×

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!

Lightworks Video Editor To Go Open Source

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the retreat-to-the-beowulf-cluster-for-rendering dept.

Open Source 205

Art3x writes "EditShare will release its video editor as open source this summer. Lightworks handles high-definition media, DPX, and RED, shares projects with Final Cut Pro and Avid, and was recently used by Academy-award-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker on Shutter Island. Introduced in 1989 and bought by EditShare last year, it 'has come from over one million hours of software development,' says EditShare's James Richings. But he says releasing the source will 'generate concepts and capabilities never seen before. I expect that the Lightworks Open Source initiative will transform not only the technology, but also the opinions on what a professional editing tool can achieve.'" From the press release's description, it sounds like the "open source" phase will follow a period of free-as-in-beer downloading.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

205 comments

I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31850972)

I hope it's released under a truly free license like the BSD or the MIT license. That's the only way to maximize everyone's freedom.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (2, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851008)

Clearly not oh trollish one.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851162)

Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.

Sum up the freedom if you don't believe us:

Total freedom of MIT and BSD licenses = Ability to redistribute code without changes + Ability to redistribute code with changes + Ability to not redistribute code without changes + Ability to not redistribute code with changes
Total freedom of MIT and BSD licenses = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
Total freedom of MIT and BSD licenses = 4

Total freedom of the GPL = Ability to redistribute code without changes + Ability to redistribute code with changes + Ability to not redistribute code without changes + Ability to not redistribute code with changes
Total freedom of the GPL = 1 + 1 + 1 + 0
Total freedom of the GPL = 3

Clearly, the freedom you get with the MIT and BSD licenses exceeds that which you'd get from the GPL.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (2, Insightful)

raynet (51803) | about 4 years ago | (#31851368)

If you wanna sum up, then you should sum up the times the license is used. And in the long run GPL might come ahead as it will always keep scoring 3 points whereas BSD will score 0 points once it gets closed by some vendor.

Or instead of thinking what the license gives to the developer, maybe we should give more value on what it gives to the user. With GPL the user will always get the same rights as the developer had, with BSD they can be taken away.

Also BSD does have nasty limitations, it forces me to retain a copyright notice and other things. Public domain type of license could contain even more freedom.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851444)

Let me troll a bit: But, isn't the developer the user of the licenced thing, that is, the code, really? What is really licensed here, the software or the code? It seems to me that they are not the same thing. And i believe the license covers the code, not the software. I think the GPL license makes it so those things are confused.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851454)

If you remove the attribution requirement from a BSD/MIT license, you effectively have public domain with an explicit disclaimer of warranty.

Attribution is important to stop lawsuits later on. What if someone claims your public domain work as their own and sues you for copying it?

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#31851548)

> Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.

And pointless.

They could have merely put the source in the public domain if they wanted things to be a free-for-all.

The main benefit of a non Mad Max approach to Free Software is that it gives more developers a better incentive to contribute as they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them. People like to forget that this is why the GPL came about in the first place. RMS didn't just decided to go on an ideological tear. His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge.

The GPL is a result of a failure of more open licensing.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 4 years ago | (#31851786)

"...they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them."

How so? Used against them in what way?

"His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge."

I won't be looking to you for any history lessons. ;)

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851610)

Does the "number" of freedoms define the amount of freedom?

Example, two cities, one with complete freedom to do what you want, the other with only one rule: "you are not free to limit other people's freedom".

> Clearly, the freedom you get with the MIT and BSD licenses exceeds that which you'd get from the GPL.

Clearly the freedoms in the first city exceeds by 1 the freedoms in the second city. But in the first city you risk waking up and find your neighbour decided to build a wall around your house so you will have to pay him to get in and out AND IT'S TOTALLY LEGAL.

No rules enforce the "stronger wins" rule, and all the philosophical or trollish blabbering in this world won't change that.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851190)

Clearly not oh trollish one.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.

"In order to save the village, we had to destroy it."

In absolute terms, the GPL *remove* freedom. There's cases where giving up freedom is a good thing - for instance, by having the emotion of thirst for vengeance, you create a better negotiation position (people won't cheat you even if it wouldn't be to your advantage to punish them after you've found that you've been cheated, because you'll at that point go against your immediate advantage due to thirst for vengeance.)

  It is arguable whether the GPL gives end users the kind of freedom they want and is of value to them, and therefore arguable whether it is of benefit or not.

For instance, as a counterpoint, BSD software is much more used by end-users than GPL software: End users buy Mac OS X, which is BSD licensed software with stuff on top. They have shown a clear preference for this compared to Linux, with more people paying for Macs than use Linux for free. That's a freedom that they got from the BSD license - with just the GPL in play, the choice they wanted wouldn't exist, because the GPL had taken that freedom from them.

The 100% concrete and obvious advantage the GPL *does* give is protection of the developer from certain types of competition, and protection of the developer's emotions from the feeling of being exploited. These clearly have value.

The question end up: Is this value more or less than the value that the end users get from actually getting the software they want? That would of course depend on whether you're an end user or a developer that would get some value of out the GPL situation.

(I've written BSD licensed software that is now part of Mac OS X, and I'm happy to have Mac OS X available to use; for most purposes, it's my preferred client operating system. So I am clearly getting benefit of the code even though I can no longer modify everything on my system - and I feel I have greater benefit of this than I would have of using any of the available purely open source systems.)

Orwellian Style GNU Doublespeak (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851214)

What a bunch of retards.

Do you GNU idiots actually think anyone is falling for your lame attempts at word games to cover up your shitty viral license?

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851234)

Clearly not oh trollish one.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.

So Apache, PHP, sendmail, BIND, Perl, Imagemagick, OpenSSH and OpenSSL (to name a few permissive-license software projects) haven't been embraced by 'the enterprise' because they aren't GPL, right?

Not everyone has the ideology that _all_ software must be under a copyleft license. Sometimes it's about solving problems and making software better for everyone.

Taking a BSD licensed program with source and adding your own proprietary extensions doesn't make the original source code disappear, or any less free.

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851360)

Hey, Perl is also under GPL!

Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (3, Interesting)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 4 years ago | (#31851738)

Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.

I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.

If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.

BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop. GPL places some restrictions on release of binaries from code modifications which require publishing of code changes if a binary is released to the general public. Full Stop. Let's stop trying redefine terms like "freedom" and just spell out the differences.

GPL takes the approach of enforcement of rules if you want to play while BSD relies on good will and a desire to co-operate. One requires coercion and the other is completely voluntary.

Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851166)

All the important open source commercial products are free BSD style licences:

* The OS X base OS parts

* The fastest webbrowser Chrome

* And Google's upcoming Chrome OS

* The amazing LLVM compiler tools that people are dumping that massive pile of fail GCC for

Companies now know to avoid the nightmare the GPL is.

Re:Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garba (0, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851428)

All the important open source commercial products are free BSD style licences

And that is your list of important products?
HAHA

OSX- used by no one in the enterprise and pointless as a server OS

Chrome: a browser with no marketshare, even opera is more popular

Chrome OS: will be linux, meaning GPL kernel!

LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it.

No Wonder GPL Software Is Such Garbage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851556)

BSD based OS X has kicked the shit out of the stinking pile of fail that the GPL Linux desktop is you fucking loser. Not only has BSD based OS X kicked the shit out of the garbage that is the GPL desktop, the very phrase 'desktop Linux' is a joke all by itself.

"Chrome: a browser with no marketshare, even opera is more popular"

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Chrome OS: will be linux, meaning GPL kernel!"

OMG are you total fucking moron!

"LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone needs to beat the fuck out of your idiotic ass. I would smack the fuck out you if you tried to spew that idiotic garbage.

Re:No Wonder GPL Software Is Such Garbage (0, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851720)

Oh no an internet toughguy!
An anonymous one at that, what a surprise.

Re:No Wonder GPL Software Is Such Garbage (0, Offtopic)

nextekcarl (1402899) | about 4 years ago | (#31851880)

Well, you have to admit it's hard being a touch guy when you're 5'2, weigh 80 lbs and are 12 years old.

Re:No Wonder GPL Software Is Such Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851818)

You got owned.

Re:Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garba (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 years ago | (#31851578)

LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it.

Or, nice idea, implemented in a terrible language. Could have been much nicer if it had been designed along the lines of COLA/OMeta. And - that's a wild guess, though - much, much shorter.

The entire complier tech world is laughing at you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851636)

Let's see.

On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.

On the other hand you have some random idiot on Slashdot...

Go back to that laughable turd GCC dummy.

Re:The entire complier tech world is laughing at y (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851944)

On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.

Making shit up or you got a citation for that?
Even the projects built with llvm page shows nothing all that interesting.

Re:Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garba (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851678)

Or, nice idea, implemented in a terrible language.

pcc [wikipedia.org] looks promising!

Writing any compiler in C++ is kind of like using a seized up jackhammer with one hand to thread a needle, except you'll be happier with the results from the analogy.

What's the appeal of a supercompiler anyway? Systems languages that can't be self hosted aren't complete systems languages.

Re:Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garba (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#31851520)

Chrome is also a bad example. It's based on WebKit, and portions of WebKit are under the LGPL. I doubt they've stripped out and rewritten all of WebCore.

Good troll! (2, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 4 years ago | (#31851300)

I'll push it a little further by saying. What really makes Richard Stallman the true genius behind Linux is not his code or gcc, but the little bit of virus he put in every GPL.

How's that sound?
 

Re:Good troll! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851356)

Instead of just discussing the issue at hand, why do you GPL advocates always resort of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies?

Can't we please just get back to discussing how the BSD and MIT licenses promote freedom for all, while the GPL stifles it?

You need to stop calling people "trolls", you need to stop making exaggerations, and you need to try to partake in this discussion as if you were a mature, educated adult.

Re:Good troll! (1)

HBI (604924) | about 4 years ago | (#31851438)

Advocating giving every piece of good OSS to Microsoft for free IS trolling. Who the hell wants to write code to benefit Redmond for free? I doubt many Microsofties themselves would do that.

Re:Good troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851766)

I'd much prefer it if Microsoft used nothing but BSD software in their products! Then their products wouldn't be so full of security holes and other bugs.

Re:Good troll! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851448)

Sure, the BSD license promotes the freedom of companies to close up code you wrote and it sell back to you. They can then use it in a computer that you are not even allowed to run your own apps on or develop for if you do not use their blessed environment.

That's some great freedom if you are a billionaire, for the rest of us not so much.

Re:Good troll! (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#31851714)

Sure, the BSD license promotes the freedom of companies to close up code you wrote and it sell back to you.

Ah, but in practice, most of the time, either A. the company keeps it open source anyway (e.g. Apple with most of the lower half of Mac OS X), B. the company builds a closed source version but regularly pushes fixes upstream, or C. the software is in a device where changing out parts of the software is well beyond the skills of a typical user (e.g. your microwave oven). Most of the exceptions to that statement never gained any real traction in the marketplace.

Sure, you can point out a few prominent exceptions, e.g. Microsoft using BSD's TCP/IP stack in Windows, but do you honestly expect anybody to believe that anyone would have been served by the original stack being under the GPL? Microsoft would never have made their kernel open source anyway, so they either would have rewritten it or worse, developed a competing network standard. Either of those would have resulted in further fragmentation of the market, more bugs that users have to suffer through, and in general a worse perception of computing by the public as a whole. The only way you could reasonably argue that anyone would have benefitted from this is if you honestly believe that Windows (already the dominant platform by this time) would have lost its dominance due to Linux having a better TCP/IP stack sooner. That's a pretty big stretch of the imagination, to say the least.

Re:Good troll! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851956)

A. So they get free stuff you get nothing new
B. how nice of them, too bad they can stop at anytime
C. Perhaps I want to mod my microwave

I think MS will take whatever they can get for free and never give anything back. They would have eventually written their own stack, nothing would have changed except they would not have gotten a free ride.

Re:Good troll! (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#31851426)

Richard Stallman isn't the genius being Linux. He resented Linux and insisted on calling it "GNU/Linux" to ride its coattails when the HURD failed. GCC is terrible and is being replaced by a faster, superior, BSD-licensed compiler--Clang/LLVM. The viral nature of the GPL has been disastrous, especially version 3.

Stallman is the ultimate example of blind religious fervor overriding common sense. He also eats his toe jam in public. Look up the video.

Re:Good troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851490)

The viral nature of the GPL has been disastrous

Disastrous for what? Oh, for companies that want to use other people's work without giving anything in return.

World's smallest violin, right here -> .

I'd play "My Heart Bleeds for You" on it, but you'd have to pay me up front first, you look like the shifty sort who thinks they ought to get something for nothing.

Great something (5, Funny)

ooshna (1654125) | about 4 years ago | (#31850986)

People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.

Re:Great something (2, Informative)

rwv (1636355) | about 4 years ago | (#31851202)

I think you're joking, but the open source video editing tools that I've used have all had extremely clunky interfaces. I'm no pro, but I've edited a 90 minute amateur film, so if I can't figure out how to import and splice clips in less than 30 minutes of picking up a copy of your video editing software, I conclude that the software is no good. It's been about two years since I've seriously looked for something, but in 2008 the state-of-the-art for open source video editing wasn't in good shape.

Re:Great something (5, Informative)

ZaphDingbat (451843) | about 4 years ago | (#31851346)

I agree completely, which is why I'm actually in the middle of writing one for Linux (+ maybe other OS's). A lot of work.

If anyone's interested, I'm working on a two-fold project: a video framework that works in 4:4:4 linear floating-point RGBA with OpenGL acceleration, and a video editor built on top of it, all scriptable via Python.

The framework is coming along nicely. I've just begun on the editing interface. You can see recent (but not current) framework code at: http://www.fluggo.com/redmine/projects/show/fluggo-media

I would be absolutely happy for someone to take the framework and build their own editor on top of it. I would love to provide support for that case. If anyone's interested, drop me a line at brian@fluggo.com.

Re:Great something (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#31851652)

Unfortunately it seems your page is behind some manner of login.

Just wanted to say - awesome! Hopefully it'll be a solid foundation.. best would be see the various disparate video editing tools converge or at least play together more to make a competitive product/suite.

I'm a big supporter of The GIMP myself - I have Photoshop on another machine and I continually feel like I'm playing with a piece of software that a photographer from the 30's designed.. even despite all the new nifty tools in CS5. E.g. printing an image at a non-uniform scale. No can do. You must go through the resize image dialog. Upon which you must first enable the 'calculate new pixels' option because otherwise, of course, it's not actually resizing the image.. it's just changing its DPI. Oi. Effin. Vey.

But I do realize it's not even remotely on a level of competing with Photoshop - even in basic areas such as a proper transform tool. But progress is made and I do hope to see similar progress on the video editing end.

Re:Great something (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | about 4 years ago | (#31851704)

The editor is part of the battle. The other is capturing the video off the cameras. When I select capture video in FCP, I get a list of choices a mile long.

Re:Great something (5, Insightful)

cupantae (1304123) | about 4 years ago | (#31851696)

if I can't figure out how to import and splice clips in less than 30 minutes of picking up a copy of your video editing software, I conclude that the software is no good.

I have the same attitude with all products: if I can't figure it out in 30 minutes, without consulting a manual (see below), I just give up.

Incidentally, I can't read, write, swim, drive or ride a bicycle. I assume none of those things is any good.

Re:Great something (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851782)

For an illiterate you made quite an insightful comment.

Re:Great something (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | about 4 years ago | (#31851922)

No, I think it just appears that way. He's really just mashing keys, and sadly, will most likely respond to your comment with something like sajubzdfjhnzdfv nhjfdv nhdfHB Nvrwegrewuitfrhvfd bjdfvjhb kh. Although it may appear like English when it actually shows up, it really has no more connection to actual language than that.

Re:Great something (5, Funny)

cupantae (1304123) | about 4 years ago | (#31851950)

Thanks. Martha reads out stories and comments. Then I dictate replies of my own.

[Please help me. He has me locked in his basement and the smell is horrific!
      - Martha.]

Re:Great something (1)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31851216)

People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.

Especially now that a free alternative is available, there will be no excuse for pirating commercial software. I for one would rather not add legitimacy to the copyright interests' constant claims that piracy is the cause of all of their problems. Every time someone advocates or excuses piracy, they feel vindicated and they don't deserve that. For that reason, I have not and will not pirate Adobe Premiere or any similar commercial software and strongly recommend that no one else does this either.

I realize that this program may or may not suit your individual needs as well as something like Adobe Premiere. That would really be a separate subject, but I will say this much: there's a bit more at stake here than whether you have a super-deluxe video editor. I for one would happily do without a few extra features knowing that I won't be fueling the insanity that keeps coming from the monied interests desiring stronger copyright laws.

Re:Great something (1)

cupantae (1304123) | about 4 years ago | (#31851728)

Especially now that a free alternative is available, there will be no excuse for pirating commercial software.

To be fair, the only excuse people need is that they don't want to pay for it. You don't see people in poorer countries flocking to Linux - they generally just pirate XP. In any case, the lack of a free alternative shouldn't vindicate stealing by anyone's standards.

Re:Great something (2, Funny)

copponex (13876) | about 4 years ago | (#31851338)

Psshh. Have you ever tried to edit AVCHD in Premiere? It's like dragging an anvil through frozen molasses.

We're all pirating Final Cut on our Hackintoshes. Duhhhhh...

No doubt, will equal GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851010)

And we all know what runaway success that GIMP is.

It's dead is what it is, that's all. Nothing like a million more to each contribute an hour to get another million hours. Yeah, baby!

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | about 4 years ago | (#31851028)

And we all know what runaway success that GIMP is.

It works for me...

Anyway, Blender would be a better analogy - a closed-source tool that later went open-source. I bet if you tried real hard you could even find fault with Blender, somewhere...

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (4, Interesting)

fotbr (855184) | about 4 years ago | (#31851102)

Finding fault with Blender is* easy, and for much the same reason people find fault with GIMP -- the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.

*Referring to Blender circa 2003, so this may need to be changed to "was". The UI was bad enough at the time to make me not look back.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 4 years ago | (#31851284)

ALL the 3D graphics editor UIs I've seen suck - 3ds Max, Maya, Lightwave, etc., take your pick. 3D editing isn't something you dabble at. Either you take the time to learn the tool, or you don't get anything done. It's a shame, I know I'd like to dabble at it.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

fotbr (855184) | about 4 years ago | (#31851590)

Oh, I know, although at the time Maya was much more usable *for me*. The fact they had a free (beer) version (watermarked images) was good enough since I was just doing some concept art. Now that Autodesk got their hands on it, I have no doubt they've ruined both the UI and the free version as well.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | about 4 years ago | (#31851450)

the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.

Yeah, but that's hardly the exclusive domain of open source software; plenty of commercial apps over the years have had poor interfaces, and/or workflow, and/or functionality.

There's nothing wrong with simply learning a clunky UI, warts and all. The warts are a lot less obtrusive once you get used to them. I'm not saying there is an excuse for crappy design, I'm saying that familiarity can often make up for it.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (3, Interesting)

fotbr (855184) | about 4 years ago | (#31851634)

Yet that doesn't excuse the fact that it is (or was, anyway -- as I said, it's been years since I've looked at Blender) valid criticism of it, either.

And yes, there IS something wrong with learning a clunky UI, IF there's a better solution available. In my case there was, and I would have been stupid to use the worse solution simply because it was open source. Then again, I try to use the best tool for the job, instead of being blinded by any ideology; if that best tool is open source, great. If not, that's fine with me too.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

ejtttje (673126) | about 4 years ago | (#31851708)

FWIW, Blender's interface isn't all that bad now I think. It's not necessarily "intuitive", but they have a good set of tutorials and user community so you can get up to speed. What it lacks in intuition, it makes up for in being efficient to navigate once you do know it (i.e. there's a hotkey combo for everything...)

Still, for precision/engineering work, it is lacking some power compared to a dedicated product like SolidWorks... different target audiences though, I'm probably in a rare intersection.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | about 4 years ago | (#31851724)

God, I hope it goes the way of Gimp and Blender.

They're free, they work, and they're *good enough* for me. I.e., if I want/need something more, I'll fork out the money and buy it. I did this with *gasp* Adobe Premiere because the freely available tools were either buggy or lacked the features I needed.

Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#31851126)

I wonder if people will now grumble more about UI of Blender or about this Lightworks thing (seems to be fairly advanced, with operation built around hardware peripheral, so it's bound to be "weird" and "hard"...)

Still, can't wait (and you'd think /. would mostly agree)...one step closer to having everything I need under open OS.

Be warned (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851040)

You can edit RED with the open source version, but you have to pay if you want to edit blue or green.

open source pixi dust? (3, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 4 years ago | (#31851044)

Are they going to continue to provide developers and push some form of direction?

From what I've seen the only successful OS projects are grown from scratch or 50%+ maintained by a single company.

Analogy Pendant (0, Troll)

w0mprat (1317953) | about 4 years ago | (#31851132)

Beer is not free, unless you brew it yourself, scam on some rich cougar, or steal it. Free as in beer is a better analogy for piracy or convincing your drunk boss he hasn't yet bought a round, despite having done so, thrice, at friday drinks.

Re:Analogy Pendant (1)

k3vlar (979024) | about 4 years ago | (#31851220)

Brewing beer isn't free. Unless you already own the equipment and ingredients, buying them can run you over $150 per batch. Then you have to count the time-consuming process of sanitizing the equipment, actually brewing beer, bottling it (hope you saved those bottles too!), and then drinking it before it expires (unless you can find some way to pasteurize it). However, if you do decide to do it, it is a very rewarding experience. Not free... but rewarding.

Re:Analogy Pendant (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851394)

If your beer is expiring try making a different beer. Many beers fair well with years of storage and no pasteurization.

Re:Analogy Pendant (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851222)

'Free as in beer' is actually meant as 'free as in free beer'.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Re:Analogy Pendant (4, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | about 4 years ago | (#31851242)

Beer is free when someone gives it away. You get the liquid but not the recipe. That's the point of the analogy.

Re:Analogy Pendant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851504)

If you brew it yourself it is only cheaper, you still need something to ferment, water and a container to hold it, that is, unless you have a strain of yeast that turns breathable air(which is about the only resource which is free) into alcohol. Growing your own grain requires you to own land, preferably in a place where it rains just enough but never too much.

1m hours software development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851148)

That's 18 developers working 8hrs a day, every day for 20 years.

Re:1m hours software development (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851258)

Well, the software has been around since 1989!

It almost makes sense :D

Nothing good will probably come of this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851178)

Yay! Yet another open source project that will likely stagnate at best, or (more likely) will end up with a million different forks due to all of the inevitable bickering about which direction development should go. The only way to prevent this would be some kind of centralized development effort, and I'm not holding my breath. Besides, if they've decided to go the open source route, EditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.

Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (4, Insightful)

I'm not really here (1304615) | about 4 years ago | (#31851366)

the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.

OR... the company realizes that the benefits of crowd sourcing the application far outweigh the potential monetary gains of keeping it closed source. If the company releases it via BSD license and then develops and sells closed source plugins for the architecture, the massive adoption of the core software will springboard their new plugin products. As the developers of the software, they are best positioned to be the leader in plugin development for this project.

So, the cynical view that the application is dead completely ignores the possibility that it may simply be more profitable for them to open source it.

Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#31851470)

First off, people who non-sarcastically use the term "crowd sourcing" are ridiculous. Second, they'll have no position to be the "leader in plugin development" by being the developers of the software, because the software will be open source. The poster was right--releasing it for free means it had no monetary value to them, which says something about the software. If you look at the history of this thing, it's been sold to multiple companies over time which means nobody could do anything profitable with it.

Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 4 years ago | (#31851386)

ditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.

or most of their money comes from services rather than licenses.

 

Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#31851452)

Besides, if they've decided to go the open source route, EditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.

I'm sure people on Slashdot can remember many technologies, operating systems or applications which, while great, didn't really have the chance to take off; or died untimely death due to factors external from the product itself.

Even if this tool can be considered "dead" commercially (as far as selling it goes), it can still have bright times ahead once freed.

Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851474)

"Stagnate at best"? Lol, you're a cheery little bugger, aren't you?

Much-needed pro-level competition for Avid (5, Insightful)

ev1lcanuck (718766) | about 4 years ago | (#31851180)

I'm really excited about this move. The first editing system I ever experienced when I was young was a Lightworks/Heavyworks system. My dad (a film editor, now director) loves the Lightworks systems due to their natural and intuitive control systems. I still have an old Lightwave controller sitting around that I've thought about hacking to work with the Avid.

Currently we work on Avid Media Composer, since it remains the only true pro-level editing software. Final Cut has it's pros but, at least to me, it's more for video editing (by which I mean not sourcing or finishing to film) and smaller projects (promos, commercials, shorts). If you want to cut a feature film - you use Avid. I have arguments with co-workers about FCP versus Avid but we usually arrive at the agreement that Avid is simply the standard to which all other systems are currently judged.

With the open sourcing of Lightworks I can only hope that the best of modern systems like Avid and FCP can be integrated with the very intuitive Lightworks way of working. At the very least, I hope it scares Avid and Apple at least enough to make them fix some of the problems that currently exist with their systems. More competition is always better for the end user.

Re:Much-needed pro-level competition for Avid (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#31851790)

List of features [editshare.com] certainly looks nice (it would be even better to see some presentation; I haven't found much, too niche it seems...plus now search results are swamped with this news). For somebody who is generally fine with Sony Vegas + some nice color grading plugin, this almost looks too good to be true...

Re:Much-needed pro-level competition for Avid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851802)

That is simply false.

In your opinion Avid is the standard.

Have you heard of Walter Murch?

What platform does this run on? (1)

yelvington (8169) | about 4 years ago | (#31851192)

I read the press release and even visited the website. I can't find ANYTHING that reveals the system requirements for this software. Is it a Mac application? Windows? Linux? If it won't run on my OS of choice, why should I care about it?

This appears to be an application that was never available in retail channels in the first place and has no market share or brand equity.

Re:What platform does this run on? (2, Insightful)

notoriou5 (956084) | about 4 years ago | (#31851270)

Lightworks Author 8.2 runs on Mac and PC. http://www.lightworkdesign.com/features/lightworks_82 [lightworkdesign.com]

Re:What platform does this run on? (2, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | about 4 years ago | (#31851408)

Nope, wrong Lightworks. Apparently, there's Lightworks the NLE software (now being open sourced), and Lightworks the rendering software (which you linked to).

Re:What platform does this run on? (2, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | about 4 years ago | (#31851512)

I have a PC. Will it run on it, too? Btw, my PC have Ubuntu Linux but since Lightwork will run on a PC it shouldn't be a problem?

Re:What platform does this run on? (2, Informative)

cupantae (1304123) | about 4 years ago | (#31851836)

According to phoronix [phoronix.com] , it's available for Linux. Not sure about other platforms. Somebody on the phoronix forums remembers using it on Windows.

Depends... (-1, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 4 years ago | (#31851212)

Do they have a Firefox-like extension mechanism, allowing non C/C++ programmers to join in?
I’d do it instantly. But I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design to be the cause of pretty much every security exploit out there, and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.

Congrats, Everyone Knows You're A Complete Idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851256)

Way to go dimwit!

Re:Depends... (1)

annodomini (544503) | about 4 years ago | (#31851288)

Dude, get over yourself. Yeah, C and C++ are not ideal in every way; but no language is. They are still quite useful. There is a lot of good software out there written in them (such as Firefox itself).

If you really want to contribute, and help fix said security issues, it would behoove you to learn them. Otherwise, I'd recommend finding a project written in the language of your choice, and contributing to that. It doesn't make that much sense to complain about a project not being in your favorite language and asking for an extension mechanism using another language just so you can contribute.

Re:Depends... (4, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | about 4 years ago | (#31851350)

I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design [...] and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.

No problem. All Lightwave development is done in LOGO. Just tell the turtle what you want it to do.

Re:Depends... (3, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851744)

Your comment is beyond awesome. That comment makes the FSM smile upon you and will get you closer to an eternity spent in the shadow of the beer volcano and within walking distance of the stripper factory.

Re:Depends... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#31851404)

But I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design to be the cause of pretty much every security exploit out there, and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.

I bet you were told you were special when you were a kid right?

Re:Depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851874)

That would i

geek-bait? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851244)

From the press release's description, it sounds like the "open source" phase will follow a period of free-as-in-beer downloading.

Translation:
It sounds like the "open source" hype, in combination with a free-as-in-beer download, will win massive marketshare, followed by the release of a "premium" version to capitalize on that.

Note that this works whether it's released as (netscape-style) open-source, or whether that promise fades away -- as long as everybody got their free copy, and knows that open-source is "around the corner", you can go quite a long way without a shred of code released.

Shutter Island editing was horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851254)

and was recently used by Academy-award-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker on Shutter Island

That's funny, because I remember specifically thinking that the editing was horrible when I saw Shutter Island in the theater. If anything such a claim makes me wary of using this software. Although I suppose you can't blame bad editing on the software, but rather on the people using the software.

Sure beats what I've been using (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 years ago | (#31851264)

For the past few years, all my video splicing has been done with the mediocre editor built into Blender. Which works well enough for a feature built into a 3D modeling/rendering program, but is far less usable and efficient than any dedicated one.

Two things I noticed (4, Insightful)

bomanbot (980297) | about 4 years ago | (#31851276)

Maybe thats just me, but does anyone see any system requirements on anywhere? I read the press release, looked all over the company website and still could not find anything even remotely looking like system requirements anywhere.

I would guess that there is a Windows version and since it seems to integrate with Final Cut Pro, a Mac version seems likely as well, but there is no way to be sure and strangely, I could not find anything.

Also, it seems that Lightworks was only recently (August 2009) acquired by EditShare. Making it OpenSource now could mean that EditShare maybe was not able or willing to continue developing, selling and supporting the program and now tries to salvage something by open-sourcing it, hoping the community will pick up the slack.

Re:Two things I noticed (2, Insightful)

euxneks (516538) | about 4 years ago | (#31851472)

Also, it seems that Lightworks was only recently (August 2009) acquired by EditShare. Making it OpenSource now could mean that EditShare maybe was not able or willing to continue developing, selling and supporting the program and now tries to salvage something by open-sourcing it, hoping the community will pick up the slack.

That's not necessarily a bad thing though, look at blender :) That's taken off like fireweed!

Re:Two things I noticed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31851492)

It's high-end video editing software. The system requirements are always 'more'. If you have to ask whether your computer can run it the answer is no. Considering that the summery talks about HD and Red video I wouldn't consider anything less than quad core with 4Gb RAM. If you are serious you would be looking more like 16Gb RAM, two or three 23"+ widescreens and a couple Tb of RAID drives for storage.

If any of this is surprising then you are not working at the level where software like this is necessary.

Where's the meat? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 4 years ago | (#31851664)

I only found a press release written in marketingdroidese claiming a lot of things, mostly vapid. However I found no publicly available source code. Nor even what the released source code will actually be, since the press release is so vacuous you cannot understand which parts of the application will be open source, or if it is the whole application. Nor even in which license the source code is supposed to be released in.
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...