The big difference between free software and proprietary software is the amount of resources available for development. Not only programming knowledge is needed, but also about the needs of the users for whom it is intended.
We all know what we want from a video player or a word processor. But, chen very specific products such as a CAD program for space engineering, an expert imaging diagnostic system or, in the case of video editors, it is also necessary to know the needs of the industry.
The general laws are up to those who make the reviews. I have used Adobe Premiere Pro, but not at the level of a professional video editor, therefore what I say in this article is a very partial view.
Let's see the comment that ccantor made in my previous article:
Hello, in reality they are used to make small assemblies, unfortunately they do not come close to professional systems and when I have tried to do something creative, they fall short in all possibilities. Those of us who use free software are serious about the lack of a video editing program that is really a guarantee to do serious work, of a good level.
The best and worst of each
This comparison with proprietary nonlinear editors is more complicated for Kdenlive what for OpenShot. AndThe second never had more claims than to be easy to use. The association with Blender and Inkscape gives it enormous graphical possibilities and its icon-based user interface is very easy to understand.
OpenShot is a program for those who want to upload videos to social networks and are satisfied with basic editing options and a decent assortment of effects and transitions.
It is in the same category as Adobe Premiere Rush.
One feature that is missed is the ability to export directly to YouTube and social networks. Anyway, it is a feature that did not work quite well. In fairness, it doesn't work well in Premiere Rush either
The big plus for Kdenlive (again, it's my vision) is that it has a really configurable user interface.
Personally, I feel more comfortable working with drop-down menus and keyboard shortcuts than with the mouse, and the ones in Kdenlive are really adaptable
Unlike OpenShot, which requires the installation of external programs for the creation of animated titles, Kdenlive has its own. Its use requires a certain degree of expertise and trial and error as there is no way to see how it combines with the video clip until it is overlapped.
In this sense, the OpenShot assistants, although they do not have as many possibilities, also reduce the margin of error.
However, the guides and grids are very helpful.
One thing I really liked about Kdenlive is that when you embed a video clip with sound, it separates them, which OpenShot does not do automatically.
I have a relatively small monitor, and that makes working with a lot of tracks and with Kdenlive's effects and transitions settings a bit awkward. Once again, I remind you that I am writing this article from my point of view.
Beyond that, after a few minutes of practice, and reading the manual when necessary, adding effects and transitions becomes relatively easy.
I notice that some reviewers miss Kdenlive support for some formats like MKV, MOV and AVI. It is true, unlike OpenShot it does not support it. Maybe they should focus on those things more than having a version for Windows, which according to those same reviewers is quite unstable.
It's also not like Windows is lacking free video editors.
This is my opinion on both programs
Perhaps the statement that gave rise to the questioning of the reader to whom I tried to respond with these articles, was risky. Kdenlive has some more features than OpenShot (For example, capturing videos from an external camera) But, it does not support so many formats and in some things it is a bit more complex to use.
The correct thing is to say that they have different audiences. If you want to edit videos without getting too complicated with production, OpenShot is your program. If you want more control over the artistic aspects, you should definitely give Kdenlive a try.
Kdenlive supports as many formats as Openshot because of the following:
Openshot depends internally on python3-openshot, which in turn depends on ffmpeg's libav * libraries. But Kdenlive also depends on these libraries. Therefore, in that sense they are on par.
On the other hand, mkv, mov and avi are supported in Kdenlive, since it is ffmpeg who takes care of it;)
Hello. Thanks for your comment
None of the three appear in the list of formats in which they can be exported. Maybe I didn't clarify that enough in the wording
Actually, if you are looking for something professional, there is Cinelerra. Its learning curve and the resources it requires are also at the level of a professional application :-)
There is a community version.
There are also countless Linux applications that do something in particular in video editing, and when used together they allow you to do many video and audio editing tasks (I think that was the original Unix philosophy).
Best regard
Thanks for your comment
There are several community versions of Cinelerra
Cinelerra CG: Rapid development, a new version every month.
Cinelerra CV: Focuses on stability.
Cinelerra CVE: Fork of the previous one.
Personally, I do not know anyone who uses them continuously.
Out of curiosity, what do you see in Cinelerra that Kdenlive does not have?
Unfortunately, on Linux, the only professional video editing options out there are proprietary, such as DaVinci Resolve or Lightworks. The rest is a maremagnum of different projects that pretend to be professionals, and instead of coming together to have a serious alternative, they throw each one to their own side. Right now, that I know and with professional pretense there are:
-Kden live: https://kdenlive.org/es/
-Shotcut: https://shotcut.org/
-Flow blade: https://jliljebl.github.io/flowblade/
-Olive: https://olivevideoeditor.org/
-Cinelerra: http://cinelerra.org/
-Lives: http://lives-video.com/
Surely I left some on the way….