Movie Maker 2 VS iMovie 3

[jaredbkt]

I tried WMM2 on a friend's PC and here are my thoughts in comparison to iMovie 3...

* There are "Wizard" like guides that walk the user through many steps. The first time or so this can be fine, however, once you know what you are doing they really get in the way and slow you down. It's a long multi-step process just to change the color of text in a title.

* There are a few nice transitions in the application such as a very cool one that looks like glass shattering. However, you can't change ANY of the properties of how they act. Basically, you're stuck with the "canned" transitions and that's it. The same goes for video effects.

* Microsoft seems to have not understood what a transition is and what an effect is. They have fade-in and fade-out in the effects section. These are transitions, NOT effects. This can be confusing after a person learns more about video editing and begins to wonder why WMM has different names for things.

* Switching between the timeline and story-board view is jarring to say the least. The bottom section jumps around a bit when going between the different views and it's difficult to zoom in or out.

* You can not import QuickTime movies or MPEG 4 files. Nor can you save your finished product to any other format besides Windows Media. This means no DVD authoring from within the application. The only decent way to export your movie would be to a camera for VHS dubs.

* You can import still pictures and create a nice slide show. However, you can only zoom in or out of those photos. There is no panning and zooming "Ken Burns Effect" as in iMovie 3.

* There is only one track for audio. The second track is reserved for the sound from your video footage. You would not be able to do narration on video unless you want to do it over a silent backdrop. One audio track is a severe limitation in my opinion.

* And finally, when I exported my 28 second clip to a finished Windows Media File it took almost 90 seconds to complete the export. Not very impressive.

So there's my take on Windows Movie Maker. It's not terrible, it's just not as easy as iMovie, has far fewer features, takes longer to accomplish the same tasks, is very limiting in what you can do, and has a confusing interface during some processes (titles for example). Take a look at what the new iMovie 3 has to offer and it's very sad to see Windows Movie Maker. iMovie looks like a high end film studio compared to this latest attempt from Microsoft.

[jeb1138]

Thanks for the review! I've been really curious about how iMovie 3 would stack up to WMM2. You haven't used beta versions of iMovie 3 or anything have you? You're just comparing it to your experience in iMovie 2 and the announced features for iMovie 3, correct? You can only save to Windows Media Format, so no native DV editing? Really? You're losing quality at every turn? Windows Media ain't lossless like DV, right? Wow, that's not cool.

The one thing Windows Movie Maker definitely has over iMovie 3 is the ability to use Windows Media 9 format (although it would be really nice if it were an ability, and not a requirement, as you say). From what I've seen, WM9 totally destroys MPEG-4 in terms of quality. Skip over to http://www.codecshootout.com and compare the ISMA & QuickTime MPEG-4 clips against the same-rate WM9 clips (you'll have to find a Windows PC to play the WM9 clips) and I think you'll see what I mean. WM9 looks like it would be awesome for home video archiving &etc. Hopefully H.264 will come out very quickly for MPEG-4 and Apple will implement it right away.

[n4cer]

jaredbkt

This is the same thing you posted on ActiveWin. Some of your assumptions, such as lack of export formats other than WM and to camera, are wrong. WMM2 and 1.x can also export to DV-AVI.

And the "Ken Burns" effect can be done with Photo Story (part of the MS Plus! Digital Media Edition linked to in the other thread)

Please refer to this thread for a followup to your original post:

http://www.activewin.com/awin/commen...145&Group=Last

[jaredbkt]

I know what and where I've posted. And the simple fact remains that you must jump between multiple apps in Windows to get the same thing you get in one app on the Mac.

For example, I'd have to edit my movie in Movie maker, go to the Plus! pack, make a slide show, savce it, export it, go back to Movie Maker, import it, add it to the time line. That's a whole lot of steps in MovieMaker. It takes much less and incorporates it right into your video in iMovie. No need for multiple apps.

Although MM can export to AVI, AVI is lower quality and does not play on every machine because of the way the codecs can be setup. AVI is a poor choice for a video file you care about.

[jeb1138]

Ummm...not positive on this because I've never thought to question it, but if I'm right DV-AVI should provide zero quality loss. AVI is just the wrapper around the DV formatted data, in that case. Just like for a DV-MOV file quicktime is the wrapper around the DV formatted data, and a .mov file can actually be encoded in sorenson 3, mpeg-4, mpeg-2, animation, etc.

[jeb1138]

n4cer, I read the other thread and I'd like to know -- other than your response to jaredbkt, what's your take on WMM 2? I know iMovie 3 isn't out yet so I wouldn't think it's really time to make comparisons yet, but how about iMovie 2 vs. WMM 2? Sounds like you've used both.

[n4cer]

Actually, jeb1138, I've never used iMovie. I've seen it a few times, mainly in reviews, during MacWorld keynotes, and on Apple's site. And I've seen issues posted here and on other sites. My posts have mainly concerned MM2 clarifications.

Paul Thurrott addresses differences between MM2 and iMovie2 in his MM2 review that you can get to from his main page:

http://www.winsupersite.com/

Plus! DME is also covered there.


What I can say is that both programs have their merits. iMovie seems increasingly aimed towards prosumers, while MM still tries to cater to the average joe home user. There has been a large improvement in functionality and extensibility for MM2. Microsoft is now publicizing the fact that you can extend the effects and transitions over the ones offered by default, and they (and several third-parties) are producing effects packages.

I applaud Apple's move towards greater app integration. In many ways, these apps (iMovie and MM) are moving along the same path.

Where I think that MS has a slight edge is mainly in the integration with the Windows Media Formats. Whether streaming, or archiving, or saving for use on portable players, or emailing, or, pretty soon, outputting to DVD/broadcasting, Windows Media has shown itself to be superior to other formats, including MP4. The quality to compression ratio, and the licensing mean lower costs for streaming, bandwidth savings, and greater space savings (fit more video at higher quality in the same or less space). Over time, these advantages will be more readily evident.

[pcouture]

Folks, I appreciate a good debate, but please, when referring to so-called "reviews", let's stick with something with at least an ounce of journalistic credibility.

If Thurrot not on M$'s payroll, I got one piece of advice : stop stalking Bill Gates. You're not him and won't ever be as rich either. He's the Windows Evangelist or what???

His site is SSSSOOOOOO desperately trying to look like it's part of microsoft.com's main page, it's not even funny. His "article" reminds me of the 1994 Mac vs. Windows wars. The way he picks apart the other side's arguments...
That's a Yawn with a capital Y.

Quite pathetic, frankly.