Building The Ultimate Video Editing Suite 68
PlainBlack writes "Once upon a time, I was the Chief Engineer at a small TV station, but got out of that line of work about the time that people were talking about replacing video tapes with hard drives. Now I'm looking to build myself a professional grade editing suite using only open source tools so that I can dump as much money as possible into the hardware. My question to Slashdot is, what are the best open source tools for such a suite? I'll need both video and audio editing; a bank of wipes, fades, and other effects; a great paint program; and a titler (text overlays)."
Kino, Cinelerra (Score:4, Informative)
The tutorials at http://www.robfisher.net/video/cinelerra1.html
a
See also (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kino, Cinelerra (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently It is the most popular open source tool in the motion picture industry [sourceforge.net]
Re:Kino, Cinelerra (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kino, Cinelerra (Score:1)
Re:Kino, Cinelerra (Score:1)
VirtualDub (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, it is open source.
Re:VirtualDub (Score:2)
Fades and dissolves may not be necessary to everyone, but I can't imagine even doing simple projects without them -- It allows a smooth
Re:VirtualDub (Score:3, Informative)
If all you need to do is trim or process your video (resize, recolor, etc.) virtualdub is great. If you're looking for real editing (combining scenes, doing a multicamera edit) you need something with a timeline, multiple a/v tracks, etc.
VirtualDub like program for linux? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:VirtualDub like program for linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/
Very Little Out There (Score:5, Informative)
I've looked into Main Actor (from mainconcept.com) and am considering using it. I've tried Cinelerra and found it frustrating to get up and running. Under KDE, there is KDEnliven, a video editor in an early stage of development (and, IMHO, the one with the most potential in the long run). There's also Jashaka (or Jakasha-- something like that), which I've heard has a good number of features, but is not well supported or backed for future development.
From my point of view, there has to be at least one solid video editor that works with different formats, allows easy out to DV, VHS, and to AVI and MPG files, as well as a full featured DVD authoring program that makes it easy to import different video format files and allows easy GUI editing of the menus and play sequences.
I've only been in the open source world for 2-3 years, and recently looked back to where things where when I started and where they are now. Video editing is still not a priority and not a task I'd expect to do with open source software. Judging from what I've seen in the past few years, though, I'm hoping it'll be there in another 3-4 years.
Re:Very Little Out There (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like it will take some time until it becomes usable, though.
Re:Very Little Out There (Score:2)
I'm on a Mac too, and... hmm. I guess I'd feel a lot more compelled to go to the trouble of going out and finding
DVD is patented (Score:2)
There is almost nothing available in open source for DVD authoring.
Wait fifteen or so years for the DVD patents to expire, and you'll see more action on that front.
Re:DVD is patented (Score:2)
Jahshaka (Score:2, Informative)
This looked like it could be quite good a little while ago, and they seem to be coming along nicely. May be worth a look
- Gef
Me too! (Score:3, Informative)
Me too... except I don't have any money. At all. I've been browsing through: http://www.linuxartist.org/ and trying different things in their Video - Animation [linuxartist.org] section.
What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:1, Troll)
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You really are an asshole.
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:1)
There is a lot of time and effort to put together an application like Final Cut Pro or Premiere. Spend a little less money on the hardware and spend some money to get some professional-level software.
Please no flames -- I am not anti-open source software! I just have realistic expectations of what I can and cannot get for free.
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:2)
I guess all the "professional-level" software that I've found available for free has raised my expectations way above yours. Then again, perhaps Microsoft has been lowering my expectations for "professional-level" software. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Parent Up! (Score:4, Interesting)
For example (and there was an article on
Personally, I think the driving force behind "finished" OSS (by finished I mean programs easily used by anyone who can use a computer) is becoming (and already is, to some point) large corporations that are backing OSS development, like Sun and OpenOffice. Abiword is good, KWrite is good. But until OpenOffice was released there was no word processor with the polish, ease of use, and power of professional word processing software. A lot of that comes from the fact that most OSS projects are not paying developers and programmers to write the GUIs and other work that programmers often shun because it's a pain.
The problem is that, rather than write the interfaces and adding the polish, many in the OSS community would rather attack the person who says, "This is not ready for prime time," than to step back and examine the situation and dare to ask themselves, "Is there a valid reason this person is saying this?"
I use OSS whenever possible, and I look forward to the day when I can use only OSS. I have a list of all the OSS programs I've used in starting my company and we've (me and employees) already started discussions on how to pay back those projects (would donations work better, or volunteering man hours while programmers are on my clock). We expect a major jump in income in the next year, and when that happens, we will be contributing to projects we have used, either by money or time.
It's not about getting it without paying. It's about trusting OSS and not trusting companies who have everything to gain by selling software that has flaws and charging for a new version with those flaws fixed.
Oh, and one last rant -- I've bumped into a number of purists who feel all software should be OSS, and often these people are the same ones who leap into a rant of denial when someone says, "I can't use that program. It lacks features and needs an interface." At that point, they start blaming the user for stupidity, instead of accepting that not everyone is a programmer and there are many intelligent people who are experts in their fields, but don't have time to write their own programs. You can't have it both ways. If you want people using OSS, then you have to make OSS easily accessible and usable by all users.
Trying to solve your more general problem (Score:2)
If you are looking for an OSS program that does something, and there is none out there, right away, everyone calls you a freeloader and demands to know why you would want to do that anyway. Instead of saying, "No, there is no OSS solution for that yet," the response is usually to claim that there is no need to solve the problem anyway.
Actually, the thinking here is that a novice user may have taken a wrong turn in solving a problem and is trying to ask for a specific solution that doesn't exist yet, and
Re:Trying to solve your more general problem (Score:2)
I wish I could say that was always the case. While I have seen people ask those types of questions (I think I recall someone on the OOo users list asking where they could get Office for free because all they could find was OOo), but I've seen many cases where I, or someone else wer
Structural vs. presentational markup (Score:2)
I've asked about WYSIWYG HTML editors. The response is
Mozilla Editor.
(almost) always, "Why would you want that?" or "I always hand code my HTML. I don't like WYSIWYG editors."
The problem here is that many popular WYSIWYG HTML editors tend to encourage web page authors to use deprecated or semi-deprecated presentational markup (<b>, <i>, <table>, <font>, etc) rather than the structural markup that W3C recommends (<strong>, <em>, <div>, CSS, etc). Does there
Re:Structural vs. presentational markup (Score:2)
Use when I can, but it not only doesn't do forms, but form elements can screw it up.
I've tried HTML in OOo, and it works until you add tables within tables to help with formatting.
But thanks for a good point.
Re:Mod Parent Up! [OT] (Score:2)
I'd say probably a mix o
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:1)
The same reason that I am glad that team of programmers vastly more skilled than I wrote a professional grade operating system and made it available to me for free.
I would assume that writing an OS is much harder than writing A/V editing tools. A large portion of the GIMP code could even be reused for the video manipulation portion.
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:1)
D'oh! Just noticed the post about Film GIMP a.k.a. CinePaint.
Re:What a bunch of cheapskates and freeloaders (Score:2)
Trouble is that the market for video editting is pretty damn small. Maybe it'll get larger now that digital video cameras are more popular, and normal digital cameras (and even mobile phones) can take movies. But it's still very much a ni
Define your terms (Score:4, Informative)
Once you reach a certain budget level, you will be able to do everything you define as 'professional', after that what you are paying for is either speed of operation or storage capacity.
Honestly, with the state ofthe market as it is, saving a thousand dollars on software might buy you 30 minutes a day of increased hardware speed, while not spending that will probably cost you more than 30 minutes a day of software usability losses.
I know this won't be a popular answer on slashdot, but if you are going to be spending a five digit sum on this, you might as well devote a few percent of your raid-array budget to buy some commerical software, either Premiere or Final Cut Pro depending which sode of the mac/pc divide you prefer, and if your budget is much lower, pick up an recent secondhand Mac and get iMovie for free.
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)
Then there is the whole online/offline issue with used systems...
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)
Avid systems (with the possible exception of Avid XpressDV) are basically dead-end systems. If you can afford to upgrade your hardware and software a lot every year or so, then by all means, get an Avid. But if you want a basically "future-proof" system, Final Cut Pro basically has the edge. Hardware independent, and can pretty much do 90% of what an Avid can/used to do for well under $5k
And before you paint me a Mac/Final Cut nut, keep in mind that video production and editing has been my pr
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)
I guess a mac is the best choice. Besides, I have only been playing with editing for a year. Take the advice of someone with 12 times the experience. Perhaps we should start a 12 step group: ComputerUser anon.
"Hello, my name is littlerubberfeet, and I use a mac."
"Hello littlerubberfeet."
"It started when I was using apple IIs and my mom was working at Appl
Tons of good video links (Score:2)
http://www.exploits.org/v4l/ [exploits.org]
Adobe... (Score:3, Informative)
[shameless_plug] Hoodlumz Productions [hoodlumzproductions.com] [/shameless_plug]
Re:Adobe... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Premiere for Mac dropped, but not other apps. (Score:2)
newtek (Score:2)
I'm guessing they're using the same proprietary fractal wavelet compression that provided such beautiful video back in the day.
What's it worth to you? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you may be overestimating the need for massive hard drives at the expense of ease-of-use, hardware availability and cost. We use a single 120 gig hard drive for all our editing. We edit an hour-long show each week as well as commercials, some corporate videos and a twice-a-year dance show that runs at about 5 hours of footage without having too many space problems. A second 120 gig drive would be more than enough. The video is compressed when captured to about 1 gig every 5 minutes, but it looks so good the viewers won't notice it.
The two main expenses for us are the BetaSP deck (about $10,000) and the computer itself (about $5000 with capture card). Final Cut Pro is $1000, but you may be able to buy an older version for less. Version 2 is fine, version 3 adds some better titling software, and version 4 has lots of bells and whistles you may not need.
If you're shooting on MiniDV you can cut about $10000 off the cost right there. MiniDV decks are cheap and you can capture over firewire so you don't even need an expensive capture card. You can even use iMovie if all you need are basic transitions and titling, but I think you can only use one video track (plus titling) and two audio tracks.
For editing graphics we use The GIMP until we can afford photoshop, but all titling is done in FCP.
Basically if you're going to be making money at this the up-front costs are well worth it. Especially on something as complex as video-editing software I'm happy to pay for a solution that "just works" instead of having to worry about computer problems when I'm working.
Compare it to 3D modeling. If you're going to spend 40 hours a week doing paid work would you rather use Blender for free and accept the limitations it has, or pay for Maya or 3DS Max and get your work done?
When most of the cost is the hardware (camera, computer, VTR), it may be worth it to pay the $1000 for software that will do what you want with minimal fuss.
Re:What's it worth to you? (Score:2)
Um... a single drive keeps the contents of your ENTIRE business at any given time? 1. raid5 a few drives together, you get >= the hdd space, plus, you have redundency! 2. dvd burner/tape backup that drive, and store offsite(in a corner closet of your house)... so if the shop burns up, all you need is another PC, and you can install all the software and reload the content you had, pre-horrible accident. couple hundreds dollars could save your b
Re:What's it worth to you? (Score:1)
1. raid5 a few drives together, you get >= the hdd space, plus, you have redundency!
2. dvd burner/tape backup that drive, and store offsite(in a corner closet of your house)
As for #2, we already make backups on DVD. The harddrive only contains active projects. As for #1 I agree completely.
I came on board after the equipment was purchased, the other two partners know very little about computers (which was part o
Re:What's it worth to you? (Score:1)
There is absolutely nothing unusual about using a "single drive" in this situation. This is the norm. In video editing, redundancy is not a concern, sustained throughput is (although in many large video companies and "mission-critical" broadcast situations, redundant media arrays are used, but those are very rare exceptions).
If my main
Forget open-source tools for now (Score:3, Informative)
I used to be an Avid editor but didn't have the budget or clients to afford one of those on my own. Based on some feedback from friends I decided to go with a a Matrox RT2500 and later upgraded to a Matrox RT.X100 [matrox.com]. The RTX100 is fantastic. It's basically a PCI card with a breakout box that has stereo audio in/out, and component and Y/C in/out. There's also two firewire ports on the back. It uses Adobe Premiere for its editor and installs a plugin which lets Premiere use the RTX100 for realtime effects. Basically anything you find in an online suite you'll find here as a realtime effect. Titling, wipes, ADOs, keying, colour correction, etc.
The RTX100 also comes with DVD burning software called ReelDVD [sonic.com]. I've only used it twice so all I can tell you is that it works and has lots of features, none of which I've yet to really take advantage of.
I pretty much use that on a dedicated machine with Premiere 6.0, Photoshop, After Effects, and Sound Forge. I also use some open-source tools such as VirtualDub [virtualdub.org] and DubMan [sourceforge.net]. I haven't upgraded to Premiere Pro yet as the Matrox drivers are still in beta.
My only suggestion is that if you do get a RTX100, then buy one of the recommended systems to use it in. The Matrox forums are full of people who complain that the RXT100 doesn't work right or at all yet admit they don't have a compatible system. Especially watch out for via chipsets as the RTX100 won't work on those at all.
Open vs Closed Source (Score:3, Informative)
You can get them to want to create an attractive interface, but they don't have the deep design skills fostered by the commercial groups.
Because of this, it would be very difficult to get something as good and complicated as Final Cut Pro in an open source project.
I would personally recommend a balanced approach.
I think it's an unbeatable compromise, and it's what I run personally.
Even CmdrTaco has a PowerBook. What more can I say?
Hope that helps.
D
Re:Open vs Closed Source (Score:1)
Bullshit. The Linux kernel, Mozilla, XFree86, Apache, GIMP, Gnumeric, OO.o, and many others are quite complex and well designed, often more so than their commercial counterparts. There's no reason a team of open-source developers couldn't create an excellent DV editor.
That said, video editing is a rather niche field, and an open-source Final Cut Pro would likely not get enough developers to make much headway (case in point: Cine
Re:Open vs Closed Source (Score:2)
I have not made any claims about the quality of the aforementioned programs as programs; I have criticised them for a lack of innovation and design savvy.
I think innovation and design savvy are things that come naturally with market, and not technical pressures. Technical pressures make the guts of something good; market pressures make it pretty and well designed, from a user (not a technical) perspective.
What this means in my view is that there's ro
Re:Open vs Closed Source (Score:2)
I think this is because those developers suffer from the same problem as most customers: they know what they want, but they can only express those wants in terms of what they already know about.
True creativity is difficult. By that I mean the ability to take a leap to a completely different way of seeing your problem.
One of
Re:Open vs Closed Source (Score:2)
I guess it is social psychologists who talk about "representativeness bias", "availability bias", "confirmation bias", etc. I think open source developers do vastly more blazing of new
A Friend of Mine Does This (Score:2)
http://www.nmt.edu/~kscott/video/ [nmt.edu]
Avid DV Free (Score:1)
Re:Avid DV Free (Score:1)
It also happens to be a complete piece of crap.
The OP was looking for a "professional" system, and Avid FreeDV is anything but. It is crippled to the point of uselessness by anyone other than someone who just wants to make a quick edit of thier dog running around in the yard.
The crippled interface/features in
AviSynth (Score:2)
Someone's already mentioned VirtualDub, but I'd like to point out AviSynth [avisynth.org] too. Although VirtualDub provides a simple GUI and can be good for video filtering and for re-encoding, its capabilities are limited to linear editing.
AviSynth, on the other hand, is very powerful script-based non-linear editing system. AviSynth operates as a frame-server--other applications (such as VirtualDub) load AviSynth scripts, and when they request frame N, AviSynth generates that frame and feeds it to the calling appli
Re:Warez (Score:2)
Obvously said by someone who doesn't have the experience of keeping accounting records for professional activities or for a business.
Define your terms (Score:2)
There are no professional-quality open source editing systems. P
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)
DV as a format can look just as good as Digital Betacam. It's not the format, it's the talent of the people using the format. I use Mini-DV for 99% of my current productions, and I have producers and fellow editors asking me if the footage in my projects was acqui
Re:Define your terms (Score:2)
I actually set up a shootout, we did the
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)
So you're saying DV isn't SD? What "SD" format pray tell were you acquiring on, which cameras were you using and what phase of the production pipeline did this "shootout" occur?
The DV format (as well as any other format) is only as good as the quality of the glass (many popular MiniDV cameras have shitty-as-hell stock lenses) and skill of the operator behind it. There is no doubt that straight out of the box, a prosumer MiniDV camera (like a Canon XL1 or Sony PD150) cannot hold a candle to a DVW700 or
Re:Define your terms (Score:1)