![]() The free version limits are no doubt a negotiated deal with Main Concept for reduced royalties. There are royalty payments to MPEGLA for patent licenses for commercial products. The last time I got a quote from Main Concept for an individual purchase of just the MPEG4 codecs SDK, which covers more than half of all import export formats in Lightworks, including proprietary camera codecs like XAVC, it was around $900. Lightworks has to track free user licenses as well as pro licenses for royalty payments to Main Concept, who provides the codec SDK's and support. Buying a pro license just unlocks access to the pro encoders already included in the program. There is no separate version of the program. MP4 plus some timeline render and import transcoding options that require the pro encoders. The only difference between the free and pro versions are restrictions on export resolution to 720p and export codec to H.264. So, I guess that is my suggestion to the LWKS corporate officials. It gives the users Freedom Of Choice and when freedom is based on responsibility and honesty, believe it or not, some still care about those old concepts. This is also a psychological / motivational thing for getting more users feeling that they belong "in the crowd".Ĥ. It opens up for *rent-to-own* down payment kinda solutions, so that customers will eventually own a full license if they pay consistently over time. It minimizes the risk of *piracy*, which is a big problem for the whole multimedia-creation software business, be it DAW, NLE or SFX / 3D packages, because it solves a problem for a large portion of users who may need the Pro features, but can't justify the price of purchasing an expensive perpetual license or paying a high monthly cost.ģ. It has the highest risk of "misuse", but also the highest potential for fast customer-base growth / earnings and does not require a separate fork, so the savings on developer-time will be considerable.Ģ. This may sound *utopian*, but works better than most in many cases.ġ. This works by using the principle of trusting that those who enjoy your product has the decency to report their usage honestly. Personally, if I had a product like LWKS, I'd check with the commercial codec / plug-in companies involved and queried them about the possibility of releasing a non-commercial version that uses a plain and simple "Trust Your Customer" licensing model for the base LWKS Pro package.Īll external plug-ins like BorisFX OFX plugins could be purchased and work as usual. On top of that it leads to a form of *segregation* in the user community, All in all, usually not a good idea. It also leads to massively increased complexity involved in adding new features.Įven marketing and website maintenance takes a hit, as some features may be *regular pro* only etc. This is of course non-trivial in most cases, as products with a certain shelf life-time has built up quite an impressive list of inter-dependency / tight coupling problems that must be resolved. This scenario usually implies making a source-code fork of the regular pro version, which then needs to be patched for feature restrictions, excluding certain codecs, branding and logo differences, file formats for export / saving and so on before building and releasing. Mostly as in developer work-hours needed for maintaining this triple-licensing model (free, pro(non-commercial) and regular pro). I think the problem is that none of the solutions in use by most companies that does this, are optimal in regards to the required overhead involved. Technically speaking, from a developer's point of view, the possibilities are many for doing just that (differentiating non-commercial users). The table below indicates the ability of each program to import various High Definition video or High resolution video formats for editing.I definitely see the problems involved in this request / user-story. "Unix" includes the similar Linux, BSD and Unix-like operating systems. Intel Core Duo, Intel Xeon or AMD processorĥ12 MB (1 GB for Windows Vista or Windows 7)ġ.5 GHz or higher, Intel or AMD or compatible processor Intel Core 2 or later with SSSE3 support Intel / AMD compatible at 2500 MHz or higher Note that minimum system requirements are listed some features (like High Definition support) may be unavailable with these specifications. This table lists the operating systems that different editors can run on without emulation, as well as other system requirements. prosumer: Mainly targeting private use, anything that can do more than just trimming a film.professional (small): mainly used for paid commercials, short films or podcasts/YouTube channels.professional: used for full length Hollywood movies.This table gives basic general information about the different editors: ![]() See also a more complete list of video editing software. This is a comparison of non-linear video editing software applications. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |