×

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!

OpenShot Video Editor Reaches Version 1.0

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the simpler-the-better dept.

Software 128

An anonymous reader writes "After only one year of development Jonathan Thomas has released version 1.0 of his impressive NLE for Linux. Based on the MLT Framework, OpenShot Video Editor has taken less time to reach this stage of development than any other Linux NLE. Dan Dennedy of Kino fame has also lent a helping hand ensuring that OpenShot has the stability and proven back-end that is needed in such a project."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

Openshot, eh? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30710928)

I make porn videos. There's something about using "Openshot" to edit them that just adds some credibility to my artistic vision.

Re:Openshot, eh? (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711256)

I make porn videos. There's something about using "Openshot" to edit them that just adds some credibility to my artistic vision.

... and GIMP for the titles.

Re:Openshot, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713532)

Talkin about latex on unix again? (Repeat the sentence out loud with your eyes shut)

Re:Openshot, eh? (-1, Offtopic)

sbbshoe092 (1717434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711720)

http://www.sbbshoe.com/ [sbbshoe.com] Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 UGG BOOT $50 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 FREE sHIPPING http://www.sbbshoe.com/ [sbbshoe.com]

Re:Openshot, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711844)

"Open shot" is a fairly common term in sports, particularly basketball and baseball. But thank you for spreading the stereotype that slashdot readers have more knowledge about porn than about sports, we really appreciate it.

Re:Openshot, eh? (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712270)

I think it's funny you posted that Anon. I think that says even more about the stereotype Slashdot readers.

Re:Openshot, eh? (2, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712762)

But thank you for spreading the stereotype

Heh. You said "spreading," heh heh heh huh huh ha.

Re:Openshot, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30712306)

You think this will really edge out the proprietary "MoneyShot" system in use today?

Yes but... (-1, Flamebait)

mewshi_nya (1394329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711048)

Is this one usable, unlike the other ones for linux?

That's one thing I never liked about linux, the tools are all either extremely dumbed down and featureless or incredibly hard to start using. I like power, but I like being able to jump right in.

Additionally, is this 1.0 as good as the competition's 1.0?

Re:Yes but... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711078)

ZOMG, it's linux.
You're supposed to submit improvements, or fork it, or cobble together your own from GPL code.

Epic n00bertry

Re:Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711246)

You're probably being sarcastic, but GP is too generic and lazy (try the stuff out, gee) but right, anyway.
FOSS stuff is complex powerful and often unforgiving.
But. You use, e.g. 'top', you wonder: hey maybe there's an option to show only one user's data... maybe it's -u? and it is.
In fact Kino is predictable in his user interface, lives and kdenlive seem to be, too.
Cinelerra has a radically different UI. I got used to it but I see how many people would want something more familiar with the same power.
BTW i submitted improvements, forked stuff, and cobbled together my stuff from GPL code.

Re:Yes but... (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711748)

The concept of predictability for *nix addicts seems to be somewhat out of line with what "normal" people would expect when it comes to interfaces. Clever abbreviations and long lists of options that need to be typed in (and may be referring to the first letter, or the second letter, or some synonym of the option name) just don't seem to sink in with the general population.

Re:Yes but... (2, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712474)

Fortunately, your view of modern Linux is a Lemming fantasy that really doesn't have much in common with reality.

Good Thing Nobody Gives a Crap what you think. (1)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714396)

If everyone were like you (and most people) we'd still be sitting around the tree picking bugs out of rotten wood for sticks to eat and wiping our ass by licking it.

Re:Yes but... (1)

CnlPepper (140772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711100)

Watch some of the screencasts in the video section of the Openshot website, it looks like it is fairly well featured with a not-too-steep learning curve.

Re:Yes but... (-1, Offtopic)

KIRBY1986 (1717416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711156)

http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]

Re:Yes but... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711158)

As usual, it's only adequate for home or Youtube videos/etc.

And its relatively easy to set your goals so that in a year there will be a version fulfilling them, warranting "1.0"

Re:Yes but... (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712506)

> As usual, it's only adequate for home or Youtube videos/etc.

You mean for MOST NORMAL PEOPLE that aren't interested in shelling out $1000 for a video editor?

You mean all those people that those silly "I'm a Mac" ads are targeted at?

Was that supposed to be an insult or criticism of some kind?

Re:Yes but... (1)

Peter Nikolic (1093513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713366)

>You mean for MOST NORMAL PEOPLE that aren't interested in shelling out $1000 for a video editor?

You mean all those people that those silly "I'm a Mac" ads are targeted at?

Was that supposed to be an insult or criticism of some kind?

Well put and bang on the money

> As usual, it's only adequate for home or Youtube videos/etc

As for this twat well typical machintoy idiot

Re:Yes but... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713990)

You make it sound like such people aren't the last to use free software OS or tools (never mind that they would be probably still much better served after shelling out $70 for consumer version of Sony Vegas...). Besides, the plethora of free NLEs available rarely have on their webpage "remember, we suck in this, this, and this, we are adequate mostly for simple yt stuff"; often make it sound like their baby is better than it is in reality - which goes around and bites them in the ass IMHO. Amateur / indy filmmakers are the first to try something free but supposedly powerful and polished.

BTW, get on with the times. Full version of Sony Vegas which will most likely give an amateur / indy filmmaker anything one might want costs half of what you claim, in regular sale (and it's not just "video editor"). It has a nice property of being a very optimized piece of software too, so it might end up cheaper (considering that you need far lesser machine, to work comfortably).

Re:Yes but... (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711184)

From my limited experience, the biggest problem with video editors on Linux is lack of stability. Cinelarra, LiVES, and Kdenlive crash so much they're not even usable. To make it worse, most of the crashes are random and unreproducible, so it's hard to submit helpful bug reports.

The way I see it, all OpenShot has to do is not crash every 10 minutes and it'll be light years ahead of the competition.

Re:Yes but... (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711294)

Video processing in general is a complete minefield. Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read. How the developers even manage to keep that massive jumble of libraries from bursting into flames I can't imagine.

My question, has anybody on the commercial side actually solved the problem of mixing and matching any audio codec, video codec, and container format out there? Or do they usually just target a few codecs? Kino, for example, was reasonably stable on Linux if you just wanted to edit dv video.

Re:Yes but... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711742)

VLC has IMO been way better than mplayer for quite some time. But yeah editing and encoding is a bother.

Windows solves that codec problem by having media codec plugins (VFW and DirectShow). Cannot understand why Linux does not have such infrastructure. Although libavcodec [wikipedia.org] from FFmpeg is so awesome it almost is not necessary to have plugins.

Re:Yes but... (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713240)

There are really only two codecs to speak of IMO, MPEG2 (MiniDV, HDV) and H.264 (AVCHD) in and MPEG2 (DVD) and H.264 (online or BluRay) out. However, neither of these codecs are trivial to edit in their most effective form and there's a lot of optional encoding methods to cover it all.

For example MiniDV is quite easy because it got rather "dumb" frames, but both HDV and AVCHD use IPB encoding [wikipedia.org] which is really nasty to edit. You can't just cut the video stream at random points, you may need frames both before and after the cut point to decode it. You can't jump to a random frame, you must find the nearest I-frame and work your way from there. That creates a lot of complexity where you must keep a whole different set of indexes than the one the user sees to get frame-accurate editing and a lot of decode logic to get only the intended frames while discarding the extras and so on.

Pro editing tools DO have this mostly sorted out, if you're trying for the "no tool is perfect, therefore the OSS tools are as good as the commercial tools" argument then it's failing. It's not that many combinations that are really useful, it's that the few most important ones are really, really hard to do right. The decoding libs have this straight, I never have a problem playing back MPEG2 or H.264. But there sure is a problem editing them.

Re:Yes but... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714850)

Rather than high-end pro tools I'll never get to use, I was really thinking of mainstream commercial apps like Adobe Premiere, which is actually within reach, if it is good, but I haven't used it in years. What are most non-pros using these days, and how robust is it?

Re:Yes but... (2, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713798)

Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read. How the developers even manage to keep that massive jumble of libraries from bursting into flames I can't imagine.

Just because you *can* do something, it doesn't mean you *should*. Mencoder won't complain (much) if you give it mutually-incompatible options but it might produce something weird and unusable. Equally, it might produce something weird and awesome.

It reminds me of the drinks machines we used to have at a place I used to work in - you selected a drink by typing in a number, where the bit pattern of the number enabled or disabled various things in the machine. So, black coffee no sugar might be 11, fizzy orange juice might be 22, chicken soup might be 41 and so on. So logically warm fizzy orange juice (nice) would be 23, hot orange juice (awesome) would be 21 and warm fizzy black coffee (nicer than it sounds) would be 13. Of course this means that 42 gives you fizzy chicken soup, which isn't very nice at all.

Re:Yes but... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714798)

Just because you *can* do something, it doesn't mean you *should*. Mencoder won't complain (much) if you give it mutually-incompatible options but it might produce something weird and unusable.

I am not talking about anything illogical. Two examples. (This might seem long winded, but that's the point! What should be simple is actually complex and a big minefield)

The -delay and -audio-delay options control something very basic - correcting for a fixed delay between audio and video. Unfortunately, these options only work on .avi's, not on .mpeg or matroska containers. The only way I've seen to fix the audio offset in a mpeg is to transcode to avi with the -delay option, then back to mpeg, which is ridiculous. Moreover, they don't even work right on .avi's unless you're re-encoding the video - not just the audio. This takes many, many times longer than just re-encoding the audio (-ovc copy -oac mp3lame...) which should be sufficient. If you try to re-encode just the audio (with ovc copy), with a positive -delay it runs but doesn't work; with a negative -delay it just locks up!

Second example, the lavc codec allows you to specify the number of threads for parallel encoding. But if you use -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=libx264:threads=2, it doesn't complain, it just drops every single frame, sitting there emitting errors. So there is no parallel encoding for my iPod.

Re:Yes but... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714890)

``Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read.''

Woah, there is something that mplayer cannot read?? It has worked for me on so many things, both good and horribly broken, that I half expect that, one day, I'm going to accidentally point it at the wrong file and it's still going to somehow give me the video that I wanted. Hats off to the mplayer contributors, it's truly an amazing program.

Re:Yes but... (1)

MathiasRav (1210872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30716302)

Video processing in general is a complete minefield. Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read. How the developers even manage to keep that massive jumble of libraries from bursting into flames I can't imagine.

If you really think about it, the fact that anything on a computer works is amazing. At a low level, magnets read and write ones and zeros on ridiculously fast rotating platters, and then are assembled into files, which then is stored in memory, which is then passed through a video card and converted into some format that can be displayed on a screen. Throw in networked computers and the potential for signal loss over long distances and the probability that something at some point in the process will fail, and the potential for failure increases exponentially. Maybe I'm alone, but I'm in awe of the fact that my computer doesn't just randomly catch fire and explode. (source [thedailywtf.com] )

Re:Yes but... (2, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711908)

I must be doing something wrong, I can't get Kdenlive to crash. Cinelarra did crash on me a couple of times.

Re:Yes but... (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712308)

It's been a while, so I don't recall specifics, but Kdenlive crashed frequently for me. Not nearly as often as Jashaka or Wax 2.0 (Windows!), but enough to make me save the file religiously.

Re:Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30714408)

"Kdenlive crash so much they're not even usable."

That's just inaccurate. I use kdenlive with a bunch of middle and high school students every day. Is it perfectly stable? No. Is it stable enough to use EVERY DAY? yes.

Your experience is very limited, so STFU.

Re:Yes but... (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30715450)

The way I see it, all OpenShot has to do is not crash every 10 minutes and it'll be light years ahead of the competition.

That's exactly the way I see it too. I'd love to quickly knock out some titles and clip some of the boring parts off a bunch of videos I've made of things like kids parties and snowball fights n'stuff, but the thought of having to swear loudly over my machine for hours on end is just too demoralising.

I'm playing with OpenShot right now. So far, so good. Sure, the tool bar icons all disappear when you re-size a window, but compared to totally crashing out that's nothing. Only been using it for about 30mins so far though, so we'll see.

Re:Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711358)

(snip)... is this 1.0 as good as the competition's 1.0?

Better... Have _you_ ever tried to use the ungodly kludge that was AVID 1.0? Or even FCP 1.0? To say nothing of such craptastic 1.0s as Premiere...

Re:Yes but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711486)

Yeah, I dislike computers in general for that reason -- everything makes easy/quick-to-learn vs. easy/quick-to-use tradeoffs.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could efficiently accomplish complex tasks with absolutely no learning, and hopefully a bunch of unicorns, too?

[Insufficiently specific] (4, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712940)

> Is this one usable, unlike the other ones for linux?

Ah, if I answer "Yes", you want me to imply the (unspecified) "other ones" aren't usable? And if I answer "No", what does that mean? Your question appears to be obvious flamebait, if you didn't mean it to be, you should work harder in the future to enable real discourse. A good start would be to actually list the names of the programs in question and for each one explain why you didn't think they were usable.

> That's one thing I never liked about linux, the tools are all either extremely dumbed down and
> featureless or incredibly hard to start using. I like power, but I like being able to jump right in.

Is this your standard "I am fishing for mod points" commentary on Linux? You didn't find even one tool which was both powerful and easy enough to use that you could just "jump in"? People here are posting that their grandmothers practically don't notice when they switch them over to Firefox from IE. I guess that means that you don't believe it's "a tool", or you don't think it is "powerful"?

A pity, since I would have classified "video editing" as really one niche where Linux, up until recently, was quite deficient compared to (what I've heard about) proprietary solutions on Windows and OS X. It happened by chance that LiVES reached 1.0 exactly when I needed a video editor to edit a short home video clip (less than 10 minutes long) and it was exactly what I needed (in terms of functionality).

> Additionally, is this 1.0 as good as the competition's 1.0?

No, ours goes to 1.1!

This question is even more idiotic. First of all, what program or programs are "the competition's"? Secondly, version numbers are arbitrary in that each vendor/OSS project defines totally different criteria as to what reaching the v. 1.0 goal means. One project might define it as "we have a rock-stable program which is useful for editing 98% of all home video" and another project might define it as "we feel our program is useful for simple editing tasks for production cinema".

Re:[Insufficiently specific] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713820)

Way to completely evade the question.

Re:[Insufficiently specific] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713996)

The initial question is too stupid to answer directly. We need a better question to answer.

OpenShot is great! Good news for 1.0 (1)

jvin248 (1147821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714220)

I used two versions prior to 1.0; and OpenShot showed great promise. Used it on a real project even (30 second client demo), had to run through Avidemux then to get a .avi that Windows users could watch on their default XP windows media program (all ok on linux without that though). I'll be installing 1.0 to check it out.

clearly I'm a 'tard....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711098)

..... but WTF is a non linear editor?

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (2, Informative)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711548)

throw that question at Wikipedia for the full details but in a NLE program you can do stuff like grab a clip from 2:45 to 5:32 in a 3 hour clip without actually making a copy until you are done (and this can be down to the frame level) sort of like they used to do with the film reels but without the nasty cutting the film problem.

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711666)

Except what decent video editing program isn't nonlinear? It's like putting "electric" in front of everything. It's video editing software; of course it's nonlinear.

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (4, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711970)

People were used to film and analog video tape editing systems. The simplest editing system for video in e.g. VHS was to have two video decks, one for playing, the other for recording. You had to wind/rewind the source tape, press play on the source deck, wait for the right time to press the recording button on the destination deck, etc. It was a pain.

There were more sophisticated editing systems. But it was difficult to have frame accurate editing even then. You needed an embedded timecode in the video signal. Some camcorders came with this built in. You needed special video decks that ensured frame accuracy as well. Some video decks came with a jog/shuttle for easier editing control.

Initial software video editing systems did not store the video on the computer. Computers were too slow and had limited storage to do that. I mean, can you remember 20MB hard disks being standard? Imagine storing and playing back video using a system like that. Or worse. Just not feasible. Especially when a VHS tape could store like four hours of video.

So software for video editing just controlled the tape decks. The tape still needed to wind/rewind so this was not a non-linear video editing system. NLE only started being used once you could actually store the video in the computer or whatever.

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30712298)

can you remember 20MB hard disks being standard? Imagine storing and playing back video using a system like that.

I'm sure somebody can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster [wikipedia.org]

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30712728)

" A user still needed three VTRs to perform A/B roll as the Toaster was not a non-linear editor (NLE)."

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (5, Informative)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712542)

All these replies miss the mark.

Before video there was film. Editing film means finding the strip of film with shot you want, cutting it out, and splicing with tape or cement to some other footage. That's what's meant by "cutting film" and is where the editing term "cut" comes from. A cut is the simplest form of edit. Clip by clip you splice together the story. You can start anywhere you want but when it's done, the beginning of the movie is at one end, the head, and the end of the movie is at the other, the tail. Shot by shot your story plays out from beginning to end on your edited reel of celluloid. If you decide you want a shot between two others, you cut the splice between the two shots and splice the new strip of film between them. It's easy to understand and very flexible.

When video came along editing changed and things got very inflexible. It is not practical to splice video tape because the image is not human readable and the video signal is too complex to make a simple noise free edit. The only way to edit video tape is to copy shots from a source tape to your master tape, assembling the video from the first shot to last, in order. If you make a mistake, you back up to the mistake and begin again. In video tape editing you can overwrite but you can never insert. Once a shot is down it can't shifted around in time. You can't insert a shot in the middle of an edited program without overwriting something. This is what is meant by linear editing.

You've edited your 30 minute masterpiece. Every cut is perfect. It just needs one thing: 7 seconds of sunrise before the scene starting at the 10 minute mark. Inserting the shot means having to re-assemble the entire remaining 20 minutes. More than likely you'll decide to give up 7 seconds in a nearby shot to limit the amount of re-editing you'll have to do, or live without the shot.

When computers came along it became possible to control video tape decks and video switchers. Such a computer can be programmed with an edit decision list (EDL), which is your entire program described shot by shot referencing source tapes and in and out times for each shot. With that information the computer can automatically assemble a video from source tapes in multiple decks. If you later decide you want to insert a shot between two others, you can change your EDL as easily as you would edit something in a word processor and tell the computer to assemble the entire video again, shot by shot, from start to finish. It's automated but it's still linear.

Today, with digital video, we can easily and inexpensively import video into our computer editing systems. We can cut it up and arrange it and rearrange it as much as we want, and in realtime. It's at lot more like working with film but much faster and more powerful. These editing system have completely removed the linear editing aspect of traditional video editing and this the reason we call them non-linear editors.

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (1)

briareus (195464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30715140)

Even this reply misses the mark. No one was asking for a history of editing.

Again, what decent editing system today isn't nonlinear?

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30716112)

TL;DR

Was that so hard?

Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (1)

Peter Nikolic (1093513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713404)

  I mean, can you remember 20MB hard disks being standard?

Never Mind the recent addition of 20MB hows about the 5MB that you needed an FLT to move

1.0 ? Amazing ! (5, Funny)

afortaleza (791264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711116)

Finally an open source project that reaches 1.0 !

Re:1.0 ? Amazing ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711618)

your comment is funny, Esp if you read it using firefox 3.6, on debian 5.0 with kernel 2.6.32

MLT? (1)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711130)

Obligatory Princess Bride quote:

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"...

Oh wait... that's not it. Try again:

Sonny, true love is the greatest thing, in the world-except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe

Re:MLT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30716052)

This post should be modded inforrmative, insightful and funny - MLT did in fact stand for Mutton Lettuce and Tomato, and its justification was the latter quote, though in retrospect, the former fits and the smile forms (for some of us who were in on the joke to begin with at least....).

TLA Overload (4, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711144)

TLA overload. Since the summary is so short, couldn't the submitter or editor expand them?

To save everyone some time... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711394)

NLE = NonLinear Editor, MLT = Media Lovin' Toolkit, and TLA = Three Letter Acronym

Re:TLA Overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30712748)

WTF? STFU & RTFM, PFY.

Deb and PPA (2, Interesting)

arhhook (995275) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711162)

This is pretty neat, they also provide a .deb and ppa for installing. The demo video looks cool, I've never heard of this software before but it's good to see something new come out of the woodwork and do something halfway decent.

Openshot in Ubuntu (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711164)

Hopefully the Ubuntu devs come around soon and agree to include Openshot in the next release instead of PiTiVi. Last time I checked, PiTiVi couldn't do transitions or any other fancy effects - all it did was cut and arrange the clips. I don't use it, but it doesn't look like it has changed in the entire year that Openshot has been being developed!

Re:Openshot in Ubuntu (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713206)

OpenShot and Shotwell to replace Pitivi and F-Spot/Mono (Tomboy can easily be replaced with Gnote or something) FTW? :P They griped about how Gimp took up 5 MBs if I remember right, but Mono takes up 10 AFAIK.

My eyes (-1, Troll)

myspys (204685) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711226)

1999 called, they want their webdesign back.

Seriously though, why spend all that time on a (fairly?) big project like an NLE and not spend a few hours at least to create a nicer website? Or ask someone to do it for him, if he lacks the skills.

Simple website is ok, but not one with a design from 1999. I find it very difficult to take it seriously..

Re:My eyes (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711310)

you obviously weren't around in 1999.

Re:My eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711396)

I find Web2.0+ crap hard to take seriously.

I also hate over-designed "portal" websites that ask you to classify yourself before getting any information.

Re:My eyes (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711400)

Simple website is ok, but not one with a design from 1999. I find it very difficult to take it seriously..

Allow me to suggest Sourceforge for the truly retro experience.

Re:My eyes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713218)

appearance over content: the downfall of modern society.

What about Gstreamer Gnonlin and Pitivi? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711268)

It looks like the author of this program spent(wasted?) a lot of time trying to use Gstreamer as the back-end for his project but basically ran into a brick wall [openshotvideo.com] .

If I remember correctly the developers of another Linux NLE called diva [archive.org] finally gave up on Gstreamer after years of struggling with it and subsequently abandoned their project altogether. Didn't the Diva developers also clash with the Gstreamer developers?

So it appears that the above developers put a lot of effort in writing Linux NLE's using Gstreamer but still ultimately failed at their attempts. Is there something inherently flawed with Gstreamer/Gnonlin? If Video software using Gnonlin as its back-end(Pitivi) can only be written by its author(Edward Hervey), Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers. I wonder if anything formidable will ever come of Pitivi.

Re:What about Gstreamer Gnonlin and Pitivi? (3, Informative)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713678)

"It looks like the author of this program spent(wasted?) a lot of time trying to use Gstreamer as the back-end for his project but basically ran into a brick wall."

He didn't run into brick wall, he just felt that MLT will be better used for his project and he lacked initiative to communicate with Gstreamer/Gnonlin people (I have done it many times and I can say that Gstreamer guys are most accessible in Linux multimedia playground). Problem is also that Gstreamer and Gnonlin is complex for new beginnners who wants just drop the code and go. It requires insight and planning your app around framework actually. Some devs don't like it. Well, it's their choice.

"If I remember correctly the developers of another Linux NLE called diva finally gave up on Gstreamer after years of struggling with it and subsequently abandoned their project altogether. Didn't the Diva developers also clash with the Gstreamer developers?"

First, Diva was written in C#, which is not exactly a power horse, and it was also written in time when Gnonlin wasn't quite developed and wasn't ready for prime time. They also rewrote lot of stuff internally and in the end imho it was scrapped because of financial problems of Novell. And I really didn't saw them clash with Gstreamer guys.

"So it appears that the above developers put a lot of effort in writing Linux NLE's using Gstreamer but still ultimately failed at their attempts. Is there something inherently flawed with Gstreamer/Gnonlin? If Video software using Gnonlin as its back-end(Pitivi) can only be written by its author(Edward Hervey), Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers. I wonder if anything formidable will ever come of Pitivi."

Gnonlin is used in at least one other media editor which uses Gstreamer as backend - Jokosher. I have been personally involved in it and can say only kind words of Edward. Sometimes he is sharp, but more or less he helped with every problem we came across using Gnonlin. Jokosher was glitchy also for some time, but for last releases it has been quite stable.

And most important - Pitivi has serious commercial backing now and there are four core coders (including Edwards of course), all paid by commercial entities, to write it. I really put my money on Gstreamer stuff and apps, because of long term strategy Gstreamer community and app devs have. They are serious about what they doing.

"Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers"

Well, I know hundreds of commercial coders who develop Gstreamer solutions for day's systems, like TVs, DVRs, mobile phones, etc. They must be zombies, because mortals can't handle it. Yeah, right :)

Feaking Sweet! (1)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711298)

I haven't installed it yet, but this looks better than anything out there so far. Hopefully it's stable and truly supports any format ffmpeg supports. Cinelerra has been stuck in the mud for too long (especially on file formats and titles), avidemux is too limited, as is kdenlive. If it's good, maybe I'll get off my ass and add a gentoo ebuild. I don't edit video very often, but I've always wished the tools were just a little bit better than what we've had.

Re:Feaking Sweet! (4, Informative)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712420)

I just installed it on my Ubuntu 9.10 system and through together some short clips I had laying around and not only did it work exactly the way I expected, but when I exported them in a couple of different formats it was very fast (I tried Kino a while back and not only did it take a long time to import clips, the export was also very slow.) I'm really glad I read this story today.

Re:Feaking Sweet! (2, Interesting)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713460)

Recently I tried Pitivi to make a cheesy Christmas Christmas video. Otherwise all my experience has been with my copy of Adobe premiere Elements 4.0. I looked hard at the advantages of paying for a more recent copy of Adobe Premiere too, but it offered no advantages that I could see. (And it is sloooooooow, at least on my Vista hardware).

The workflow I developed was to edit using pitivi on Ubuntu, because the speed of Linux on my Quad-core helped make the labor go quickest. Then I exported video in a humungous .avi container, with motion jpegs and MU-law audio, and let Premiere sloooowly render it to FLV adding motion-stabilization and auto-color-levels/balance. Newer versions of Premiere Elements are identical for these aspects as far as I could tell.

I have read Ubuntu dropped Gimp while opting for Pitivi, and the devs for OpenShot were in a competitive mood, trying to become the Ubuntu video editor-of-choice, (at least the one distributed on the CD). I cannot pull up a reference now, but it looks like this is the result of timely competition; and someone working their ass off, possibly to make an impression prior to Ubuntu Lucid Lynx.

I will certainly try OpenShot next. While it seems Pitivi support for gstreamer export would work really well, in practice I only found 1 maybe 2 useful export formats that Premiere would work with. Also Pitivi transitions & titles are still being worked on. These are the things that appear compelling, and are now being offered by OpenShot.

Adobe Premiere Elements, and TechSmith Camtasia are 2 of the 3 critical Windows apps I still use regularly, and their days are looking numbered. Adobe FrameMaker is the other one.

FWIW, I find video screenshot documentation useful for some projects & online help. Also, I have found that recording screencasts of software engineers explaining there complex app/logic to me, saves time & frustration for everyone, while allowing for better final documentation to be created from using this captured info (i.e. this is efficient knowledge transfer, and a great way to make docs).

Re:Feaking Sweet! (1)

lanalyst (221985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714428)

I installed openshot here (Ubuntu 9.10/AMD 64 quad) and it hangs at different points after start-up. Several times requiring restart of the X server. Off to post a bug report...

Music? (1)

Kurt Granroth (9052) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711414)

Interesting, yes.. but I'm more interested in where that music for all of the demo videos came from. The credits list titles, composers, and the fact that they are Creative Commons but no links or URLs. So are they pieces composed just for the project? Or is there some place out there with lots of "atmospheric" instrumentals under Creative Commons that are suitable for videos?

Re:Music? (2, Interesting)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713390)

Yes, there is tons of free "atmospheric" music available with copy left licenses. Google "creative commons music". For example look at: www.jamendo.com. There are also some rather large collections of European trance/ambient music around. The quality is there, but in a diamonds in the rough kind of way, you may have to search a bit. Or are you asking for a site where someone has prequalified the music for you, if so well, I haven't found it yet. None the less there are some great collections out there, and if you rank by popularity some of the cream will rise. If you are looking for one of the titles in particular, try Google?

Flying 3D text... seriously? Designer needed. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711416)

First of all, I know this is a big achievement, so congratulations to the team of programmers for getting this far!

But after watching the video and seeing the screenshots, I think this project really really needs a designer that is familiar with what professional video editors want. It looks SO amateur that I wouldn't go near it.

All the transitions look really cheesy, and the titling tool looks like Corel Draw circa 1995.

This is all just my smart-ass opinion after spending 10 minutes on the website and without even downloading the thing (I use XP on this machine, purely for Sony Vegas Pro) but the fact is, that's how most people that might be interested in this product are going to judge this thing. I could be wrong, maybe their target audience is anwad1...

Mike

Re:Flying 3D text... seriously? Designer needed. (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713230)

I think you're being a bit overly harsh especially not having used it to see how tweak-able the effects are, but if you think so no doubt some others may as well. I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, but since the features are there now, tweaking the default settings to make them look a bit nicer I'm sure will be something that gets attention in the future. Maybe you should offer your suggestions on that in more detail to them. ^^

So? (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711550)

The editor I plan to start writing tomorrow is already at v2.0, and of course Kdenlive ( http://www.kdenlive.org/ [kdenlive.org] ) is probably just as useful to most people even if its not 100% feature equivalent.

Who do I have to suck of get my software slashvertised? Its a commercial product so I'm willing to pay also.

Perspective (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711664)

Does this thing support negative matchback, 3-perf or RED camera workflows? Or is it just another prosumer tinkertoy, like every other Linux media package?

Trust me when I say there is a LOT of interest in OSS alternatives (or any alternatives at all) to Avid, Final Cut Pro or Pro Tools, and a lot of money in support contracts if you were able to build the solution. But alas, Linux devs are constantly reinventing iMovie.

Re:Perspective (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712864)

I'd be happy to see them outdo iMovie in the first place. My last experience trying to edit movies in Linux was.... unpleasant to say the least, and I wasn't looking to do anything that fancy. Granted, it was HDV footage (but still MPEG2 from what I understand) so not completely mainstream but it'd constantly crash doing simple stuff like splitting up clips and rearranging them with simple crossover effects, or just refuse to recognize it at all and whatnot. I don't remember all the apps I tried but it was the 3-4 most popular ones. I was thinking about getting a new AVCHD camera but can't really imagine that being any better.

Re:Perspective (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714296)

The difference in coding for RED camera work flows etc is massive as you well know. If it takes a year or two to get a iMovie clone that runs on Linux, how long would it take to get a full Final Cut clone done? It would be an expensive and very long project without financial backing.

"money in support contracts" and "Linux devs" (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30715868)

Trust me when I say there is a LOT of interest in OSS alternatives (or any alternatives at all) to Avid, Final Cut Pro or Pro Tools

Too true, and this goes for many commercial closed-source programs. I daresay that open source - or at least open standards - is actually one of the bigger reasons for the interest, certainly in the media companies.

Unfortunately, however...

a lot of money in support contracts

But virtually none in actual development, unless you're an in-house coder.

if you were able to build the solution.

Which they would if they were more familiar with the subject at hand.

But alas, Linux devs

I presume this was a generalization, but even as a generalization.. see the above. You can't just expect every Tom, Dick and Harriette coder to be familiar with established workflows in the higher-end segment of the market. What they -are- familiar with...

are constantly reinventing iMovie.

...is exactly what they re-invent.

At the same time, those coders who are in fact familiar with the established workflows are rare - and are more than likely already hired by some of the bigger editing and VFX shops as in-house coders. Where -they- re-invent tools all the time, specific to their team and even specific to a particular project, after which code often gets abandoned (there's not as much re-use as people like to think - beyond the wealth of knowledge in the coder's head) and that's that.

There isn't really anything stopping a bunch of production companies to pool together resources - by that I do mean cold hard cash *and* hand-holding to educate the coders about what users need and why the existing tools fall short - and creating a kick-ass editing suite. Except for the lack of will, and the lack of project greenlighting from the higher-ups; after all, why would they give the competitor such a benefit? The industry is pretty cut-throat and having an advantage of your competitors is a good thing.. thus largely keeping in-house tools in-house.

That said... babysteps. Get an iMovie done and with any luck you've at least got a framework to build upon, to learn mistakes from, and to do better with in the future.

Re:"money in support contracts" and "Linux devs" (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30715938)

That said... babysteps. Get an iMovie done and with any luck you've at least got a framework to build upon, to learn mistakes from, and to do better with in the future.

Yeah I know, they never will add to it though. And when someone like me comes along and wants to add some glue to it to support timecode, I'll find the source a mess and several underlying architectural decisions that make the implementation impossible.

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30715970)

No offense meant, but I think you're the one in need of perspective - video editors are a sum of their parts and some parts are fundamental, and some can be added later. Some editors are aimed at consumer, some at the pro and some can appease both.

But ultimately, the lack of 'something' is neither here nor there - it's the glass half empty, half full or flowing over thing - in this case, the glass is filling. Disparaging remarks about lack of a feature is counter productive - suggestions for features (with more than just a name coming from some closed source labelling - what you want, how you want it to work and/or insight into implementation would be a lot more useful....)

the real story is not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30711686)

the real story behind openshot is the author's goal to learn linux and why fedora didn't adopt it.
go dig up that

i hope (1)

Ruede (824831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30711990)

the export function is somewhat working now.

always didnt work to select different bitrate etc...

maybe i can edit my 1080p MTS files soon....

Video Conversions in Linux (1)

markdueck (796208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712642)

-- slightly off topic I have not done video editing, but I did do a full week of video recording and converting to DVD. I did everything in linux, and beat my friend who was using Windows hands down. Any windows video conversions took hours, but ffmpeg did conversions almost as fast as disk would allow. I discovered Handbrake after I did all this, so maybe Handbrake on Windows would be similar.

Oh good grief Was: Video Conversions in Linux (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30712890)

example command line

ffmpeg -i input -acodec libfaac -ab 128kb -ac 2 -ar 48000 -vcodec libx264 -level 21 -b 640kb -coder 1 -f psp -flags +loop -trellis 2 -partitions +parti4x4+parti8x8+partp4x4+partp8x8+partb8x8 -g 250 -s 480x272 output.mp4

Re:Video Conversions in Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713474)

I doubt you two were using like settings on encoders..

sending or sharing video files (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30713594)

To send my video files to other people, I use Spider Send Website. You can use it to send large files [spidersend.com] to any one. The website is www.spidersend.com. Their service is fast and secure.

I-Frames, P-Frames, B-Frames... (1)

gustep12 (1161613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30713726)

This thread made me read up on video compression, and I can now articulate more precisely why my favorite video codec is Motion-JPEG - It uses 100% I-frames, which makes editing easy, and which makes fast motion scenes look better than codecs which use P and B frames. The only downside is that Motion JPEG doesn't offer the best compression, but it's still reasonably sized.

Re:I-Frames, P-Frames, B-Frames... (2, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714204)

Yeah MJPEG was the codec most people used in the early days of prosumer NLE. Then we all switched to DV25 which is still like this.DV formats are still pretty much like MJPEG in that they do no compression between frames. A lot of camcorders still use the format. Other early editing systems enforced that when you were using MPEG-2 you could not use compression between frames. Do not know how they work internally, but IIRC this is no longer required. Linux editing software could follow this path as well. But probably better to start with the DV family of codecs first.

Re:I-Frames, P-Frames, B-Frames... (2, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30714816)

``This thread made me read up on video compression, and I can now articulate more precisely why my favorite video codec is Motion-JPEG - It uses 100% I-frames, which makes editing easy, and which makes fast motion scenes look better than codecs which use P and B frames. The only downside is that Motion JPEG doesn't offer the best compression, but it's still reasonably sized.''

For some value of "reasonably sized", I'm sure. But you are including a lot of redundant information in your stream if you represent each frame independently (which is what I frames do). By storing only the differences between frames (which is what B and P frames do), you can reduce the amount of data without losing any information. To achieve the same reduction using MJPEG, you would have to reduce the quality of your frames a lot. In short: if you use only I frames, you get larger files, reduced quality, or both.

The reason you observe that fast motion scenes look better using MJPEG than using other codecs you have tried is not that the other codecs use B and/or P frames, but that they are throwing away too much information. What is likely happening is that they have a limited bit budget per frame, which is enough to encode scenes with few changes between frames, but not enough to encode scenes with many changes between frames. The solution, then, isn't to use only I frames (that would probably make the problem even worse!), but to allow more bits per frame for frames that require it.

A little thought experiment to make it all a little easier to understand: suppose you have two frames that are very similar. Given the choice between storing each frame independently (I frames) or storing one frame completely (I frame) and the other as a diff against it (B or P frame), I think it should be clear that the latter will allow for a better bits:quality ratio. If you are only allowed to store full frames, you will have to sacrifice quality, increase the number of bits, or both. So allowing frames to be encoded as B or P frames is always a good idea. In those cases where it isn't beneficial, you can always still use I frames.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...