Slashdot Mirror
Linux Video Editor Cinelerra 1.0 Released
Ogerman writes "At long last, Heroine Virtual's Cinelerra 1.0 has been released. This successor to the discontinued Broadcast 2000 project is absolutely amazing and should give Adobe Premiere and others a run for their money as it continues to mature. So, fire up those digital camcorders, get to work on all your latent indie-film ideas, and help put ol' Jack V. out of a job. Here's the 1.0 Press Release." For those unfamiliar with Cinelerra, check out the screen shots.
http://ardour.sourceforge.net/
Here you go.
Christ. If nothing else, this is a free $1000 Final Cut Pro-ish system, ok? If you were using an Avid (which admittedly outfeatures and outUIs this but is also like 10+ years old and developed by an entire corporation) you'd be paying in the neighborhood of $1600 for the VERY LOWEST end that was just offered (Avid's DV Xpress).
As far as the UI, I think it's been pointed out that this is a skinnable app.
Now, let's get to the heart of your complaint-- Why on EARTH would you want to be editing something in RealVideo? Web-enabled video is a highly compressed version of what hopefully is a much higher resolution, less compressed image at a higher frame rate.
See, here's how it works-- you start with something watchable like DV, film, HiDef, whatever. Then you edit it into a show-- now you have a version you can be proud of..
Then, as a LAST step, you squeeze it down into something like RealVideo, Sorenson, etc.
That's something you can do elsewhere, and it's not something you use a non-linear editor for.
And to address some of the other idiot remarks, you don't use this program for audio sweetening either. This is the video equivalent of a word processor. It's for building a video program, with emphasis on video.
From what I've seen of it, it's fucking amazing that someone's put in the hard work for something like this and then opened it up to the public. It's more amazing that people here are just complaining without having any idea what they're talking about.
Companies like Avid literally charged in the range of 100K for something like this about 5 years ago. Final Cut Pro's $1K price range two years ago or so was a major threat to Avid's business model. Now we've got systems that are GPL'd.. the mind boggles.
While Cinelerra may not support the specific cards supported by Airspace, there are SDI 601 options for Linux, specifically :
www.lmahd.com/sd601.html
and geting these to work with the editor should not be impossible...
MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
.avi is simply a filenaming scheme (audio video interlace) .. many different video codecs hide behind that filename. DiVX as you mentioned (derived from MEPG4) but also MJPEG, Intel Indeo, WM (windows media) etc ..
.. most notably Sorenson, but more recently MPEG4 as well ..
.. just like Windows Meida cannot be played in Quicktime.
.. Since this occured in Windows .avi as a filename makes sense.
...
Quicktime is a player that plays a whole slew of different codecs as well
Sorenson has been an Apple affair only because Apple has an exclusive licence of some type
DiVX caught on because it was the first MPEG4 type codec to have free encoders (legally or not a different story)
You can play all your DiVX movies in Quicktime on a Mac if you get the Mac drivers from www.divx.com
They sell a Linux version of M2-Edit Pro, but it's command line only and very expensive.
From DV Magazine, the Audio Solutions column from July 2002:
"Mistake #3: Assuming you can fix it in post In Hollywood, noisy dialog is often replaced in post. It's a time-consuming and expensive solution, even when they have the tools and experience to do it correctly. Don't count on this technique to save a desktop video; what you shoot is probably what you'll have to live with."
Re: point 3 - again, quite true... But, we are talking about non-Hollywood budget stuff here. I agree, Waldo, in major budget things, the audio and video will be done by separate people, and in fact the location recording, editing, ADR, foley, mixing, and post will ALL be done by different people. But in desktop video, they will be done by one person... frequently, the cameraman/director/gaffer/producer/etc.
Maybe I can stress this again - we're talking about non-Hollywood budget stuff. What Hollywood budget movie is going to use a free video editor?
So, point 4, while valid, is also thrown out - Indie films aren't going to be mixed for several different formats.
With point 5, again, you're right for big stuff, but for small stuff, you're most likely on one computer, with no HUI or 3rd party controllers, two monitors, if you're lucky, and for the scope we're talking, even with PT, no DSP... just an 001 or even an MBox, with all DSP handled through plug-ins.
Waldo, you're absolutely right on all your points, and I agree wholeheartedly.... provided we're talking about big-budget professional applications... In which case, throw out Avid and ProFools, and bring in Fire and Fairlight D.R.E.A.M... And watch your budget soar into the millions. :)
-T