Which editing-software for my needs and hardware-specs?

[spinningrom]

Hey there,
working on a
- HP G62 notebook with an AMD Ahtlon II dual core 2.1ghz
- 3gb RAM
- Vista 7 64-bit

Got around 150 clips (each one around 30seconds), which I have to trim/cut/paste... in 1 big clip of around 5mins. + adding some effects, etc...

Right now, I am working with Windows Movie Maker, but...
- WMM crashes quite often while trimming and adding effects. Guess the program is just not made for this big work?
- WMM doesn't have much effects, and the effects are not adjustable...

So, .. I am looking for more 'professional' software, but wondering which one would run smooth enough on my laptop, and is able to do the things I want.

Any advice?

[usually_quiet]

There are more questions you should answer.

Which codecs do these clips use for audio and video? MediaInfo will tell you what they are if you don't know. The list of editors you can choose from depends on the codecs you need to work with.

Do you need to convert the edited files to a different codec or container (file) format? Some editors can convert to a limited range of other codecs or containers, although you may be better off using stand-alone conversion software.

Finally, what is your budget?

[spinningrom]

- audio: 320kbps mp3
- video: ok, shoot me, but.. does it matters? I mean: I would probably take the videos using a very simply Panasonic dmc-zx3 (720p) in the AVCHD Lite codec (I can choose to record in mpeg too). Right now, I switch to the wmv-format with Format Factory (because Windows Movie Maker goes smoother with this format). So: is the codec I wish to work with so important since I can easily switch between codecs? (really sorry if this sounds newbie).
The quality I get with this Panasonic is high enough for me. Don't need to make HD-movies, no dvd, just pass the video on youtube, to friends.... But 'not a HD-quality of the picture' doesn't mean 'bad editing for me', if you see what I mean.

Budget: shoot me again, no idea. It seems like 150-200 euro would be the limit?

[usually_quiet]

- audio: 320kbps mp3
- video: ok, shoot me, but.. does it matters? I mean: I would probably take the videos using a very simply Panasonic dmc-zx3 (720p) in the AVCHD Lite codec (I can choose to record in mpeg too). Right now, I switch to the wmv-format with Format Factory (because Windows Movie Maker goes smoother with this format). So: is the codec I wish to work with so important since I can easily switch between codecs? (really sorry if this sounds newbie).
The quality I get with this Panasonic is high enough for me. Don't need to make HD-movies, no dvd, just pass the video on youtube, to friends.... But 'not a HD-quality of the picture' doesn't mean 'bad editing for me', if you see what I mean.

Budget: shoot me again, no idea. It seems like 150-200 euro would be the limit?

If you convert to WMV, some quality will be lost, and YouTube will convert it again when you upload. Minimizing the number of conversions will keep your video from loosing any more quality than necessary. Better to find something that can work directly with files from your camera, if possible.

I do work with MPEG-2 video but since I'm only interested in basic editing, not effects and transitions, I use cheap or free fairly basic software. Although I don't use it myself, others have recommended Vegas Movie Studio HD as a consumer non-linear editor with some advanced features. It looks like it can do what you want, and work with both types of output from your camera, but your laptop is not much above its minimum hardware requirements. Download the trial and see how it works for you. I'm not sure how it handles MP3 audio.

AVCHD and HD MPEG-2 are hard to work on without a PC that has a 4 core CPU with a higher clock speed than yours. Codecs are important. The codecs used determine the hardware you need as well as the software you can use to edit.

[spinningrom]

I see what you mean about quality-loss when converting over and over again, but in worst case, I will convert between AVCHD--> wmv or avi or whatever codec my software prefers working with --> codec to pass the video to friends etc... Are these 2-3 conversions enough to give a visible quality loss?

Found about Vegas Movie Studio on another forum too, but a bit afraid about my laptop being not powerful enough. Any other recommendations? And again: I prefer working smooth and a little bit of quality loss, by converting to another codec if needed.

-edit: what about Corel Video Studio Pro?
-edit: Newbie question again, but isn't there software that will work on an older laptop without crashes, but just slower?
-edit: exact specs here: http://www.ibood.com/nl/nl/product_specs/23308/HP_156_Inch_Dual-Core_Notebook_met_HD_LED_Scherm_HDMI_en_Windows_7/

[usually_quiet]

I see what you mean about quality-loss when converting over and over again, but in worst case, I will convert between AVCHD--> wmv or avi or whatever codec my software prefers working with --> codec to pass the video to friends etc... Are these 2-3 conversions enough to give a visible quality loss?

Found about Vegas Movie Studio on another forum too, but a bit afraid about my laptop being not powerful enough. Any other recommendations? And again: I prefer working smooth and a little bit of quality loss, by converting to another codec if needed.

-edit: what about Corel Video Studio Pro?
-edit: Newbie question again, but isn't there software that will work on an older laptop without crashes, but just slower?
-edit: exact specs here: http://www.ibood.com/nl/nl/product_specs/23308/HP_156_Inch_Dual-Core_Notebook_met_HD_L..._en_Windows_7/

Two or three lossy conversions are enough for some people to see defects, others won't notice anything is wrong.

Corel Video Studio Pro has essentially the same hardware requirements as Vegas Movie Studio.

If you want to know for certain whether Vegas Movie Studio or Corel Video Studio Pro will work better with WMV using your laptop than WMM did, you will have to try them for yourself. Download the trial versions and import some video that you have converted to WMV and see how it goes.

As far as I know there isn't any editing software available that will work great with 720p video on an older laptop, just slower. You are not the first person to come here with a new 720p camera and an average consumer laptop. They are generally told that they need to invest in a quad core computer (desktop or laptop) with a faster clock speed, and big hard drives, if they want to work with 720p video and not experience a lot of frustration with editing software, or spend an excessive amount of time waiting for encoders to finish.

A faster dual core would help somewhat, but is not ideal. I have a 3GHz AMD dual core desktop. With the right MPEG-2 editor and only doing simple cutting and pasting, I can edit 720p MPEG-2 video without much difficulty, but encoding video is not a fast process. I tend to avoid encoding when I can. You want to convert to or from other formats, and add transitions, so encoding will play a larger role for you than it does for me.

[spinningrom]

mmm, not really got the money to buy new desktop, so...

Is this a way to 'bypass' the crashes? Putting together some clips with effects, transitions etc etc... up to, but only the first minute of the full movie (so not the full movie yet), saving this part as 1 movie, and using this movie instead of xx clips zith xx effects... etc...?

[usually_quiet]

mmm, not really got the money to buy new desktop, so...

Is this a way to 'bypass' the crashes? Putting together some clips with effects, transitions etc etc... up to, but only the first minute of the full movie (so not the full movie yet), saving this part as 1 movie, and using this movie instead of xx clips zith xx effects... etc...?

No. If the editor you choose makes your laptop crash because the laptop barely meets its hardware requirements, the size of the clips to be imported or exported doesn't matter much. The editor could still crash even while working on a small clip.

[spinningrom]

Ok, after many hours, I found that WMM crashed because of corrupt clips (even though I didn't used the corrupt parts of the clips, the corrupt parts were trimmed out, and even though all other video-players or -transformers played the corrupted file without any problem.
So, finally managed to make the movie (took some time to save, but ok..)
Here it is.

And what I meant was:
trimmed clip1 with effects -- transition -- trimmed clip 2 with effects.... --> if you save this as clip A, and use clip A in the future, instead of leaving all the clips with trims/effects/transitions, less risks to crash, right?

[usually_quiet]

The solution you came up with looks like it works for you, but it seems very inconvenient. Also, if you are routinely finding corrupted areas in your camera files you should try to find out why, and correct the problem.

I dislike watching home movies anyway, but there is one thing about your video that was especially annoying to me. The aspect ratio was wrong on YouTube. The video was apparently shot with a 16:9 aspect ratio and should fill the viewer, but instead it is squeezed to 4:3 window and pillarboxed. Do the people viewing your videos a favor and fix it.

[TreeTops]

Yep, dogs look skinny when viewed head on and just doesn't feel right. Fix it like U-quiet says.

[spinningrom]

Hey,
- I understand what you mean about the corrupt files, etc... Will try to find solution.
- ok, see what you guys mean on the youtube too, but it seems I can't change the aspect-ratio anymore...