Slashdot Mirror
Kdenlive 0.8 Adds Advanced Features for NLV Editing
dmbkiwi writes "For a long time I've been a big fan of Kdenlive. I've written two articles about it. One is a general overview of video editing on Linux and the other is more specific to Kdenlive. For a number of years, video editing on Linux – at least at a consumer level — has been patchy at best. This is somewhat ironic given the heavy use of Linux in major Hollywood blockbuster film production. However, with the advent of Kdenlive, things are looking pretty good and with the release of version 0.8, there have been some great features added for the more advanced users, while still retaining a simple and easy to use UI."
Official list of changes, not some blogpost -- http://www.kdenlive.org/discover/0.8
What's this "Ediiting" (with double-i) mentioned in the title ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I use a folder full of tens of thousands of BMPs and some perl scripts that move them around as I command.
Before working to add new features, why not first make it so you can use it for 5 minutes without it segfaulting? How about making it so your savefiles aren't constantly becoming corrupt? Kdenlive shows great promise, but it's the least stable piece of software I've ever used.
Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
Why is it that people these days are so inclined to attribute names they don't like to arrogance? Haven't you considered that the global namespace is running out of good names so developers start using bad ones or non-English ones? Come on, VideoEdit can only be used once and it's probably trademarked too.
I fail to see the link where you point to the research that proves that names in the open source world are worse than in the proprietary world.
Look, naming is hard, and of course some names suck and could be replaced by something better. But you are nuts if you think that the naming that (for example) Apple does makes any sense to a non-English speaker. Even with the huge popularity of iTunes I've heard this name said in a lot of different ways (how is read in Spanish, and how is read in English, but with very different levels of success).
And with other products it's the same. I had a really hard time spelling Google or Youtube when they were not widely known. Does the Windows name give you any hint that is an operating system? And iOS is easy to write or to pronounce or understand? Why Photoshop is not for buying things? How the hell QuickTime makes you thinkg about video? And so on.
From the above article:
No, it isn't - he is confusing a render farm with an editing deck - a film could easily have a thousand machines in it's render farm, but it is a rare film that uses more than a handful of editing decks. Typically you can count them on one hand, and have enough fingers left to go bowling with...
That throw-away line in his post above prevents me from thinking his "overview" of consumer-level editing of video on Linux will be anything worth spending time on.
Ken
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/guides/2010/01/video-editing-in-linux-a-look-at-pitivi-and-kdenlive.ars
Conclusion
Demand for video editing tools is only going to increase. This is an area where Linux desperately needs to be competitive if there's hope for the Linux desktop going mainstream anytime soon.
PiViTi and Kdenlive show promise, but neither application is fully "there" just yet. PiTiVi is stable and intuitive, but lacks features. Kdenlive is very feature-rich, but needs to be stabilized just a bit; and some work could be done to make it more user-friendly. My first recommendation for doing video editing on Linux is definitely Kdenlive at this stage, though. It may not be as capable as a tool like, say, Final Cut Pro, but it does have most if not all of what many users need from a video editing application.
Progress is being made, but some work is needed to take these applications the "last mile" to be entirely suitable for mainstream use.
Same with GIMP, how you can name a free 'clone' of photoshop after what Wikipedia calls "a type of sexual submissive in BDSM who may wear a bondage suit" and expect to be taken seriously I don't know (although I used the early versions and it did feel like I was being treated like one). But it's big enough now that people don't care.
No, I think GIMP is still one of the stupidest of these naming blunders. Maybe you're used to it, but I don't think it's so ubiquitous no one notices.
Your complaints are somewhat silly:
* Kdenlive is as good a name as Vegas when it comes to making sense for video editing. I suppose Apache (and Cherokee) was a horrible, politically incorrect name for a web server. Unfortunately trademark law prevents using names like "Non-Linear Video Editor", "Photograph Manipulation Editor", "Text Editor", or "Word Processor" because they are common descriptive names.
* Some names have roots in foreign languages and make perfect sense there but sound horrible here (Choquok - an amazing twitter client - is a perfect example)
* Unix itself is a play on Multics, which predates Stallman's great crusade.
* Things aren't designed to confuse people. They are usually designed by one person, who may not be as good as UI design as a six person UX team at a large development shop. In some cases, I've discovered that the graphical interface is wonky, but the keyboard interfaces is amazingly smooth. Unfortunately, doing UI redesigns is a huge to-do for end users who have in many cases become very adept at the original UI of a software package.
I guess its cooler to be the smart kid using different software than the ordinary people.
No, for me it costs a lot less, I can get things done, and if I want to customize, I can and do. In some cases the software is incredibly good at what it does. In other cases, the commercial alternatives are really a lot better, but I don't want to spend $, so you live with it. It's really not about being cool. It's about freedom as in having no encumbered rights and having the economic means to exercise them.
-- $G
This is an area where Linux desperately needs to be competitive if there's hope for the Linux desktop going mainstream anytime soon.
Okay, look, I know we all believe that we know what's best for the market and what's in demand - but I am so sick of hearing this line pulled out. "What Linux really needs is ***** if it's to become acceptable in the mainstream". The reality is that there's no single app that will propel Linux into the mainstream magically, the best we can do is just continue to improve where we can and as we do we pick up more and more converts. We are long past a position where a single application will suddenly make Linux mainstream. For every application/area you knock off that list there will always be another one that raises its head.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing our best to deliver great new apps of good stability and functionality (like Inkscape, Scribus etc), I'm saying that the sky isn't falling if we don't deliver X Y or Z.
Paul.
Maybe it's the developer in me. One becomes proficient with eye-rolling every time someone vouches for their wanted feature "because without it your software will not become mainstream". It's a self-serving tactic, trying to get what you want by pushing the fear of obscurity, which likely just takes time away from more needed work. We all have different ways of trying to coax the world to our bidding, that one tends to make me put it into the last position in the consideration queue. It happens in all areas, software, electronics development, hell even model aircraft design and most of the time where people have succumbed to the whims, it turns out the 'feature' really didn't make as big an impact as portrayed.
* Kdenlive is as good a name as Vegas when it comes to making sense for video editing.
No, it isn't. It's part of the stupidity to name everything for KDE with a "K" or KD or even KDE at the beginning. A cheap and failed attempt to copy the "i" meme from Apple, but for various reasons it doesn't work half as good. Copying good marketing badly does not give you good marketing, and the "K" thing is just dumb.
Names for products need to be pronouncable, easy to remember and difficult to confuse. "Kdenlive" falls on all three counts. For starters, it helps if they're actually, you know, names, not random gobbled-together parts of words.
* Things aren't designed to confuse people. They are usually designed by one person, who may not be as good as UI design as a six person UX team at a large development shop. In some cases, I've discovered that the graphical interface is wonky, but the keyboard interfaces is amazingly smooth. Unfortunately, doing UI redesigns is a huge to-do for end users who have in many cases become very adept at the original UI of a software package.
UI design is one of the most important parts of creating a good application, and the part most often ignored in the Free Software community. That's perfectly good if you are scratching your own itch, because in that case it must mostly be useful to and useable by you. And if you give it for free to the world, they can adapt to your style or die for all you care, because in the end you're writing the thing for your own need.
What too few people have realized is that Free Software (or open source, whatever term works for you) is a horrible development model for software you write exclusively for other people. People need motivation to work on stuff. Creating something for yourself has its own intrinsic motivation, creating something for others doesn't.
And designing something specifically different from how you like it best takes a lot of motivation, because you go against yourself, in a way. That's why good UIs are not designed by coders, but by UI experts - people who may not have a personal interest in this particular product, but who enjoy the general topic of UI design enough to have made it a job. That (plus the money) gives them the motivation required.
Look around yourself and you'll notice how most Free Software is seriously lacking in UI design. It is quite often comparable or superior to commercial programs when it comes to functionality and features, but the UI commonly rates somewhere between "horrible" and "acceptable" and very rarely above that.
And that's one of the main reasons that the "year of the Linux desktop" has never come. Mainstream people don't want to put up with that shit, they don't use their computer in order to gloat about technology, they use to get stuff done.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What is your problem dude? The program is for free and you can use it or not. Nobody is forcing you to use it.
If you really have a problem with the name or the UI than create a bug report (http://www.kdenlive.org/mantis/my_view_page.php) and let see if the developers like your change. If you still insist of a new name than by all means, just fork the project and release it under a new name. You can even sell it with a new name and if you redesign the UI you can sell it with a new UI.
"And that's one of the main reasons that the "year of the Linux desktop" has never come. Mainstream people don't want to put up with that shit, they don't use their computer in order to gloat about technology, they use to get stuff done."
Interesting, because that's the reason why I don't bother to use Windows anymore. Because I want my stuff just be done and I don't want to bother with technology. Linux enables me just to do that. You just grab a Linux CD like Fedora, install it on the computer and it will run for the years to come. Everything you will need can be installed by the package manager and I don't need to be bothered with drivers or anti-virus crap. Even if you get a new computer, just swap out the hard disk and you have your old system on the new computer.
Everything just runs smooth, no trouble at all. The "year of the Linux desktop" won't come because you have to install a distribution yourself and because all the games are for Windows only. If you could just go to Mediamarkt and get a Fedora 14 laptop or desktop (with all stuff installed like Mp3 and Dvd read), I guarantee you, you will have less trouble with it than the crap Windows 7 you get.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Apple? What do they have to do with this? KDE's K-obsession and Gnome's similar G-naming predates the Apple hype by quite a bit. When KDE got started in 1996 Apple was still selling beige boxes with a crashy OS which lacked memory protection and only did 'cooperative multitasking'. It was not until 2001 that Apple finally launched its own Unix-based desktop operating system. Should I say that Apple copied KDE and Gnome...? and CDE... and Solaris... and Ultrix... and Apollo/Domain... and all the others. Come to think of it, this would not have been the first time that Apple based its offerings on something it gleaned from some other team - Xerox PARC is where the WIMP-interface got started after all.
In short, stop comparing everything computer-related to Apple as if they are the bellwether which all others slavishly follow.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Oh, and the fact that everyone keeps trying to reinvent the wheel.
Ugh yes. Every time I go to look for NLE for Linux I try everything I can find. Every time there's more tools than there were before. Every time they are all crashy or inscrutable and undocumented, or both. I sure wish we'd had more training in cooperation in school and less in competition. I know I'm not the only one around these parts who found that taking over groups was the only way to get shit done and there was always tons of dead weight that refused to get on board no matter who was leading. But having to run everything all the time is poor preparation for knowing when to let go...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Random gobbled-together words or terms, eh? Like for example ColdFusion, RoboHelp, Alcohol 120% etc.?
You may have noticed that all of these are easy to pronounce and remember, and there are no "near-misses" that make as much sense. That's what a good name needs to be like. Kdenlive does not link to any known terms, which makes it hard to remember without additional mnemonic aids. "ColdFusion", just to pick one of the examples, does not make sense as a product name (which has nothing to do either with temperature or nuclear power), but it's two well-known, easily recalled terms. It is unique enough to be remembered, it is pronouncable without effort.
Those are important things. That's how word-of-mouth works. "I found this great video editing tool. If only I could remember what it was called, Kenl-something or so." just doesn't cut it.
Yes, there are stupid names in the commercial space. I must have missed the memo about it being a good idea to copy the failures.
Yes, even if they are successful. You can be successful despite a stupid name. But why make it more difficult then it has to be?
And there are good examples. Broadcast and Cinerella were great examples for naming. Cinerella especially works so well that I still remembered it without looking it up 7 or 8 years after I've last checked on it. I doubt anyone who doesn't use Kdenlive will remember "that video editing software" name even three weeks from now.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And designing something specifically different from how you like it best takes a lot of motivation, because you go against yourself, in a way. That's why good UIs are not designed by coders, but by UI experts - people who may not have a personal interest in this particular product, but who enjoy the general topic of UI design enough to have made it a job. That (plus the money) gives them the motivation required.
No, the primary reason UI design shouldn't be done by the coder is that to the coder it's clear box testing, he knows the architecture, the design and exactly what strings he's pulling in the code so to him it makes perfect sense. To the user this is a big black box, he doesn't know anything about the inner workings of it and has to rely on only what the UI tells him. You can't shed that extra information and pretend to know no more than a user, no matter how hard you try.
Sure UI experts would be great, but I think most UI designs would be a lot better if they were designed by someone who didn't know the code, who deliberately didn't take too many lectures from the coders on the inner workings, who wouldn't know much written in mailing lists and forums except basic tutorials. Here's the application, here's the documentation, does the UI make sense on its own? Coders could be decent UI designers, just not on their own projects because you know too much. There should be an exchange program of some kind, you try making sense of my UI and I'll try making sense of yours. Then you'll see how much harder it gets without the invisible dotted lines you have in your head.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What is your problem dude? The program is for free and you can use it or not. Nobody is forcing you to use it.
My problem is that it pains me to see so much talent wasted because the Free Software stuff is so often excellent quality with a crappy exterior. There's these V10 engines that can go 100 km on 3 litres with making hardly any noise - and they put them into Yugos.
People rarely buy cars just for the engine. They want to sit comfortably in them and they want to drive them without a Ph.D.
just fork the project and release it under a new name. You can even sell it with a new name and if you redesign the UI you can sell it with a new UI.
I stopped contributing to Free Software development years ago when I realized that it's a net negative for me - I spent more time working on software than I spent actually using it. I did contribute quite a bit back then, but I also learnt that lots of Free Software people are too much in love with their projects to take a good advise - or patch. Which, again, is a perfectly ok attitude if you run the project to scratch your own itch. But then don't be surprised if the mainstream doesn't share your personal style.
That's my main point. Make up your mind and decide what you want to be - scratching your own itches or making a mainstream product. You can't do both. And no, you can't do both no matter how much you try to argue that you can.
Interesting, because that's the reason why I don't bother to use Windows anymore.
*nod* yes, once you've been outside of the windows mindset for a while, you start to wonder how anyone can get any work done on that abomination of user masochism. I just found that Linux is better but not by enough, and especially that it copies way too much from windos, probably in an attempt to "win over" windos users, so I moved on to OS X and I've not looked back.
I still love Linux to death - everywhere that doesn't have a GUI. All my servers run Debian, which means my company runs on Linux - but my development happens on OS X.
And I love Free Software, I couldn't do without it. Firefox beats Safari any day. It's UI is still crap. It's ok because there aren't any better alternatives right now, apparently nobody has yet figured out how to do a really great browser UI. But ever since I've done some actual research and work on HCI, ironically started by an overlap of Gnome and my other professional interest, computer security (which suffers massively from the same "the user is stupid" hybris), I've become very sensitive to failures in UI design, many of whom most users probably don't notice consciously.
But if you've ever used Keynote vs. Impress you know just how much of a difference some effort into UI design can make. And Keynote is far from perfect - but compared to Impress, you spend a considerable amount of time less on fighting with the interface. And don't even get me started on PowerPoint - if there's one piece of software that Dr. Who should throw into one of those gaps that eradicate it from all of history so nobody even remembers it, this is it. :-)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What's pfs, to a casual user?
You can see why it's not "year of Linux on the desktop".
"Yes maam, just load that kernel module dynamically using the following easy command, making sure you have root on your box...."
There's a reason Android has been so successful in the mobile space: abstraction. Sure, have the esoteric stuff down in the core that advanced users can mess with directly, but goodness me, if your GUI level stuff is just as impenetrable then newbies will have a learning curve similar to famous Eve Online one.
This is doubly true for applications - you might get a pass for system setup stuff, maybe, but there's no excuse for "Kdenlive" or "GIMP" or "Qtpfsgui".
I don't do much video editing, but another one I've read is supposed to be decent is openshot.
http://www.openshotvideo.com/
They are at version 1.3 and have nice documentation.
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
So in what way is that stupid or offensive (also note that this is my second post in the thread), or looking for my ego to be stroked?
I am simply offering a point of view based on my experiences on slashdot over the years.
If you think that the issues concerning the ease of use of Linux, or using descriptive names that only really help power users is "stupid minutia", then congratulations, you are proving my point for me - the one I made initially. Now, I have a thick skin and things just roll off me, but consider how the attitude affects the perception of a new Linux user.
"I'm new to Linux and I am struggling to do [X], I've looked it up and still having issues"
"Piss off sonny, we're not here to stroke your ego, you must be at least *this* elitist to use Linux"
*user goes back to Windows or Mac*
Now, maybe *you* don't care about growing the user base, and in fact maybe you want to keep it small so you can be cool, elite and alternative, but I'm not sure that viewpoint is shared by all. S/N ratio is a little skewed though, in my experience.
No, the proper way to edit video is to do it in Emacs.
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
You really should learn that taste is different.
What makes you think that I don't know that?
Taste certainly is different. Good design vs. bad design - not half as much a matter of taste as most people think. Design isn't the question of "which colour", but stuff like putting the light switch near the door instead of into the middle of the corridor.
For me MacOS looks like eye candy with no functionality.
I'm certain if you only look, then the eye candy is the most obvious thing. Use it for a while if you want to talk about usability ;-)
MacOS [...] has only one mouse button and the horrible keyboard.
Are you mistaking the user interface for the hardware that comes with the computer that the operating system that contains the user interface runs on? That's three layers off the target.
Oh, also: Apple mice have had 2 buttons for years now. And yes, as an old Linux user I need at least three so I own a Logitech mouse for use with my iMac.
Further, I have to yet encounter really bad UI design in Open Source projects.
Too bad the Interface Hall of Shame was discontinued before Free Software became so popular, I'm sure there would be plenty of examples with detail explanations in it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org