Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

120 comments

Great! (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#30538930)

Can't go wrong with VLC, runs on every OS, opens even the PITA formats. Can't wait! Go VLC Team!

Re:Great! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539004)

runs on every OS

Well, for now.

Re:Great! (3, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539024)

You can still run the Linux version on OSX.

No need for it (2, Informative)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541470)

VLC for Mac death is "greatly exaggerated" / What is Lunettes?

VLC for Mac is being maintained. However the old Cocoa graphical interface of VLC, is not being maintained at this time.

The reason is that we are in the process of rewriting a new interface for VLC. Its codename is Lunettes.

Why a rewrite? This is something really easy to see. VLC for Mac is just not "Mac" enough.

Taken from here. [videolan.org]

Re:Great! (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539012)

VLC is great when it comes to playing media. I really can’t find fault with it on that front.

When it comes to encoding media... well, it’s good enough... usually... if you don’t mind playing with it a bit. (Admittedly it does seem better than it used to be. I used to find that more often than not the encoder would crash with some odd error in the message log.) It doesn’t seem to always create portable files – I’ve had output files that only played in VLC, or wouldn’t seek properly, etc. It can’t simultaneously capture the screen and the stereo mix (I have a .js that launches two copies – one to capture the screen, one to capture the stereo mix – and must recombine the separate video/audio tracks in an external video editing suite). Minor details like that...

I’m going to approach this with a considerable amount of skepticism until I find out how well this video editing feature works, unfortunately.

Re:Great! (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539202)

I agree, it always takes several tries to output a working file when recording from internet stream too. And even then its a little bit risky stuff.

Re:Great! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539564)

Well, the bar for nonlinear video editing on Linux is pretty low, so they have that in their favor. (Cinelerra, for one, should be renamed "Bamboo Shoots Under Your Fingernails," not due to the crappy UI, but due to the fact that it crashes constantly of most of what it tries to do doesn't actually work). For what it's worth, Avidemux (though simplistic) is currently the best of the field (but as always, expect A/V desynchronization - the bain of all audiovideo applications). Perhaps the zoo of codecs and containers is simply so large and unmanageable that nobody can handle it. But the VLC team is evidently more qualified to tackle this huge task than 99% of the contenders out there. Good luck, I sincerely wish you a wild success.

It's interface really needs work too (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540214)

I like VLC, don't get me wrong. It is a go-to program I use in many cases. The fact that it is entirely self contained makes it very useful. I use it in situations where installing the required codecs wouldn't be workable, and also to play back problematic media. For example at work I have Sony Vegas installed on my system which installs its own MPEG codecs. Now part of these codecs is they are really strict, they don't play broken media. Ok well and good, when you encode something you want it done right. However, there'll plenty of broken media floating around on the net. It'll play in most media players, but is incorrect per the spec. For this, I can fire up VLC, since it doesn't use the codecs that Vegas installs, rather than mucking about with which programs use which codecs.

However, its interface is pretty bad overall, and as you said, its encoding isn't great. As such it isn't my default media player, and it certainly isn't one I'll suggest as a default for non-tech people. It is a useful tool to get some jobs done, but it needs work over all.

Well, user interface becomes much more important in video editors because it is a much more complex task. The difference between a good editor and a POS could be as simple as the interface. No matter how powerful it is, if it is hard to edit with, it isn't useful.

That is the problem I've found with OSS video editors thus far. They are extremely hard to work with. One of them, I can't remember which, I couldn't make it talk to my DV cam, I couldn't seem to get it to open any media other than pictures, I couldn't get an editing timeline, nothing. That may have all been there but I couldn't figure it out. Now you compare that to Vegas or Final Cut and that is all extremely self explanatory (as well as well documented).

So I worry they might create a powerful tool that is crap to use, and thus not at all useful.

Re:Great! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539790)

VLC is dead useful, I'll give it that - I use it all the time. But it's interface.. my god, have you ever looked at the preferences? A low level library made by the same guys would be cool, but a full video editing application? It'll be a nightmare!

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30540266)

Not only that - this week it's icon is wearing a Santa hat!

Re:Great! (1)

dziban303 (540095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541924)

VLC would be great -- if they integrated support for MCE IR receivers. It can't be that hard to do. WTF?

Sounds exciting (4, Interesting)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#30538940)

If it has the same quality and compatibility as VLC Media Player, then it would be a welcome beacon here in Penguin Land.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

greenguy (162630) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539192)

No kidding. I'm giving serious thought to getting a Mac -- just for its video editing.

To be fair, while I have tried every video editor that runs on Linux and found every single one lacking, it isn't entirely their fault. They can't import, or see the camera at all, and I assume that's a problem in the system, not the application. Will the VLC editor be able to work around this?

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539398)

To be fair, while I have tried every video editor that runs on Linux and found every single one lacking, it isn't entirely their fault. They can't import, or see the camera at all, and I assume that's a problem in the system, not the application.

Well, something is screwed up somewhere, because "seeing" and controlling a DV camera over a Firewire connection is a pretty trivial and well-understood affair.

Re:Sounds exciting (2, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539780)

To be fair, while I have tried every video editor that runs on Linux and found every single one lacking, it isn't entirely their fault. They can't import, or see the camera at all, and I assume that's a problem in the system, not the application.

Well, something is screwed up somewhere, because "seeing" and controlling a DV camera over a Firewire connection is a pretty trivial and well-understood affair.

Indeed, it is simple. But allowing user level program access to firewire is actually a significant security risk, so most distros restrict access to /dev/raw1394, /dev/dv1394, /dev/video1394, or whatever the local device names are. This is probably the issue that GP is encountering. I make a shell script with the requisite "sudo chmod a+rwx /dev/dv1394" type commands to be run before invoking the program which is to control the dv camera and grab the video. These privileges should be revoked afterwards (and will be revoked on the next system boot, anyway).

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540078)

Hey, an actual useful reply! Thanks for that. But the idea of 1394 access being a security risk seems a bit overblown, unless you have physical access security issues already. How is anybody going to get to your Firewire port, unless they have physical access to your machine already? And wouldn't the same issue exist with USB?

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540280)

Most likely the lockdown of 1394 is because of both the networking aspect of firewire, and the fact that firewire has DMA access. Which could be a major security risk. USB does not have these "features" so does not pose as much of a threat.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540306)

I know...
Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) Machine
Personal Identification Number (PIN) Number
Direct Memory Access (DMA) Access

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540470)

But if your machine is not connected to anything else besides peripherals, then why would it be any more of security risk than USB? Very few people connect their computers together with Firewire. It just seems very odd. Do Linux users not use Firewire hard drives or make routine use of other Firewire peripherals like scanners and audio interfaces? Having an interface that is so widely used locked down seems like a major pain in the butt.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540958)

The handling of drives, etc. is not done with /dev/raw1394 so the mounting of Firewire drives on Linux really is no different to USB. Firwire itself is a lot more versatile than USB and consequently needs a more complex security model. On the (admittedly small) fraction of Linux machines with potentially hostile people running programs, this security most certainly is necessary.

That's life on a Unix-like system I'm afraid. Ideally, distributions would have lovely baselayouts that would take care of everything like that for you. As you'll no doubt learn, while life on Linux is indeed free and diverse, it's far from ideal, and you end up patching up things like that yourself because at the end of the day probably 1% of linux users plug DV-cameras in. Of those, 50% will give up trying to edit video on linux within the hour anyway ;)

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540118)

Or just add the users that need access to the "video" group.

Re:Sounds exciting (2, Informative)

kbielefe (606566) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539810)

Definitely a driver problem. Kino especially is pretty good at importing from a DV camera. You'd have to fix it for VLC too. Try
# modprobe raw1394
# modprobe ohci1394
# modprobe video1394

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540900)

A lot of times the problem with kino is you don't have correct permissions on the 1394 device. Change the permissions to your username or group on /dev/raw1394 and is usually works great.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541262)

It should be pretty easy to create a udev rule for that which automatically changes permissions when the camera is plugged in.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539918)

Kdenlive imports from:

1. Low resolution camcorder (Raw and AVI DV editing).
2. Mpeg2, mpeg4 and h264 AVCHD (small cameras and camcorders).
3. High resolution camcorder files, including HDV and AVCHD camcorders.
4. Professional camcorders, including XDCAM-HD streams, IMX (D10) streams, DVCAM (D10) , DVCAM, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50 streams and DNxHD streams (decoding only, encoding untested). Please note that Kdenlive does not offer the original codecs, but only that we use FFmpeg free software codecs, which can read original streams and sometimes export as well. When you own a camcorder, there is no reason why you should not be able to read your own films.

Sony Vegas killer.

Re:Sounds exciting (1)

roju (193642) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540050)

iMovie isn't nearly as useful as I'd hoped it would be. You'd have to go for Final Cut (Express/Pro) too if you got a mac. I'm excited to see what happens with the VLC editor.

Re:Sounds exciting (2, Informative)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539846)

A beacon? Never heared of Kdenlive (http://www.kdenlive.org/) ?

The 'Penguin Land' already has a Sony Vegas killer. It's the AmaroK of video editing. It's Qt4.x and because of that cross platform.

Finally (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30538976)

I've been waiting for this for a long time. I find it frustrating that I can play basically any video format at any resolution, while not being able to transcode. My computer obviously understands the video files, so why can't I take an .mpeg file and easily save it to quicktime format? All the open source video editing/transcoding tools are trash right now. A VLC video editor is going to be really awesome.

Re:Finally (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539026)

VLC is already able to transcode media.

That said, I haven’t been overly impressed with its performance. Strange crashes, glitchy files, etc.

For instance, when transcoding a .flv, the first keyframe is always dropped – resulting in only a smear of black/gray for the first second or two of the output file.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540106)

That said, I haven't been overly impressed with its performance. Strange crashes, glitchy files, etc.

Yup, it uses more CPU than it needs to, but at least it provides the support for various video formats that my files are in. Some of these issues are to blame on ffmpeg and others are purely on VLC. What would really be nice is if someone could implement some codecs using blocks [wikipedia.org] , even if it is at this point purely to find out if this a) makes a notable difference in performance and b) provides code that is still cross-platform.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539366)

ffmpeg for linux always worked for me to shift one format to another

Re:Finally (1)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539902)

ffmpeg is great for that sort of thing

ffmpeg -i INPUTFILE.mpeg -sameq outputfile.mov <-- Now it's quicktime compatiable

Re:Finally (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540298)

God damn quicktime! Its sole saving grace is that it isn't as bad as realplayer. Screw realplayer!

Sorry about that. It is a natural reflex of mine that developed while using both products.

NON linear (1)

chode8 (1594993) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539036)

I hope its aiming in the area of premiere and fcp. and not movie maker and imovie. We have enough linear and crappy non linear editors. how about an intuitive non linear editor that allows me to edit audio and video separate. And works with a myriad of file formats. And, possibly setup a proxy like blender does, so that I can edit HD on a not so up to date pc. GO VIDEOLAN!

Re:NON linear (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539424)

We have enough linear and crappy non linear editors.

We do? Linear video editing died with videotape and the advent of computer-based editing. Pretty much every computer-based editing system is non-linear, perhaps with the exception of those used for live TV, but even those systems are also capable of non-linear work, and are only used in a linear fashion because Live TV is, well, linear.

Can you point me to this multitude of linear editors which are still being released today?

Avisynth (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539038)

Hopefully it wraps Avisynth [avisynth.org] -- it's got some incredible community-made scripts and plugins that are unmatched by anything else, but isn't newbie-friendly when it comes to what most people think of as "video editing".

Re:Avisynth (3, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539226)

No way. Avisynth is a Windows-only product that is tied to Microsoft's APIs. VLC is a cross-platform application.

Re:Avisynth (2, Interesting)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539660)

Anything equivelant in Penguin Land? Avisynth is extremely powerful.

KDEnlive works for us (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30540740)

Ive been using KDEnlive for the past few months and it does the job for us.
We basically want to take a few pictures and videos from our digital camera, join them with a few transition effects and put our fave mp3 in the background.
It does the job the way Windows Moviemaker does the job, its not a 25,000$ program but for the youtube generation's needs, its fine.

Ive tried all the different Linux programs and both my 8yr old and nieces prefer KDEnlive, so its the one we use.

Re:Avisynth (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540170)

Well, a Linux port has been in progress for some time. If the VLC crew were to lend a hand, it would surely get done faster and with higher quality. I agree that cross-platform is essential.

Re:Avisynth (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540966)

There is an AviSynth 3 [unite-video.com] , which is planned to run on Linux, but development seems to have stalled. Last news from 2007. :(

Re:Avisynth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30541144)

http://avisynth3.unite-video.com/

"Avisynth 3.0 is a powerful frameserver for Windows and Linux."

oh no! (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539046)

It hasn't been released yet (git clone git://github.com/VLMC/vlmc.git)

They’re out to get me!

Re:oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539130)

Lame.

Re:oh no! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539134)

It made me think of Monty Python's "The Argument" sketch.

"But I came in here for an argument!"

"Oh, this is abuse. You want room 12a, down the corridor."

"Thank you."

"You're welcome." (Man he's speaking to leaves...)

"Stupid git!"

Re:oh no! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539266)

Correction: they're out to git you.

What in tarnation is "git" fer? (0, Offtopic)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539582)

lolz, but really... this is the first time I've seen the "git://" protocol specifier. I had to resort to the Fount of All Knowledge [wikipedia.org] to find out what in tarnation "git" is:

Git is a free distributed revision control, or software source code management project with an emphasis on being fast. Git was initially designed and developed by Linus Torvalds for Linux kernel development.

Every Git working directory is a full-fledged repository with complete history and full revision tracking capabilities, not dependent on network access or a central server.

Ok, that doesn't tell me much, actually. And there's no reference at all to git://. I had to step away from Wikipedia and do a real search -- which ended up on the Git Wiki [linux-mips.org] , of course.

Which git protocol to use
Generally these days the git protocol (the git://) URLs) is the prefered protocol.

git Git's own protocol which tries to heavily optimize the amount of bandwidth used and thus is generally very efficient for updates. An issue with the git protocol is its use of TCP port 9418 which paranoid firewall admins may have blocked.

http Rather inefficient usage of bandwith and CPU but since http is generally enabled in firewalls it exists for those poor souls suffering from fascist firewall admins.

rsync The oldest git protocol, deprecated and supposed to eventually go away. Suffers from a low probability race condition. Its advantage is the lowest CPU usage on the server side. Not recommended for pulling or fetching. Heck, it really should be considered the last alternative.

I bet I'll end up seeing git:// all over the place on Slashdot soon. Once something better comes along, I might even understand it. (I just now figured out that whole "bittorrent" thing...)

Re:oh no! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539786)

they need to get through 54320 of you first.

Re:oh no! (1)

gollito (980620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541126)

It hasn't been released yet (git clone git://github.com/VLMC/vlmc.git)

They’re out to GIT me!

There, fixed that for you

Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (4, Interesting)

ichthus (72442) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539076)

Could this mean we finally get a decent video editor in Linux? Apologies to the Cinelerra, Kino, etc. people, but (and I really hate to say this) many of the simplest and cheapest Windows offerings put these projects to shame.

I know it makes me seem like a total douche to put down projects that many people put a lot of time and effort into, but come on! The sound editor front is even worse! Audacity is today what Cool Edit was in 1998.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

malevo (952162) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539426)

Kdenlive [kdenlive.org] is a pretty good video editor for Linux, FreeBDS and MacOS X.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (2, Insightful)

adpe (805723) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539602)

I'm not OP and I'm love and use linux exclusively, but I have to agree with him. I've used about every video editor there is and (compared to other OSes standards) even kdenlive is a piece of shit. It has most basic features, and even some advanced ones, but at least on my three machines, its crashing left and right.

I personally think it's because of the sad state that linux multimedia subsystems are in (oss/alsa/pulseaudio/whatever kde comes with up next), but whatever it is, linux video editing is nowhere near windows or mac counterparts.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539692)

I will definitely give Kdenlive another look. It's been since 2007 since I looked at it, and I have to say I don't even remember what I didn't like about it.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539934)

For me it was the same thing that adpe said: It crashes. Not as badly as Cinelerra, mind you, that's still king of the 'gone down quicker than your script can restart it' crowd, but it does have its fair share of them. Too many to be useful for me at least.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (2, Interesting)

roju (193642) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540084)

Kdenlive was unusable for me in Ubuntu (Hardy and Intrepid). It crashed within a minute, every time.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (0, Troll)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540906)

kdenlive is a piece of garbage, and its developers ought to be burned at the goddamn stake for making that abomination of a video editor.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (2, Informative)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539432)

Ever hear of Kdenlive [kdenlive.org] ? I use it all the time. Uses FFMPEG, has lots of nice effects, and the most recent release has been very stable for me so far ;)

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539522)

Hate to burst your bubble, Audition is basically what Cool Edit was in 1998 too. It hasn't changed a whole lot. (IMO)

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

pydev (1683904) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539680)

I know it makes me seem like a total douche to put down projects that many people put a lot of time and effort into, but come on! The sound editor front is even worse! Audacity is today what Cool Edit was in 1998.

Audacity does everything I want it to do. It doesn't include some of the functionality of tools like Adobe Audition or Soundbooth because that functionality is provided by other tools within the Linux environment.

If you need all this functionality bundled up with point-and-click ease, free Linux tools aren't for you. Free software developers simply don't have much incentive to provide that kind of bundling because for anybody who is skilled enough to develop such tools, the Linux approach of multiple small tools actually works better than bloated all-in-one Windows tools. Of course, over time, open source tools like Audacity will slowly incorporate some of the Windows tools' functionality and UI ideas, but that's just not a priority.

So it's really your choice: either pay Adobe to give you all-in-one tools (inferior, in my opinion), or invest the time and effort to figure out how to use the free tools effectively (a better long-term solution).

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539794)

That's a tired, old argument that was laid to rest long ago. Nobody uses sox any more, and even command line editors like mencoder and ffmpeg take an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to functionality. Emacs is a great example (and arguably went overboard) of a popular app with many functions. I struggle to think of any modern-day Linux apps that hold true to the little app that could mentality. Maybe vi? But, then there's vim, so...

On a command line basis, your argument may hold some merit. But, in a GUI environment, it's ridiculous -- GUIs are the interface to pull all the little tools together. And in Audacity's case, it falls short. Not to mention it's really ugly.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

pydev (1683904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540450)

That's a tired, old argument that was laid to rest long ago.

I'm not making an argument, I'm just stating a fact: Linux GUI tools don't have those functions because most Linux developers don't feel a need for them.

But, in a GUI environment, it's ridiculous -- GUIs are the interface to pull all the little tools together.

That's only one of many possible functions of a GUI. Many professional users don't need a GUI to "pull all the little tools together", they need a simple UI that does a few things really well and gets the routine work done quickly.

In fact, Adobe's "professional" tools often get in the way because they have so many functions squeezed into one UI that doing routine work requires many more clicks than it ought to.

Not to mention it's really ugly.

Who cares? The purpose of a GUI is to save me time, not to appeal to my sense of aesthetics. If an old Tcl/Tk GUI gets the job done quickly, I couldn't care less about how ugly it looks.

Long term, of course, it would be nice to support all possible audio, video, and imaging users on Linux. But Linux should find another way than Adobe-style bloatware.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539840)

Pff, I use the Blender 3D Video Sequence Editor for my video editing :D

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

miruku (642921) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540008)

PiTiVi [pitivi.org] (wp [wikipedia.org] ) seems interesting, not tried it myself so far.

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (2, Informative)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540132)

If you want a multi-track recording suite, check out Ardour.

http://ardour.org/ [ardour.org]

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540744)

Ardour looks really cool, and I installed it just last week. I got as far as getting an error message about not being able to load/connect to the Jack audio server (??) before I gave up.

I'll have to look into it more during the holiday break -- may have something to do with the fact that I'm a Fedora user, and we suffer from the PulseAudio affliction

KDEnlive.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30540786)

I dual boot WinXP and KDE4.3 desktops, so I use Windows MovieMaker and KDEnlive.
Its really at the same level of sophistication.

If you want to take some videos from your digital camera, do a few fade transitions and add your favorite songs in teh background, they both do the same thing.
Our kids love to take videos of their skateboard stunts-crashes and edit them together and it didnt take them long to get used to KDEnlive.

Ive tried all the Linux programs and KDEnlive is the one my kids and I prefer.

Can it be better? Of course. Having used it for the past few versions, the recent progress has been phenomenal so Id recommend giving it another shot to the latest version which is 2months old.

http://www.kdenlive.org/

Re:Yeah yeah! Oh, yeah! (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540814)

I agree on cinelerra but not on Audacity. Audacity is like Notepad for audio, it's simple and does it's thing well (and doesn't crash which makes it actually better than notepad).

Merry Whatever Time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539146)

This might be a good time for all of you OSS leeches to front a little money to a project like this because, you know, you're the one's benefiting. Video editing is difficult; not like they wrote another frikkin' HTML editor. Time to stop working your jaws and pony up.

Can it Edit MKV files etc.... (2, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539230)

I would like something that can open anything and then edit it.

It would be nice to have a good video editor, One that was free back in the day was DDClip it worked pretty good back in 00' . Anythign is better than the abortion that is Windows Movie Maker....

Re:Can it Edit MKV files etc.... (1)

MathiasRav (1210872) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539282)

I would like something that can open anything and then edit it.

It would be nice to have a good video editor, One that was free back in the day was DDClip it worked pretty good back in 00' . Anythign is better than the abortion that is Windows Movie Maker....

In the sense that VLMC can read anything and subsequently write something, yes, probably. I very much doubt the number of output formats will match the number of input formats, though.

I always thought Windows Movie Maker was good for video stitching, the problem was it could only output to a WMV, which is understandable (msft and all that).

Re:Can it Edit MKV files etc.... (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539302)

Yeah editing MKV's would be nice, I have had it with VirtualDub and the likes.
Anything that supports many formats and can edit them would be welcome.

Re:Can it Edit MKV files etc.... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540136)

The question is whether the editing will happen directly with the 'compressed' streams or whether it will need to convert it to something akin to DV first?

AVCHD Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539308)

Pretty please? I can transfer all the videos off of my Canon Vixia HG-21 to my linux box with a simple "cp -a ", but I haven't yet seen a Linux video editor that doesn't choke on the AVCHD files.

Re:AVCHD Please (2, Informative)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539942)

It's not just a linux problem. AVCHD is a piss poor format to edit with and is slow in most NLEs unless you have a monster machine. Anything that isn't an iframe codec is just bad for editing with.

Re:AVCHD Please (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540914)

Pretty please? I can transfer all the videos off of my Canon Vixia HG-21 to my linux box with a simple "cp -a ", but I haven't yet seen a Linux video editor that doesn't choke on the AVCHD files.

Kdenlive edits AVCHD files perfectly well, although it can be a little buggy sometimes (though recently it's more stable). I tried it with AVCHD footage copied directly from my fuji camera. It opens the .MTS files from the stream folder correctly...

Vegas (2, Interesting)

soundguy (415780) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539364)

I'm hoping it take after Vegas, which leaves all other editors in the dust (even Avid) when it comes to ease of use. I especially like being able to drag the end of one clip over another on the time line for instant crossfades without having to deal with creating a transition. Fade in/out is a simple matter of dragging the upper corner of the clip one way or the other. Timelines are a series of thumbnails that change in real-time when you expand or contract, cut, stretch etc. (stretch/contract is a simple ctrl+drag). I rarely use more than 8 tracks, but the ability to do 16-32 would be nice, if not unlimited like Vegas.

Vegas and Photoshop are the only things keeping my workstations running Windows. (XP - not interested in Vista/7)

Re:Vegas (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540946)

For what its worth, nearly every mid to high end commercial editor uses similar UIs. I know from personal usage that Adobe Premiere (even the pre-CS versions) had similar UI. And I won't even comment on Final Cut Pro. Suffice to say that it does all of that.

Re:Vegas (1)

soundguy (415780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541702)

"Similar" doesn't cut it. FC is woefully inadequate. You can't overlap media on the same timeline. Premier is especially annoying as it won't do a damned thing until you define a "project". In Vegas, you just drag clips onto the timeline from any file manager. It creates it's own internal project files which you can name and save or just toss if you want to. (quick & dirty one-off tasks don't need to be saved) FC also has a limited display of spaced thumbnails. Vegas has a continuous row directly reflecting the content at that relative point in the media. Avid appears to just have one thumbnail for the entire clip. I've used a number of editors (both the entry level and the pro versions in most cases) and Vegas has turned out to be the only one I can use comfortably. Without exception, all the others make me want to hunt down the authors and stab them in the hands with an icepick for coding such a miserable, non-intuitive, "welcome to 1995" piece of shit UI.

The main reason I prefer Vegas is that it evolved from the previous decade's industry-standard audio editor "Sound Forge", which makes it highly intuitive to people from the professional analog audio industry. It gets things done without making you jump thru a bunch of pointless and time-consuming hoops.Most others seem to have evolved their methodology and overall workflow philosophy from the rigid formality of broadcast A/B Roll editing. Vegas has more of a "wild west" feel and gives you the freedom to do things in the way you're most comfortable with. Since Vegas now requires .net v3, I don't see it working on mono any time soon, so I'm hoping that one of the many Linux Video Editing projects eventually clone all the best features of Vegas so I can get the hell off Windows permanently.

Gstreamer and MLT (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539390)

I guess I'll be the first to give a shout-out to Pitivi [pitivi.org] and Open Shot Video [openshotvideo.com] .

Reading Jonathan Thomas' ( Open Shot Video ) valiant attempt at creating a NLE from Gstreamer/Gnonlin [sourceforge.net] it appears that the Gnonlin API/toolkit/whatever is VERY confusing to program a video editor in ( and unstable ). But since Jonathan chose MLT [mltframework.org] things are rapidly moving along for him. I often wonder why KDEnlive is so unstable because Kino is rock solid ( for me ) and it is also based on Dan Dennedy's impressive MLT toolkit.

But I truly believe that Pitivi will be the defacto NLE on linux. For the sole reason that Gstreamer is the defacto multimedia framework. It will probably be another five years before Pitivi is really a good stable functional application, and I say that because it took Gstreamer 10 years to do the same.

Re:Gstreamer and MLT (1)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540046)

Open Shot looks promising but from what I've seen by playing with it recently it really needs to implement the standard two viewer interface like almost every other NLE out there. I just can't stand to edit any other way. I'll keep my eye on it though as it seems to be making progress very rapidly.

I'm looking forward to http://lumiera.org/ [lumiera.org] as it seems to be the only project with the goal of creating a professional NLE/Compositing application. Nothing will make me happier when I can quit using Adobe Premiere and After Affects!

Re:Gstreamer and MLT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30540072)

Thanks for the Open Shot Video reference, I didn't know that one yet.

I'm still a bit sceptical of Pitivi. I sure looks great on paper but in the current state has almost less features than Kino (despite not really being brand new any more). It's still got a long way to go before even reaching the class that Cinelerra plays in (feature wise, don't get me started on stability) and even Cinelerra can't really keep up with what's available on other platforms (Edius, Premiere, Final Cut).

There's also Lumiera, the rewrite of Cinelerra that could be interesting, but it's still way to early to see if that will make it past Vapourware status.

As for VLC: I do love the player for its ability to read almost anything, but it's UI does not strike me as intuitive, accessible or easy to use and that certainly is not a good start for an NLE.The menus with the submenus and subsubmenus... the preferences dialogs, the convert/stream dialog, the playlist. There's no consistency between them and finding an option can be a real hassle. Plus, as others mentioned, the encoding part often goes wrong for no apparent reason.

I guess only time will tell... in any case, developers sure are not helped by the multitude of frameworks for audio, video and UI handling out there.

What aboout Avidemux? (3, Interesting)

FromellaSlob (813394) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539450)

Avidemux [fixounet.free.fr] always seemed like a natural partner to VLC to me. Based off the same FFMPEG code, QT or GTK interfaces, straightforward design, and despite the name it can do many file types. It's excellent for simple cut and paste editing, very much a Linux equivalent of Virtualdub. Why do so many free software projects try to reinvent the wheel rather reuse and improve on the code that is out there? I always thought that was the point of free software.

Re:What aboout Avidemux? (1)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539844)

I have enjoyed using Avidemux on both Windows and Linux, but the only drawback to it is still has, last time I tried it two months ago, audio desync issues with MPEG2-TS (Transport Streams, as in files generated by hdhomerun_config save) which comes to find out that the length of the video and audio are sometimes 5 minutes difference after recording a show for an hour. Yet VLC has no problems at all with such TS files, which got me thinking enough to dig through VLC's source code looking for a possible solution, but lost interest after a weekend of trying and didn't bother since.

Everything else seems to be working very well in Avidemux even though sometimes it'll crash after going back and forth messing around with filters and other codec settings, but still works much better than going through the VirtualDub route to me these days.

Re:What aboout Avidemux? (3, Informative)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30540462)

This has to do with errors in the broadcast you don't notice when watching.

To fix it you have to first clean the stream.

1. projectx to clean it. It's a nice little java program. Just start the GUI, open your file and choose quickstart. You can use the CLI as well
2. mplex -f 8 -o output.mpeg2 input.m2v input.mp2
3. manipulate output.mpeg2 with avidemux.

I've recorded hundreds of documentaries and shows (DVB-S mpeg2-ts), never had sync issues after doing this.

Re:What aboout Avidemux? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539898)

I know why, because avidemux sucks. it crashes all the time and gives bad output. try editing .vob with it..

Re:What aboout Avidemux? (1)

FromellaSlob (813394) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540014)

That's not been my experience, but of course it may depend a lot on the version and platform. In any case, if you think a brand new project is likely to crash less, I've got news for you...

Collaborating wouldn't be a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30540768)

I'm agreeing on this. Or if developers aren't too willing to allow one project to consolidate with another, at least share some advice with the upstart project(s) in a friendly rivalry sort of way. At least the source is open, so they can figure things out, but the devs of the older projects could explain *why* they did some things a certain way. Spuring some real competiton by helping the newer projects get a better start sounds counter-intuitive, but it would give incentive for all the open source projects to improve across the board.

I'd say that collaborating with Wax and Virtualdub developers wouldn't be a bad idea either. Both of those are fairly good too. (Virtualdub + Xvid is an easy-peasy combo for the win when it comes to making nice compression of bloated .avi files) And perhaps even talk to the Audacity crew for integrating some features on the audio stream portion. Personally I'd like to see something that combines VirtualDub and Audacity in some common UI wrapper so I could easily synch audio to video with an open source solution. Maybe the VLC team would put together the equivalent?

BTW, it's nice news to hear from the VLC guys. And their software has come a long way UI wise. Still I have my critiques for them. I think documentation needs some filling in before they get started on a new project. The differences between codec settings and such don't make much sense to the average user with the current info that's provided. If I have trouble transcoding various streams/files and such with VLC and its current documentation, I'm not sure I'd feel compelled to use their software for video editing. (Also not all the help should be online, there should be some optional docs included during installation. This is so the user can figure out things even when there isnt' a good internet connection.) Once those rough edges are smoothed off, I think the prospects will look much better.

Truly an enlightened age... (2, Interesting)

ewg (158266) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539516)

...when news articles contain revision control commands.

Please don't use Gimp as a template (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539570)

Just because dozens of programs has the same way of doing something doesn't mean that it's wrong. The Gimp is for gimps. Doing things differently for the sake of being different doesn't cut it.

IMHO the program with the best potential at replacing photoshop, so far, is Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] .

FailzOrs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30539694)

what they t4ink is website Third, you Followed. Obviously

What is wrong with people (4, Interesting)

RedK (112790) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539748)

Despite news that VLC might not have anyone to work on the Mac release

You mean despite the news that was clarified and proven false by the VLC project the day after everyone in the blogsphere and on tech forums went nuts : http://www.osnews.com/story/22629/VLC_for_Mac_Death_Greatly_Exaggerated_ [osnews.com]

Why repeat it if it never was true ? It didn't need to be part of the summary at all for that matter, the true story here has nothing at all to do with the Mac port.

This is nowhere near alpha quality (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 3 years ago | (#30539756)

I'd say it's more pre-alpha.

I can't take seriously these project properties shown in the screenshot. "30 frames per second"? How do I use 29.97 exactly? 23.976? Where do I setup in the project properties that I want global de-interlacing using interpolation or blend fields or yadif? Or that it's progressive? Where do I tell the editor what the aspect ratio of my footage is?

And TWO preview panes? This is so last century.

That UI needs serious love btw, it looks extremely bad. Huge icons on the side of the pref dialogs, stretching the dialog UI vertically making it look super-ugly.

Re:This is nowhere near alpha quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30541280)

how many preview panes are needed in this century?

Re:This is nowhere near alpha quality (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541484)

Just one. There's no reason for fluff. Modern NLEs only have 1.

Re:This is nowhere near alpha quality (1, Interesting)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#30541846)

Why don't you help out then.

Don't just sit there and complain on /dot.

Go over to their site and help code a better UI, post your suggestions, or even draw up some UI images?

This is good news (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540004)

The FOSS movement needs this type of application. Linux needs to match the same type of applications than run or at least come standard with Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS X in order to better compete with them. Since Apple has a video editor built into Mac OS X, Linux needs one as well. As a bonus a Windows port would get the Windows users happy to use a video editor and help them migrate to Linux by using the same software in Windows and then later on in Linux.

The creative content software that is usually made for Mac OS X needs FOSS counterparts in Linux and Windows so that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in that area. Although the video editing was once a part of the Commodore Amiga systems via Genlock and Video Toaster before the Macintosh had them, it is good to see a FOSS alternative to video editing coming out soon.

Video Lan Media Center? Avid? Bad Achronym. (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#30540308)

That's what I read when I read VLMC. MC is a bad acronym. It's also is potentially in conflict with Avid Media Composer (MC) which is an editing application.

Time to go back to the drawing board on that name.

VLC is unstable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30540430)

I spent over two weeks trying to use VLC for live video feeds. It sucked. Badly. Sometimes we'd get video feeds. Other times the feed would show up as a black box. There was an inexplicable 2 second lag even though buffering was disabled.

All in all it was a pretty bad experience. Please fix VLC before moving on to other products!

More open source FAIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30541722)

VLC is open source, therefore VLC sucks.
Yet another example of software that is better off being closed source and commercial.
If you want high quality video playback you use Quicktime on OS X or Windows Video on Windows. Skip Linsux altogether, since everything sucks on Linsux.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...