true. They bought lightworks because they already make hardware for it. They also have RAID and SAN products (Avid does, too), you generally want your storage solution to be separate from the workstation.

    “Yes when it comes to Backend storage for your final cut studio and your Adobe Premiere. Its Editshare that does that storage.”

    Or Apple, or really anyone else. You’re pretending that EditShare is the only storage solution provider in existence. But this really makes you wonder doesn’t it? It couldn’t posdsibly be that they’re expressly supporting FCP because they’re concious of the fact that their lunch is being eaten, and are finding ways to stay relevant? EditShare does it by supporting the competition, Avid does it by diversifying into other markets.

    “So at the same time those two have been making in roads so has editshare. 1 support number or 2 support numbers your choice.”

    You mean one support number and a down payment on a house, vs 2 support numbers if using Premiere, probably 1 if you’re using FCP (Apple has SAN solutions as well, though their NLE is storage agnostic, and the OS provides built-in iSCSI initiators).

    “Editshare is to release a bundled packages. Workstations and Servers basically the complete kit cutting apple and Microsoft and everyone else out.”

    Microsoft isn’t involved in the video production market. This strategy is kinda at odds with making their NLE OS agnostic, the way you describe EditShare portrays them as desperately trying everything to stay relevent. This is not encouraging. And of course, because again, their NLE is designed to be less than useful without their hardware extensions, what’s the cost? The market shows that it’s having a lot of trouble competing with hardware agnostic, full-software solutions.

  19. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Nuke was always available for Linux. And it is the de-facto standard for node-based compositing.”

    upon further research, Shake is as well, hey, I’m allowed to be wrong sometimes, too, right? ^_^

    There more you know *shooting star*.

  20. Tiberius James Hooker

    Previous comment, eaten?

    “To run final cut studio effectively a lot of studios are running hackantoshes.”

    That, my friend will require a citation. Why stop there, though? Why not claim they’re all running pirate copies of their software, too?

    You argue that X and Y targets studios with tens of thousands of dollars to spare on proprietary hardware extensions for Lightworks and Avid, but these same studios, can’t spare a couple of Gs for a Mac Pro?

    “So there is a need for a cost effective NLE in the market. That is not hardware bound. Editshare is heavily solution bound. You don’t want something bound to Windows or bound just to Mac. You want something like lightworks that does not care.”

    The argument makes little sense, the price of OS agnosticism is tens of thousands on custom hardware. What you’re effectively arguing here is that if you want Linux, your only option is the solution that requires substantial investment in custom hardware to be useful. I will concede that point.

    But yes, there is more room than anyone is willing to admit for a cost effective, top-tier NLE whose functionality is not tied to expensive, custom hardware. FCP, which has been taking away alot of market ahare from Avid, is tied to commodity Apple hardware, and that’s why Premiere Pro has been making serious inroads as well (it’s not tied to Apple hardware).

    Observe market trends, those already on Avid or Lightworks stay on Avid and Lightworks because of the heavy investment tied to their choice; Though, Avid shoots themselves in the foot here by tying their hardware to software versions (old hardware won’t work with new software).

    Newer production studios, on the other hand, are using FCP or Premiere, specifically because of the significantly lower barrier to entry – Again, this is exactly how Linux overtook Unix, the same thing is happening in video production – This is what forced Avid to divest a lot of their product lines, and diversify by buying Sibelius, DigiDesign (Pro Tools) and M-Audio. It’s just unfortunate for them that they diversified into an already very saturated market. I wish them well though, I’m really rather quite fond of my M-Audio gear.

    “Remember lightworks licenses are an active copies license. So if a machine blows up its not having to buy new copy of software either.”

    FCP and Premiere* licenses aren’t hardware-bound either, I’m not sure about Avid, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was, they LOVE making people buy new hardware. But really all you’re arguing is that they’re being nice by letting you save a $40 on a new license, on the grounds that you’re going to have to spend over $10k on the propreitary hardware.

    * = Creative Suite licenses aren’t hardware bound, I’m figuring, Premiere, which is optionally bundled with Creative Suite doesn’t have this restriction either. Adobe has never given me trouble over migrating installations to different hardware. This could be because I tend to do offline activations specifically to avoid potential headaches.

  21. Tiberius James Hooker

    “Lightworks can use all the capture hardware other than some of the Avid custom. Also Lightworks free you are also seeing like Debug Mode Wax and other solutions bolted in. These link on will increase once Lightworks go open source.”

    So you’re arguing that they can give their NLE away because they make money on hardware (and we can agree that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom harware), but that you don’t have to use EditShare’s own hardware, which seems like a pretty poorly thought out business model.

    “There is a major difference between final cut studio and Lightworks. Video tracks and Audio tracks in Lightworks are unlimited other than hardware to support them. Final Cut dies at 99 per sequence.”

    yes, there’s a limit of 99 clips per scene (sequence) though the amount of scenes is limited only by hardware (so “unlimited”). In practice, you’d run into this limitation if you were to try to edit a feature-length production as a single scene; in practice, people don’t work that way (you’d cut up your production into scenes).

    “EditShare acquired Lightworks to be able to make preconfigured production consoles. As edit-share sells preconfigured large movie storage solution.”

    Eeeh, that’s not entirely true. They bought lightworks because they already make hardware for it. They also have RAID and SAN products (Avid does, too), you generally want your storage solution to be separate from the workstation.

    “Yes when it comes to Backend storage for your final cut studio and your Adobe Premiere. Its Editshare that does that storage.”

    Or Apple, or really anyone else. You’re pretending that EditShare is the only storage solution provider in existence. But this really makes you wonder doesn’t it? It couldn’t posdsibly be that they’re expressly supporting FCP because they’re concious of the fact that their lunch is being eaten, and are finding ways to stay relevant? EditShare does it by supporting the competition, Avid does it by diversifying into other markets.

    “So at the same time those two have been making in roads so has editshare. 1 support number or 2 support numbers your choice.”

    You mean one support number and a down payment on a house, vs 2 support numbers if using Premiere, probably 1 if you’re using FCP (Apple has SAN solutions as well, though their NLE is storage agnostic, and the OS provides built-in iSCSI initiators).

    “Editshare is to release a bundled packages. Workstations and Servers basically the complete kit cutting apple and Microsoft and everyone else out.”

    Microsoft isn’t involved in the video production market. This strategy is kinda at odds with making their NLE OS agnostic, the way you describe EditShare portrays them as desperately trying everything to stay relevent. This is not encouraging. And of course, because again, their NLE is designed to be less than useful without their hardware extensions, what’s the cost? The market shows that it’s having a lot of trouble competing with hardware agnostic, full-software solutions.

    “Editshare as been very careful to be storage compatible with everyone.”

    They don’t really have a choice. It’s that or die.

    “Lot of those movies you listed did use Editshare Linux based storage for video production.”

    Care to provide a citation, or are you just guessing that they did?

    “Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.”

    Oh, I never said it didn’t work at all. I said that the NLE itself is mediocre at best without the custom hardware, and you’ve conceded that point a few times already.

    “The 40 dollars a year. If you go read you EULA you will find to use a lot the codecs for commercial usage you have to pay about 40 dollars per year to use all of final cut studio. Yes that 40 dollars was not include in the up front costs.”

    Uh, yes it was. the basic codecs are bundled into the cost of OSX, and the advanced ones, presumably bundled in the cost of FCP.

    “Lightworks NLE is effective free once you have to start paying the license costs on the others to use those codecs. Remember Lightworks NLE from editshare will not require you to buy any Editshare hardware to use it if you don’t want to.”

    Remember that you can’t use Lightworks to it’s full capacity without the custom hardware. This was my argument to begin with. The NLE itself is a midrange product amongst dozens, unless you invest a few arms and legs, maybe a kidney, lung and torso in it’s custom peripherals. Allow me to make another comparison to unrelated software, it’s like Serrato, on its own it’s a pretty average mixer, until you buy the custom digital turntables.

    “Just to be shocking its the so called inroads of the two you listed that gave editshare the money to buy lightworks.”

    There’s nothing shocking about it, if their NAS products weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t be in business. You’re acting like they’re the only SAN/NAS solution in existence, and just to be shocking, they aren’t. Just to be further shocking, did you know that Lightworks had been sold at least 3 times before?

    “Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.”

    a) Because they’re already invested in their existing setups, and it works for them.
    b) Because you don’t seem to understand what a NAS is, and while try as I might, I cannot find any indication of EditShare planning to bundle Lightworks ON their XStream NAS solution, it makes no xxxxing sense to bundle the editor on a NAS, especially since it completely negates their investment in SAN technologies (iSCSI) for their XStream product.

    “Editshare is not that interested in making any profit from the lower end.”

    Nobody in the video production industry other than Corel and Sony are.

    “Lot of studios after the experiences with blender have been after the source code to the NLE as well.”

    Care to provide a citation? I mean, I provided a list of feature films edited in FCP, didn’t I? Can you provide a list of studios actually using Blender (as opposed to say, SoftImage XSI (amusingly, formerly owned by Avid), Maya or 3DS(amusingly, all now owned by AutoDesk))?

    “Editshare long term plan is quite nasty. We sell you the storage server and the workstations job done or we rent you those. Turns out a lot of the NLE licenses don’t allow them to be rented.”

    You know, you can at least state clearly that you’re conjecturing, rather than acting as though you’re some sort of industry insider.

    “Editshare will allow there server side to be installed on non editshare hardware. Avid is a complete pain.”

    Their server side is a complete hardware solution, your whole schtick was that they can practically give away their software because they make money on their hardware, and that their server-end hardware business was the reason they were able to afford to get into the software end, and now you’re arguing that they’re going to give that away, too.

    “Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.”

    No, this is what YOU want because you don’t understand why it’s a horrible idea. The entire industry has been moving away from local sotage and into SAN and NAS solutions for years for a reason. Their whole storage product line is based on the concept of unified storage across workstations.

  22. Lutz D. Meier

    Another pitfall here is the lack of video compositing functionality, and the lack of availability of such a package (see Shake for OSX and After Effects for Windows/Mac), if we’re talking professional, this is a major pitfall, if we’re talking home movies or youtube clips, this is irrelevant.

    Nuke was always available for Linux. And it is the de-facto standard for node-based compositing.

  23. oiaohm

    To run final cut studio effectively a lot of studios are running hackantoshes. Because standard apple hardware does not provide enough performance. So they are using some software illegal to get the job done.

    So there is a need for a cost effective NLE in the market. That is not hardware bound. Editshare is heavily solution bound. You don’t want something bound to Windows or bound just to Mac. You want something like lightworks that does not care.

    Remember lightworks licenses are an active copies license. So if a machine blows up its not having to buy new copy of software either. Old license moves to new hardware. The ones you like are hardware binding licenses.

  24. oiaohm

    Tiberius James Hooker not quite as black and white.

    Lightworks can use all the capture hardware other than some of the Avid custom. Also Lightworks free you are also seeing like Debug Mode Wax and other solutions bolted in. These link on will increase once Lightworks go open source.

    There is a major difference between final cut studio and Lightworks. Video tracks and Audio tracks in Lightworks are unlimited other than hardware to support them. Final Cut dies at 99 per sequence.

    EditShare acquired Lightworks to be able to make preconfigured production consoles. As edit-share sells preconfigured large movie storage solution.

    http://www.editshare.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123:editshare-adds-support-for-newly-released-apple-final-cut-studio&catid=43:press-releases&Itemid=184

    Yes when it comes to Backend storage for your final cut studio and your Adobe Premiere. Its Editshare that does that storage.

    So at the same time those two have been making in roads so has editshare. 1 support number or 2 support numbers your choice.

    Editshare is to release a bundled packages. Workstations and Servers basically the complete kit cutting apple and Microsoft and everyone else out.

    Editshare as been very careful to be storage compatible with everyone.

    Lot of those movies you listed did use Editshare Linux based storage for video production.

    Problem is lightworks does work without 10 of thousands of dollars of hardware.

    The 40 dollars a year. If you go read you EULA you will find to use a lot the codecs for commercial usage you have to pay about 40 dollars per year to use all of final cut studio. Yes that 40 dollars was not include in the up front costs.

    Lightworks NLE is effective free once you have to start paying the license costs on the others to use those codecs. Remember Lightworks NLE from editshare will not require you to buy any Editshare hardware to use it if you don’t want to.

    Ideal setup todo particular things you will have to.

    Like you are not require to buy Apple you are not require to buy Microsoft.

    Just to be shocking its the so called inroads of the two you listed that gave editshare the money to buy lightworks.

    Yes you are right they might not leave there exist setups. But when the editshare storage server now can on its screen edit video exactly why would you not.

    Editshare is not that interested in making any profit from the lower end.

    Lot of studios after the experiences with blender have been after the source code to the NLE as well.

    Editshare long term plan is quite nasty. We sell you the storage server and the workstations job done or we rent you those. Turns out a lot of the NLE licenses don’t allow them to be rented.

    Edit share is going todo quite we out of there acquirement lightworks.

    Editshare will allow there server side to be installed on non editshare hardware. Avid is a complete pain.

    Editshare vs Avid has benefited some parties while Editshare does not have its own NLE working the way they want. Editshare wants a Linux NLE. So everything server and editing can be placed in one box.

  25. Tiberius James Hooker

    Okay, let me break it down for you a little, Hammster.

    The Lightworks NLE itself, is mediocre at best. It requires a fairly large array of very expensive, very proprietary hardware to be of use in a professional setting.

    Your supposition that they can afford to give away the software on the grounds that they make money on the hardware is a little loopy, the software is largely worthless without the hardware, and the hardware is useless without the software. Basically, if you want to make use of the software, you’re going to have to get suckered into spending tens of thousands on the hardware.

    Take away the custom hardware, and you get a midrange NLE.

    Avid isn’t much better, they’ll double-bait you on the hardware, since they’ll sucker you into not only the expensive, custom gear for Media Composer, they’ll sucker you into Pro Tools, and the array of M-Audi gear that goes with it, for the scoring.

    It’s no coincidence that Final Cut has been eating both their lunches over the years, nor that Premiere has been making serious inroads, mostly at Avid’s expense. It’s a top notch NLE, that has no custom hardware requirements (other than a mac, of course).

    The Rules of Attraction, Full Frontal, The Ring, Cold Mountain, Intolerable Cruelty, Open Water, Red vs. Blue, Napoleon Dynamite, The Ladykillers, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Super Size Me, Corpse Bride, Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story, Happy Endings, Jarhead, Little Manhattan, Me and You and Everyone We Know, 300, Black Snake Moan, Happy Feet, Zodiac, The Simpsons Movie, No Country for Old Men, Reign Over Me, Youth Without Youth, Balls of Fury, Gabriel, Enchanted, Traitor, Burn After Reading, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 500 Days of Summer, Where the Wild Things Are, A Serious Man, Tetro, By the People: The Election of Barack Obama, Gamer, Eat, Pray, Love, True Grit, The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Twixt, John Carter, Hemingway & Gellhorn, Indie Game: The Movie were all edited in Final Cut.

    Now, I reiterate, this is interesting news for someone editing video on Linux. You have a decent NLE coming your way.

    It’s still backround noise for someone working on Windows (who has their pick of Lightworks, Avid, Premiere, Vegas and a half dozen others), and for people working on MacOS, who also are already working with a top tier environment.

    “Editshare is not a single app. Lightworks NLE is the last application required to do Movie production beginning to end not leaving there system.”

    You realise that their hardware lineup, like Avid’s hardware lineup are pereferal extensions, right? You hook them up to your existing system, and lightworks is central to the setup: again the hardware is useless without lightworks, and lightworks in at best mediocre without the custom hardware. The point remains, that Lightworks coming to Linux is unlikely to cause people to abandon their existing setups so that they may edit video on Linux, as was implied by Poggs, that an optimal setup involves a $10,000 investment doesn’t help the original argument, either.

    Your other supposition that all the hardware peripherals have these magical properties that make the software at the core of the setup magically more useful, rather than a means of vendor lock-in, is cute. Again, there’s a reason, FCP has been cutting into markets traditionally held by Avid (and conversely, this is the same reason Linux made inroads into markets traditionally held by Unix).

    “This can make both of them a problem to everything else. Particularly the fact neither of them have to make profit from software sales because they sell hardware.”

    Which is again, why FCP and Premiere have been making serious inroads into these markets. This is a problem for both Avid and EditShare because their software and hardware are irreversibly tied to each other, one is useless without the other. More and more production studios are realizing that they can save a lot of money, by going with equivalent solutions that don’t require tens of thousands of dollars in custom hardware, or at least, having the choice of production hardware.

    But thanks for using a giant wall of gibberish for essentially reinforcing that the software component of Lightworks is meh, unless you invest a down payment on a house into the custom, proprietary hardware.

    Remember this discussion, next time you throw a tantrum about vendor lock-in and document formats.

  26. oiaohm

    Tiberius James Hooker the big difference with Lightworks compare to Xara. Is that editshare has a income stream without selling the software with Lightworks.

    Next is competing with Avid is winning minds. So giving Lightworks NLE software mostly away that starts up clones of editshare video editing console will not be a bad thing. Since this does not clone the Editshare asset management solution that Lightworks has been altered to work with.

    There is a very big business model behind this Lightworks move. The problem is most of the other NLE solutions are going to find themselves between Avid and Editshare in there battle for market share. Where both of them can give way most of what there competitor sell and laugh.

  27. oiaohm

    Tiberius James Hooker
    –It’s background noise for people working on MacOS, as it’s just another midrange NLE among dozens–
    They Wish.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_editing_software
    Lightworks and Avid Media Composer are the two top NLE out their.

    –Premire/Avid/Vegas Pro, Cubase/Nuendo/ Ableton Live/Bidule/Sonar/FLStudio/Reason, After Effects, and Lightroom/MediaPro/Portfolio, respectively–
    Only 1 in that list can be compare to Lightworks. Avid the rest are not real-time high def video stream processing.

    –In fact, the biggest challenge they face is getting people to actually buy the pro version–

    Editshare behind lightworks don’t care about being paid for the NLE.

    Lightworks NLE is true high end. The video they notice that it was encoding what appears real-time. For lightworks they call that slow what was in the video demo. Twice the speed of real-time encoding they call idea.

    Look up items like Lightworks I/O, Lightworks I/O 3D and Lightworks Console.

    First 2 are about true real-time video editing. The third is the exact made controller for the program. Doing real-time work like News studio or other wise equal you kinda would want the console as well.

    I fully kitted out Lightworks system is not cheep. The NLE is cheep the hardware to kit it out is not.

    Software side Lightworks is £90 pound to enabled the editor to process all the codecs it can. If you want the filters that is Boris Red that is another £650.00. A controler and capture card is about another £4000.

    So to use lightworks at best is about £5000 and that is without the custom accelerator that is another £4000.

    Editshare behind Lightworks first and foremost a hardware company.

    The acquired Lightworks because there lead product was lacking a good quality NLE and they noticed one of the top two would be cheap to buy out completely.

    http://www.editshare.com/

    –People switching platforms for a single app is mostly a myth, especially in the sphere of professional software.–
    Editshare is not a single app. Lightworks NLE is the last application required to do Movie production beginning to end not leaving there system.

    Avid is also a hardware company. So the two highend NLE are hardware companies and they are going to duke it out. They don’t give a rats about what they do to the lower end market who does not have at least £5000 to spend on studio setup.

    Tiberius James Hooker
    –It really is worth considering that Lightworks Standard was always a freebee, it never got much traction. It really is a decent product, just not a top tier one.–
    Really Lightworks Standard had a few features disabled. Not a top tier one is incorrect. Lightworks has been top tier problem is to use is full top tier form requires money for the hardware to drive it.

    –Another pitfall here is the lack of video compositing functionality, and the lack of availability of such a package (see Shake for OSX and After Effects for Windows/Mac), if we’re talking professional, this is a major pitfall, if we’re talking home movies or youtube clips, this is irrelevant.–
    That is Boris Red and other products. There is no weakness in Lightworks the question is how much are you willing to spend.

    Really you don’t know lightworks it is the complete package once you have all its addons. They might not hit you for the standard edition to go fully pro they do hit you.

    Editshare did acquire lightworks to go head to head with avid. To go head to head with avid they require a full NLE with everything that runs on Linux that is the base OS to there solutions. This is so they can sell there hardware.

    Everything else not Avid does not make high end video hardware so is not a threat to Editshare.

    Tiberius James Hooker basically there are two different levels of video editor in pro grade. Avid and Lightworks are in a different grade to everything else.

    This can make both of them a problem to everything else. Particularly the fact neither of them have to make profit from software sales because they sell hardware.

  28. Tiberius James Hooker

    This is certainly good news for anyone trying to do video editing on Linux, Lightworks is by far and large a significant step up from Openshot, Kino, Avidemux, KDEnLive, Lumera or Cinelera.

    It’s background noise for people working on MacOS, as it’s just another midrange NLE among dozens, and anyone doing serious editing on the platform, is using Final Cut (reasonably priced at $299), Premiere Pro (or Elements, for a paltry $80), and big production studios are mostly invested in Avid (which has been steadily giving way as the industry standard to Final Cut on MacOS and Premiere on Windows).

    Your headline is misleading, the developers of Lightworks always had the option to port to other platforms, Microsoft never held them captive. It’s just lightworks has to compete with Premiere, Corel Video Studio (formerly Ulead), Sony Vegas and Avid on Windows, and it hasn’t been doing that well. It faces no serious competition on Linux.

    In fact, the biggest challenge they face is getting people to actually buy the pro version (Xara went through this exact same scenario, where it just couldn’t compete with Illustrator and Draw, went open source, and LX is more or less an abandoned project, nobody bought the pro version for Linux or Mac, and people stopped buying the Windows version, feeling ripped off that is was funding the OSS version that was free on other platforms).

    The yearly license fee on the pro version is bothersome, and for what I’d be getting out of it, I’d be quicker to go for the slightly higher, but one-off cost of Premiere Elements (I’m not a fan of Vegas, but some people swear by it), unless of course, I was dead set on using Linux for video production.

    Another pitfall here is the lack of video compositing functionality, and the lack of availability of such a package (see Shake for OSX and After Effects for Windows/Mac), if we’re talking professional, this is a major pitfall, if we’re talking home movies or youtube clips, this is irrelevant.

    But yeah, as mentioned, very good news if you’re doing video production on Linux already, harbringer of doom for video editing on Windows and MacOS? Not likely. People switching platforms for a single app is mostly a myth, especially in the sphere of professional software. Even Final Cut, Logic, Shake and Aperture, which have all the makings of “killer apps”, including the platform exclusivity, have viable and largely comparable alternatives on other platforms (Premire/Avid/Vegas Pro, Cubase/Nuendo/ Ableton Live/Bidule/Sonar/FLStudio/Reason, After Effects, and Lightroom/MediaPro/Portfolio, respectively).

    It really is worth considering that Lightworks Standard was always a freebee, it never got much traction. It really is a decent product, just not a top tier one.

  29. dougman

    Linux growth is becoming more and more prevalent these days!

    WIndows 8 (METROFAIL), looks like AOL did back in 1996.

Leave a comment