Video Editors

What are the best free video editors for Windows? Specifically, ones that let you cut pieces of videos without rendering everything again.

ffmpeg

agreed on ffmpeg for cutting:
ffmpeg -i -ss 00:01:00 -to 00:02:00 -c copy

This.
For anything more complicated, pirate Sony Vegas or Camtasia.

bump
get a gucci anti virus while you're at it kids

Kdenlive

Shotcut and DaVinci Resolve

The ONLY software I've found to do reliable, frame-accurate cuts without re-encoding (except around said cuts if not on keyframes) is VideoReDo. Unfortunately, it's not free.

I use avidemux for cutting and ffmpeg for transcoding.
Ffmpeg for cutting sucks major dick.

How can you do frame accurate cuts without re-encoding when almost every major codec uses reference frames?

Vegas pro and after effects for me

Read my post properly next time, you dumbass:
>(except around said cuts if not on keyframes)

>davinci resolve
>eats 4+ GB
o-okay

Both trash

Because it is a professional level video editor that is free for private use.

No other video editor uses that much ram right off the bat

true adobe isnt the best? what about red gaint

It ain't a problem if you aren't a RAMlet.

Anytime a program uses that much ram, its latency will go up and response time will go up as a result.

The problem isn't the size, its the time required to fully access those RAM that makes the video editors slow as fuck

No.
It doesn't take any more time to access any one point in RAM over another. That's the whole point.
It doesn't really matter that it allocates 4GB (based on user settihng) of RAM to start off with. It doesn't make it any slower.
The reason they have the option is probably to ensure the application has a reasonable amount of RAM available to it so it does not start swapping, which WILL be slow.

neither of those can cut videos without reencoding
not free
>avidemux
buggy and doesnt support many file types

Access time on 1 GB ram and Access time on 4GB ram will be different. Its latency. Compsci 101. If the high ram usage meant zero latency increase, everyone would be using 1 TB ram.

Fact of the matter is, RAM scaling slows the system if you don't properly increase the speed of the ram.

Look, no, it does not.
When you access something in memory you don't access THE ENTIRE COMMITTED AMOUNT.
That's just the amount of memory your application is taking up.

Yes, WRITING 4GB of memory will take more time than WRITING 1GB of memory. Yes, READING 4GB of memory will take more time than READING 1GB of memory. But WRITING or READING 200MB into a 4GB pool of assigned memory space will take no more time than WRITING or READING into a 1GB pool.

That's what RAM fucking IS.

The fuck are you talking about?
its called RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY for a reason

You reserve 100 empty pages on a book and then write 1 word on some page in the middle of the 100 empty page.

Another person reserves 1 page and writes 1 word on it.

On a random event, who accesses the word faster? The second person.

There's a latency cost in accessing the memory across 100 page both PHYSICALLY as the electricity has to travel across and through the register table as it has to allocate the 100 page table and then access the specific page.

You're dumb.

>On a random event, who accesses the word faster?
The same speed.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT RAM FUCKING IS.

Look, if what you were saying were to be true then there would be no benefit in RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY being random.
All of the read/write benefits would be at the beginning of the RAM because it would be the fastest to access, but IT ISN'T.

Every single address in RAM can be addressed at the same speed. That's what makes it fast.

I mean, fuck, in your example of reserving 100 empty pages, those 100 pages would be distributed at random throughout the book and the word would be on one of those pages at random, but you literally have a marker on the page that word is on so you can access it immediately.

Welcome to RAM.