The Current State of Linux Video Editing

Not to mention Audio Editing by ichthus · 2015-01-20 11:19 · Score: 0, Redundant

I'd still rather use Cool Edit from 1998 than Audacity. I'm glad we have a free tool like Audacity, but I currently use Adobe Audition 1.0 (they bought Cool Edit way back) running in Wine, which is a much better solution IMO.

--
sig: sauer

Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:26 · Score: 0

I'd still rather use Cool Edit from 1998 than Audacity. I'm glad we have a free tool like Audacity, but I currently use Adobe Audition 1.0 (they bought Cool Edit way back) running in Wine, which is a much better solution IMO.
Cool Edit ==> Adobe Audition. They added some cool stuff to it. (caveat: I work @ Adobe but that's not why I brought that up.) It's way better than Audacity (though not when you do a price/feature comparison. ;-)
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 12:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Audacity is a simple wave editor, not a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW).
Audacity's direct competition are GoldWave, Nero Wave Editor, and so on and Audacity blows them all out of the water in areas that are objectively measurable, i.e. file compatibility, encoding performance, etc.
But comparing Audacity to a DAW is unfair. They are just different things with just some overlapping feature set – kinda like comparing a pure text editor with a word processor.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Enry · 2015-01-20 12:36 · Score: 1

I got CE for like $30 or $40 back in the day/ Even accounting for inflation, AA is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE. Even after the purchase by Adobe, I think the cost to existing CE users was in the hundreds of dollars. They may have added cool things for power users but for casual users I'd rather wrestle with Audacity.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 13:05 · Score: 1

I'd still rather use Cool Edit from 1998 than Audacity. I'm glad we have a free tool like Audacity, but I currently use Adobe Audition 1.0 (they bought Cool Edit way back) running in Wine, which is a much better solution IMO.
If you want something like Adobe Audition, you should get something like Adobe Audition and not try to use a simple wave editor as DAW substitute. Get Bitwig Studio: https://www.bitwig.com/en/bitw...
I heard it's by former Ableton people, so they know their stuff.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by TheSync · 2015-01-20 14:03 · Score: 2

Back in the late 1990's, we edited Geeks in Space Slashdot Radio with Cool Edit. It was great for normalizing & compressing the recording levels from Slashdot HQ, we could do noise gates, speed up/slow down audio, etc.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by ichthus · 2015-01-20 16:54 · Score: 1

Thanks for that. Bitwig looks excellent. After a few days of playing with it, I'm sure I'll end up buying it.

--
sig: sauer
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:21 · Score: 0

I'd still rather use Cool Edit from 1998 than Audacity. I'm glad we have a free tool like Audacity, but I currently use Adobe Audition 1.0 (they bought Cool Edit way back) running in Wine, which is a much better solution IMO.
Here I go, sleep-commenting on Slashdot again, saying exactly what I want to say and waking up to read it in the morning.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:27 · Score: 0

Audacity has some DAW features..
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:23 · Score: 0

I wouldn't describe Adobe Audition as DAW, it's an audio editor, just like Audacity and both share similar features. Hence I don't see why a comparison would be unfair.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:36 · Score: 0

I don't consider Adobe Audition to be a DAW, it's an audio editor with a similar feature set, just like Audacity. Hence I don't know why this would be an unfair comparison?
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Stuarticus · 2015-01-20 22:56 · Score: 1

Audacity should be competing with Sound Forge and Wavelab, but it hasn't changed in the last 10 years or more and it shows.

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:05 · Score: 0

Audacity's direct competition are GoldWave, Nero Wave Editor, and so on and Audacity blows them all out of the water in areas that are objectively measurable, i.e. file compatibility, encoding performance, etc.
In your opinion, which is obviously heavily skewed towards FOSS. Compared to Goldwave I found Audacity slower, less stable, lacking features (no individual sample editing), and like most FOSS software has a less than pleasant UI.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by jabuzz · 2015-01-20 23:19 · Score: 1

That because there where two products, Cool Edit and Cool Edit Pro. When Adobe purchased the software they dropped Cool Edit and turned Cool Edit Pro in to Audition. Interesting that you can run Audition in Wine, I have been running it in a VirtualBox Windows XP VM for some years now, but Wine would have lower overheads...
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by trumpetplayer · 2015-01-20 23:20 · Score: 1

Sadly though, Reaper (for Windows only) is the DAW you want to use, not Ardour (Linux) or even Pro Tools (Windows, sort of industry standard for small / amateur projects). You can trust me on that one (because I've used different tools in real projects) or or have a look at a few forum threads to see what others say. No affiliation. It's just better and it makes things easier.
Re: Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 00:49 · Score: 0

Reaper is definitely available for OSX and has been for a while
Re: Not to mention Audio Editing by trumpetplayer · 2015-01-21 00:57 · Score: 1

Oh, of course it is, sorry, I was thinking PC since that's what I use, silly me.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by omnichad · 2015-01-21 04:00 · Score: 2

Audacity 2.0 introduced multi-track editing, but your comment still stands. It's not suited for any realistic workflow or editing audio synced with video.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by ichthus · 2015-01-21 07:17 · Score: 1

Ha! I remember those. I only listened to a few, though.

Even though they're kind of goofy, there's some good tech history in those recordings. Those were simpler times, eh?

--
sig: sauer
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-21 14:07 · Score: 2

In your opinion, which is obviously heavily skewed towards FOSS.
I had to do some simple editing (changing speed and so on) in a 2h audio file a few months ago. GoldWave 5 was completely unusable â" it just crashed. GoldWave 6 beta worked but at super slow speed on a 64 bit Win 8.1 Core i7 system. After 15 Minutes of waiting for the FLAC file to save, I just gave up. (GoldWave was my first wave editing love, so if anything my opinion was skewed towards that.)
Audacity was (and still is) not pretty but unlike GoldWave it worked. I prefer working software over non-working software and as simple wave editor Audacity does the job.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-21 14:11 · Score: 1

Sadly though, Reaper (for Windows only) is the DAW you want to use, not Ardour (Linux) or even Pro Tools (Windows, sort of industry standard for small / amateur projects). You can trust me on that one (because I've used different tools in real projects) or or have a look at a few forum threads to see what others say. No affiliation. It's just better and it makes things easier.
And others say Reaper, the product of former Winamp developers, sucks and you should use Ableton Live instead. Others say Logic Pro.
I'm not a musician myself but I know a few and each has their own preference.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-21 14:26 · Score: 1

Audacity 2.0 introduced multi-track editing, but your comment still stands. It's not suited for any realistic workflow or editing audio synced with video.
Have you ever tried simple wave editing in a surround sound file?
Among the non-professional / low-end tools Audacity is apparently the only wave editor to support that at least to some degree (although the channel mapping window when saving is awkward).
In the end I used ffmpeg and SoX
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by omnichad · 2015-01-22 02:36 · Score: 1

I have not tried simple wav editing on a surround file.
When I said multi-track, I didn't mean surround. I meant multiple stereo tracks that can be layered during editing. Which is absolutely essential for video, but also for studio music recording (one for drum, one for vocals, etc.). But surround support is something I didn't expect that Audacity had.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by trumpetplayer · 2015-01-22 08:12 · Score: 2

You are dead right. I tend to associate DAW to multitracker-like software because that's what suits my own way of making music best (I play in bands so I work the traditional "recording studio" way), but DAW is a generic term to describe a music tool that handle various tasks (sequencing, multitrack recording, editing, score writing, synth, mixing, mastering and so on), regardless of it resembling a multitracker, a sequencer (Logic) or whatever else (Ableton Live). Recording studios use multitrack software and that's what I do all the time, but other tools can be regarded as DAW just as well. I guess the reason why different people have their own preference for DAW is that music is not about doing recording studio work only, and different artists have their own way of approaching their creative processes.
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by KugelKurt · 2015-01-22 10:43 · Score: 1

Audacity does not have true surround support. The individual tracks can be mapped to a channel when saving. It's not a smooth way to support that feature but it's way ahead of the competition (i.e. GoldWave etc.)
Re:Not to mention Audio Editing by omnichad · 2015-01-22 11:55 · Score: 1

In other words, you can't even play it back. But if you already had a surround file you could import it and do basic cuts. I'm assuming exporting to mapped surround is just a tiny bonus to multi-track editing just because it could technically be done.

30 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:20 · Score: 0

What video editing software existed on Windows (1.0 released in 1985) and Mac (2.0 released in 1985) 30 years ago?

Re:30 years? by dotgain · 2015-01-20 11:30 · Score: 2

"most of the last 30 years" - which I suppose you could interpret as "16 years"
Re:30 years? by Gription · 2015-01-20 11:31 · Score: 2

The issue is money. The Mac and PC products are major dollars multiplied by a major quantity of installs which equals $$$$ for development. And people are willing to pay those prices as the market clearly shows. Unless you have a large player make the investment (like a major studio) or unless you get a huge developer base (like Linux has) you aren't going to end up with anything compelling.
Re:30 years? by Em+Adespoton · 2015-01-20 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe video editing software didn't come out for the Mac until 1986 -- it was something by Sorenson IIRC. I remember seeing a camera with its video out hooked up to the Plus and being amazed. The video was black and white and 512x386 pixels, of course.
And the real powerhorse for video editing 25 years ago was the Commodore Amiga and the Video Toaster (and Kitchen Sync). This setup was used by broadcast orgs and movie editors for a decade (until around 2000) at which point digital video started to take over. At this point, Video GIMP was a contender, along with Avid Studio and even iMovie.
So yeah; it's really only been the past 10 years or so that Windows and Mac offerings have surged ahead of Linux offerings (with Video GIMP getting its own project but not really moving any further ahead).
Re:30 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:18 · Score: 0

Yep, the 30 years thing makes the summary sound so vastly uninformed that I didn't even bother reading any of the following sentences and then only read the commands to make sure someone had called them on that total lie. I've used a Video Toaster and timebase corrector, and that was in the 90's and still considered very slick and professional. Meanwhile nobody cared about Windows/286, and the Mac was largely still a toy for school kids to write their reports on and draw nifty (but usually still monochrome) pictures.
Re:30 years? by Em+Adespoton · 2015-01-20 12:32 · Score: 1

I remember in 1988 getting my hands on a scanner, and doing frame-by-frame drawings, scanning them in, and using that to create animated sprites and backgrounds for a game. That was state of the art in 1988. At that point, video was still a splice-tape-record job, and visual effects were applied as either by-frame modifications to the film or as a filter applied during the filming process. Think "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
Re: 30 years? by LeePriorCollier · 2015-01-20 13:57 · Score: 0

The fact that the author didn't use and OpenGL equipped graphics card also massively undermines its credibility to the point of the article being a complete waste of time. Using on-board "vga compatible" graphics (I haven't heard that phrase since 1998) is a joke, he might as well have used a 486 and a 500mb hard drive and complained that the machine wouldn't even boot.
Re:30 years? by theshowmecanuck · 2015-01-20 14:21 · Score: 1

developers cum cats who don't like being herded in the same direction; so you get 50 versions of something all half assed trying to do the same thing. That, instead of one or two versions doing it in a most excellent way if the same developers worked together and learned give and take instead of 'take my ball and go fork it'.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re: 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 00:23 · Score: 0

Film/video editors were working on macs running Avid in the mid 90s and still use it on Macs/Windows now, 20 years later. Back them on the PC side was lightworks, which now (I think) is available on multiple platforms, but no one serious uses it. A few people use fcp x and a whole bunch of people use Adobe.
And audio editing was ProTools 20 years ago, and still is. Now owned b y Avid.
Re: 30 years? by omnichad · 2015-01-21 04:07 · Score: 1

but no one serious uses it
After trying their now free version, I can see why. To close a window, you drag a shark onto it? Seriously?
Re: 30 years? by Wescotte · 2015-01-21 05:27 · Score: 1

You are correct, Lightworks is available for Windows, Linux, & OSX.
Re: 30 years? by Em+Adespoton · 2015-01-21 13:18 · Score: 1

Also worth noting that Avid owns Sibelius now too (music scoring software). They've become the one-stop shop for multimedia editing using excellent back-end tools with stale UI.
While Avid was available in the mid 90s, it wasn't what was being used professionally; it took a while to mature. Professionals, for the most part, were using custom hardware and Amigas.

Blender FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Blender, a 3D animation suite, and a powerful video editor. Have not looked back since using Blender. Also comes with a python console, where really powerful scriptability can be reached. What else could one need?

Re:Blender FTW by andyhhp · 2015-01-20 12:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Now all I need is a 10 button mouse and an interface reference!
Re:Blender FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:47 · Score: 0

10 button mouses exists....
http://news.mmosite.com/content/2009-08-19/20090819213459867.shtml
Re:Blender FTW by bmo · 2015-01-20 13:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Now all I need is a 10 button mouse and an interface reference!
This just in: Specialty software requires (or is more useful) with specialty hardware. Film at 11.
It's like the SpaceNavigator and SpacePilot never existed for CAD/modeling. It's as if all those 16 button tablet pucks never existed.
Also complex software requires documentation/references. Blender != MSPAINT.EXE
--
BMO
Re: Blender FTW by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2015-01-20 14:33 · Score: 2

Simple:
It doesn't have Blender in my boot process yet.... just think of all those extra seconds I could be rendering while my PC booted going to waste.

--
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Re:Blender FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 07:15 · Score: 0

Blender is not a "powerful video editor", that's like calling a wheel a "powerful sports car".
Re:Blender FTW by tgeller · 2015-01-21 11:08 · Score: 1

I'm a videojournalist, and fairly long-time geek (see my Slashdot user number? ;) ). But I found Blender completely inappropriate for my uses. It's not built for what I do; it's too hard to learn; it's too hard to use. I wish it weren't so, but: No sale.

--
Tom Geller

Kdenlive is getting stable by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-01-20 11:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Tried it again recently, and I was able to add a four-minute video from my phone, cut out a chunk, add a transition and a fade-in and fade out, and took me less than half an hour.

It's true, that would have taken me five minutes in iMovie in 2000, but at least it didn't crash, which is what happened every previous time I've tried that.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:36 · Score: 0

"getting stable". Not exactly a great selling point... :-S
Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by ohnocitizen · 2015-01-20 11:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Second this, kdenlive is decent for quick edit jobs. I can line up multiple videos and substitute or augment audio when I need to. So shooting some footage and adding a soundtrack is doable. Its been super stable for me for a while now - but as with all software your mileage may vary significantly there. It does lack the easy and polish if iMovie and more professional options. I hope it gets there.
Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:12 · Score: 0

Doesn't exactly sound like enough to make a professional video editor make the switch...
Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:16 · Score: 0

It's true, that would have taken me five minutes in iMovie in 2000, but at least it didn't crash, which is what happened every previous time I've tried that.
If only iMovie could open a video file that used something other than the one codec it claims to support in 2015.
Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by Andy+Dodd · 2015-01-21 03:59 · Score: 1

I played with it a little, but the poor state of support for multichannel audio was a major issue for me.
What I want:
Record video with my camera along with a "reference" (for timing) audio track
Record audio with a Zoom H2
Replace "reference" audio track with multichannel (surround) audio from the H2
Edit the various clips after I've synced/replaced the audio
Export to H.264 + AC3 surround
Last time I tried that with kdenlive, it was pretty much impossible

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:Kdenlive is getting stable by NeverVotedBush · 2015-01-21 04:06 · Score: 1

I'm in there as well with Kdenlive. It took a while to learn how to use it but now I can hop in and do some nice editing really easily. It's great software and anyone needing to do some video editing that doesn't have a favorite yet might want to give it a look.

I use Open Office by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:26 · Score: 1, Funny

I hand draw each scene then patch them all together.

Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe its time to try something new, can SystemD help with this?

Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:53 · Score: 0

Ah, I found the troll!
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:24 · Score: 0

Sure! In fact, systemd's "nspawn" feature can turn your laptop into a compute cluster of many VMs (if you download enough ram, which, no doubt, is also a systemd feature).
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Culture20 · 2015-01-20 13:11 · Score: 1

download enough ram
Mount an NFS share to /dumbidea then dd a huge new file to /dumbidea/superslowswap and mkswap /dumbidea/superslowswap ; swapon /dumbidea/superslowswap
This might not run as desired.
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:16 · Score: 0

I know this is very meta, but you are the troll here.
That was damned funny, and would have worked for emacs as well.
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:20 · Score: 0

No the real question is what does Bennett Haselton use?
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by ArsonSmith · 2015-01-20 16:33 · Score: 0

yes. SystemD can do anything and soon will do everything.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by epyT-R · 2015-01-20 17:58 · Score: 1

Does bennett haselton use systemd?
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 22:27 · Score: 0

Does bennett haselton use systemd?
Yes! But he/she/it hates Blender with a passion.
Re:Maybe its time for a change. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 23:12 · Score: 0

Maybe its time to try something new, can SystemD help with this?
Shhh! Don't give them ideas like that. Didn't you hear what happened to NetworkManager ?

Kdenlive by taniwha · 2015-01-20 11:29 · Score: 5, Informative

I've found kdenlive is great - I've had to make a couple of small videos recently,it was a breeze with a couple of minor hiccups

1. As mentioned figuring out how to do transitions was hard - they're there, just hard to figure out

2. Ubuntu .... grrr .... their last distro has broken libraries (libav+melt - broken for lots of video editors, not just kdenlive) you can happily edit away but when you try and make the final stream, no audio -apparently all they need to do is to rebuild their binaries

Re:Kdenlive by Hsien-Ko · 2015-01-20 11:30 · Score: 1

I second Kdenlive too. Even in 2008 when compared to iMovie and Movie Maker it was amazing for something free. I wonder how far it's evolved now..
Re:Kdenlive by porjo · 2015-01-20 12:48 · Score: 1

My vote goes to Kdenlive. I tried Openshot recently but found it to be sluggish and crashy, whereas Kdenlive didn't miss a beat!

Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Things won't improve until two things are addressed. First FOSS devs drop the attitude that "It crashes sometimes" is an acceptable condition for software intended for productive work. This is compounded by FOSS users being tolerant of crashy software because it suits their ideology. Second, UI/UX need to be more than an afterthought or secondary consideration. People tolerate KiCad and Audacity's god-awful UIs because they're FOSS. There's no reason FOSS can't have consistent operation and polished presentation, other than clashes of ego.

Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:40 · Score: 0

People tolerate KiCad and Audacity's god-awful UIs because they're FOSS. There's no reason FOSS can't have consistent operation and polished presentation, other than clashes of ego.
Most of what people consider beautiful UIs are the ugliest most dysfunctional pieces of software ever written. I don't want to have to take my hands off the keyboard to do anything. And when it takes 2, 3, 4 or more menus or chords, to get to the function I'm looking for .. that software is getting pitched (unless I can create keyboard shortcuts).
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Consistent and polished doesn't necessarily mean beautiful. To pick on KiCad some more, sometimes you right-click to end a command, sometimes you push escape, sometimes you push a specific letter. Sometimes moving an object will bring the connections with it, sometimes not. "Grab" and "Move" are slightly different, but this isn't explained or illustrated within the UI. Sometimes dragging a selection fence includes elements that overlap the fence boundary, sometimes not. There is no visual or audible feedback (save for some cryptic text in the status bar) when you try to place an object within the clearance zone of another object, doubly useless if the interference is caused by a generated element somewhere off screen. The whole of KiCad is split into separate executables that look and behave slightly differently. Sometimes you're alerted that a file will be overwritten when saving/exporting, sometimes it does it silently.
You're mistaken if you think I'm saying applications need to be visually appealing or "pretty". I don't care what it looks like, but I do expect applications to behave in a consistent fashion, and explain their current state clearly and unambiguously.
Re:Attitudes by Blaskowicz · 2015-01-20 12:21 · Score: 2

As a FOSS user, crashy software makes me give up things. Crashy games make me give up gaming (or well, most FOSS games are either from 1979 or are empty shells or have terrible artworks that would have been rejected in 1994), crashy music-player-with-library makes me stay with playlist based music players, quirky combination of dosbox and software midi synth makes me give up using dosbox.
Re:Attitudes by arglebargle_xiv · 2015-01-20 12:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Second, UI/UX need to be more than an afterthought or secondary consideration. People tolerate KiCad and Audacity's god-awful UIs because they're FOSS.
This. This is why FOSS video editing sucks beyond compare. I recently had to perform a simple video editing task which consisted of extracting a short segment from the middle of a longer clip, removing the audio, and saving it so it could be played in the background as someone was speaking. I'm a sysadmin, so I don't have years of experience in using these things, I just wanted to do a quick cut&paste of a video segment and save it without audio.
After about three or four hours of trying one FOSS video editing app after another I gave up. Utterly incomprehensible user interfaces, constant crashes, wading through tedious processes that seemed to do the right thing but didn't produce the expected results, it was a nightmare. Eventually I fired up a Windows machine and did it in about five minutes with some commercial trial-ware that nagged me with ads when I installed it.
That was the result from the point of view of a computer geek (specifically one with no prior experience in video editing software who couldn't fall back on years of experience in using this stuff). The person who wanted the video clip, a retired neighbour, wouldn't have made it past the first FOSS video-editing app before giving up. My conclusion from the experience was that if you're a typical user wanting to do video editing, use commercial software on a Mac or Windows.
Re:Attitudes by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 12:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Things won't improve until two things are addressed. First FOSS devs drop the attitude that "It crashes sometimes" is an acceptable condition for software intended for productive work.
Really? That's the attitude of FOSS developers? I call that BS.
I think chances are spoiled users of proprietary software mistake being able to communicate directly with the developers with entitlement that a developer has to jump directly when a user discovers a bug.
No, bugs are handled with different priorities and just because a bug annoys you the most, it is not necessarily the most crucial bug to fix first.
If you want bug priorities to change, just announce to give 100 bucks to whoever fixes a bug you run into.
Bug bounty programs are quite common in FOSS.
Re:Attitudes by PRMan · 2015-01-20 12:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
What developers care about:
1. 1. Cool
2. 2. Fast
3. 3. Works
4. 4. Maintainable
5. 5. Reliable
What businesses care about:
1. 1. Works
2. 2. Reliable
3. 3. Maintainable
4. 4. Fast
5. 5. Cool
This is why FOSS will always be buggy and crashy.
--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re: Attitudes by corychristison · 2015-01-20 12:45 · Score: 1

I just use mplayer/mencoder for simple stuff like that.
Re:Attitudes by TheRealMindChild · 2015-01-20 12:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Eventually I fired up a Windows machine and did it in about five minutes with some commercial trial-ware that nagged me with ads when I installed it.

The reason being that Windows is more than an OS and a collection of predictable platforms. A video on Windows is a video, accessed through the appropriate API. You don't dynamically link to half a dozen libraries, hope they are there, and crash (or demand installation) when it isn't. You install the codec and now everything can deal with it.

This is ultimately the problem with linux. There is no defined platforms anywhere. Software that wants to use anything can't ever guarantee that it will be there. They aren't part of the OS, but rather, part of the users defined installation.

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:51 · Score: 1

I think chances are spoiled users of proprietary software mistake being able to communicate directly with the developers with entitlement that a developer has to jump directly when a user discovers a bug.
So the expectation that an application doesn't randomly crash-to-desktop makes one "spoiled"?
Re:Attitudes by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 13:12 · Score: 1

So the expectation that an application doesn't randomly crash-to-desktop makes one "spoiled"?
Your attitude to claim that all FOSS developers just accept crashes makes you spoiled.
Not every bug is reproducible everywhere. If a bug does not occur or the developer's system, it's not his fault.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:17 · Score: 0

constant crashes
There's your problem. You were using an Avid progra[Segmentation Fault]
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:20 · Score: 0

One of the things that annoys me most about FOSS software is when a piece of software sells itself on being able to do particular named tasks, so you download, compile, install, click the button and up comes a pop-up:
[task] has not been implemented yet. If you want [task], why don't you contribute it? ;-)
The most annoying part was the first time I came across that, it was a fairly involved mathematical function.
tl;dr DON'T list features that you haven't implemented. You generate much bad will that way.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:22 · Score: 0

Not every bug is reproducible everywhere. If a bug does not occur or the developer's system, it's not his fault.
What kind of horse shit is this? I can think of at least 3 examples off the top of my head that make this false. And that's without pushing liability on to the tester. I'm going to assume you're either not a developer, or you're a terrible one.
Re:Attitudes by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 13:32 · Score: 1

What kind of horse shit is this? I can think of at least 3 examples off the top of my head that make this false.
First, please provide proof that FOSS developers in general do not care about stability, as you claimed in your first post.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 14:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
What businesses care about:
1. 1. Making money
2. 2. Making money
3. 3. Plausible deniability
4. 4. Charging customers to fix bugs
5. 5. In order to make more money
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:23 · Score: 0

That was not me. Next, please answer what kind of horse shit that was.
Re:Attitudes by Tourney3p0 · 2015-01-20 15:26 · Score: 0

Ever had a 32 bit bug on a 64 bit machine or vice versa? Not the developer's fault, I guess! Slashdot is now mostly stupid comments written by stupid people for a stupid audience.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:32 · Score: 0

I recently accidentally declared a variable as an int that would be used for fseek/ftell (I forget which). Worked great on my test cases, but failed on large files (which I did not test against). The good news is that it apparently was not my fault.
Re:Attitudes by jedidiah · 2015-01-20 15:53 · Score: 1

> A video on Windows is a video, accessed through the appropriate API. You don't dynamically link to half a dozen libraries, hope they are there, and crash (or demand installation) when it isn't. You install the codec and now everything can deal with it.
Sounds vaguely how Quicktime is supposed to work on MacOS. I certainly hope that Microsoft's attempt at a knockoff works better than the original does. I tried the original article and it wasn't quite all it was cracked up to be.
I don't see Microsoft actually doing better.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 16:22 · Score: 1

Blender, while not the simplest is very stable. Switch it to left mouse button interface in File/User option. Then switch the interface into Video editing. And then basically from only the menu you can do basic video editing. If you watch a tutorial, you can cut together the next Ironman.
Re:Attitudes by TheInternetGuy · 2015-01-20 16:28 · Score: 1

This is why FOSS will always be buggy and crashy.
No, this is why Developers will always be miserable working for 'the man'.

--
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
Re:Attitudes by sjames · 2015-01-20 17:05 · Score: 1

For simple editing like that, I use avidemux.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:52 · Score: 0

Simple, statically link everything.
I've been contemplating the idea myself, been writing a plugin (mind you, not even a program) that needs a few codecs, rather than rely on the fact that its already installed or ask it to be installed, I rather the user download a 10mb binary, rather than 1mb and have everything already working than cope with the tiresome 'its not working on my machine' support requests.
Re:Attitudes by epyT-R · 2015-01-20 18:14 · Score: 1

Obviously, you've never dealt with building complex vfs/directshow graphs..
Re:Attitudes by epyT-R · 2015-01-20 18:16 · Score: 1

err I meant vfw not vfs.
Re: Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 18:50 · Score: 1

You win the prize for completely missing the point.
The bit where the GP said

Utterly incomprehensible user interfaces
is where mplayer and mencoder come in.
Who wants to wade five pages of notes by the authors to do something that is as simple as
import video
press I to set in point
press O to set out point
select and then delete sound
export to file in chosen format
I do this shit for a living, I use Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro 7. I also use MainActor, when I do it on my Linux boxes at home.
MainActor was a bloody good (although somewhat basic) commercial editing package in Linux and Windows. Development ceased around 10 years ago, unfortunately, but it can be made to run in a modern Ubuntu.
My hopes were got up when BrainDistrict, a company run by the original developer of the package, bought back the rights to it, and he announced that he was going to start development on a new version.
Last year (or perhaps 2013) I sent him an email asking about progress on the package, and heard nothing back. That annoys me, because I was going to try and introduce it as a low-cost editing system at work (a very budget-conscious TV station), but he never replied.
I live in hope, but as I said I've heard nothing so I am expecting nothing.
I wish they'd just shut up and take my money, as it were.
Re:Attitudes by whoever57 · 2015-01-20 19:02 · Score: 1

This.
I used to use Kino, but this doesn't work on 64-bit. I believe the developer has transferred his efforts to Kdenlive. Kino worked well, but required format conversion in most cases.
All I want is an effective non-linear editor.
I have never managed to do anything with Cinelerra. Usually, it crashes within seconds of starting, but I haven't even figured out how to open a file containing video. The "documentation" (I use the word loosely) seems to assume that you have already opened the video.
Kdenlive seems to have possibility. Let's hope that it really progresses.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:08 · Score: 0

That's what package dependencies are for.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:14 · Score: 0

Well, if you accidentally tried an editor that actually worked the first time (kdenlive or blender) then your whole attitude would have been better.
Re: Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 22:24 · Score: 0

I do that too, but conjuring long cryptic command lines isn't something for the average software user...
Re:Attitudes by Mike+Frett · 2015-01-20 22:38 · Score: 1

You're doing it wrong then. You could've done that in Avidemux or OpenShot. Extract the audio with Avidemux and edit it in Audacity and put it all together in OpenShot. Simplest thing in the world, you don't need Windows for that.
Re:Attitudes by ale2011 · 2015-01-20 23:07 · Score: 2

This is ultimately the problem with linux. There is no defined platforms anywhere. Software that wants to use anything can't ever guarantee that it will be there. They aren't part of the OS, but rather, part of the users defined installation.
Not quite: It's the task of a distribution to make sure all needed libraries are in place. I concede there is some difficulty when codecs and formats are not fully standardized. In that case, proprietary distributions stick on their homebrewed format and don't care about compatibility. A problem with FOSS is that users want it to be compatible with any other format.
And who wrote "This is compounded by FOSS users being tolerant of crashy software because it suits their ideology"? I experienced running and even buying Adobe and Microsoft packages. They have all the defects that RMS keeps on warning about, and if you do it as a hobbist you likely end up with some 8-year obsolete software that cannot be mantained and hardly works. I'm not going to buy any more of that to avoid getting locked in it that way. Is that "ideology"?
The reason why that software crashes so often is that it is underfunded. So, I could pay 300 bucks to get Bitwig, or do what I can with Avdemux and maybe donate them some 10 bucks. Maybe I should consider paying 50 bucks per month per license to use Premiere. Now, yes, if we go down to consider what should the price be proportional to, we may be approaching some ideological thinking.
--
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:09 · Score: 0

Virtual Dub for me.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:43 · Score: 0

Systemd. Checkmate. You lose.
Re:Attitudes by squiggleslash · 2015-01-21 00:52 · Score: 2

This is ultimately the problem with linux. There is no defined platforms anywhere. Software that wants to use anything can't ever guarantee that it will be there.

Linux is a kernel. It doesn't have a video codec API, and (hopefully, khttpd suggests it's possible) never will.
I'm saying this not to be an ass, but to point out that people don't write video software for kernels. They do it for operating systems. Debian is an operating system. Ubuntu is an operating system. Mint is an operating system. Android is an operating system.
Those do, actually, have predictable support frameworks installed.
What's more, you don't even have to aim at those systems. You can just aim at commonly supported standardized infrastructure such as GNOME, and let the caretakers of the distributions install the software you need for you.
Now you can, if you want, complain that "Oh no, I want my software to run on all the Linuxes", but it's not like anyone's out there complaining that Mac OS X is berefit of video editing software because that Mach kernel it uses doesn't come with a predictable set of video encoding APIs, and have you tried to write a video editor that works on both Darwin AND Mac OS X?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Attitudes by DNS-and-BIND · 2015-01-21 01:14 · Score: 0

If we had a hundred bucks to spare, we wouldn't be using free solutions in the first place.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 01:40 · Score: 0

Pfft.. it crashes sometimes applies to the great and glorious Microsoft too. I have to use Office 2013. Word crashes soemtimes, Excel will ALWAYS die at least once per day. Today alone it's puked 3 times on me while editing simple workbooks (4 sheets per workbook, no formulas, just static content).
The "it crashes sometimes" is not a FOSS thing... it's a software thing.
Oh and in my experience, my FOSS software is a LOT more stable and LESS crashy than the mainstream paid apps I use - ESPECIALLY when I get off the Windows OS and into a FOSS OS (aka Linux).
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 03:53 · Score: 0

This really isn't a FOSS only issue. Games are crashy on any platform, especially when they aren't specifically created for the platform, Unity and Steam have done a lot to iron out these issues, to the point we're getting some AAA game released directly onto linux now. Windows and Macs suffer from these issues just as much, but Windows has more stuff thrown at it to cover over the bad stuff.
Re:Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 04:06 · Score: 0

You have obviously never worked with software in your life if you think that commercial software isn't buggy as hell. The difference is that you pay a support contract for someone to deal with the bugs for you, so it only seems like it works better. There's a reason the IT Helpdesk career exists, and it sure isn't because commercial software works awesome.
Re:Attitudes by omnichad · 2015-01-21 04:10 · Score: 2

drop the attitude that "It crashes sometimes" is an acceptable condition for software intended for productive work
Welcome to video editing.
I've seen the same with Premiere and Final Cut Pro. While what you say is true of FOSS in general, multi-track video editing is a beast to program around anyway.
Re:Attitudes by tlhIngan · 2015-01-21 04:34 · Score: 1

The reason being that Windows is more than an OS and a collection of predictable platforms. A video on Windows is a video, accessed through the appropriate API. You don't dynamically link to half a dozen libraries, hope they are there, and crash (or demand installation) when it isn't. You install the codec and now everything can deal with it.
This is ultimately the problem with linux. There is no defined platforms anywhere. Software that wants to use anything can't ever guarantee that it will be there. They aren't part of the OS, but rather, part of the users defined installation.
The problem with defined platforms is ego.
I mean, people are rallying against SystemD, yet that's exactly what SystemD is for - to create a unified set of APIs for a lot of basic low level functionality - what was once done through dozens of libraries and shell scripts (meant to handle the dozens of different ways those libraries can be combined uniquely) can be done using a unified set of APIs.
Of course, it gets derided for doing this - since the existing system of lightweight programs glued together using shell scripts is more UNIX-y than a big monolith that helps provide a more generic interface.
I mean, it's almost expected that every app that deals with stuff Linux doesn't do well (Audio, printing, network, system service APIs) has to deal with the variations themselves. You know what, we did do that - back when the OS was called "DOS". Every application had to know about the peculiarities of printing, the peculiarities of sound and all that. Granted, ALSA and all that mean you don't need to know the exact sound card, but you still need to be able to interrogate and pick the right audio route, and heaven forbid that change.
It's why we have stuff like PulseAudio and CUPS - they abstract away the nastiness that is the lower level interface and provide a whole host of services so applications don't need to handle it themselves. (E.g., for audio - you just open and play, and your audio is mixed in with other apps audio. You don't have to worry about audio hardware disappearing - the routing changes underneath you (e.g., Bluetooth headset disconnects) and while audio pauses a tiny bit, it recovers and the app doesn't do a thing (unless it actually needed that hardware opened exclusive).
Ditto media playback - there's no media architecture in Linux to handle file formats, codecs and renderers in a unified fashion. Attempts to quickly break down over "free" codecs and "proprietary" or "patents".
Linux is great for servers that generally don't need many platform services, but on the desktop side the use cases are far more complex and varied that require coordination far more than in a simpler static server environment.
Re:Attitudes by maestroX · 2015-01-21 08:32 · Score: 1

A video on Windows is a video, accessed through the appropriate API. You don't dynamically link to half a dozen libraries, hope they are there, and crash (or demand installation) when it isn't.

Either require libavcodec as dependency thru package manager or statically link it. Most freeware Windows transcoders include a version of libavcodec, no Windows specific video API is used.
Re: Attitudes by corychristison · 2015-01-21 14:38 · Score: 1

I understand the frustration, sort of. If you do it for a living, you are not exactly the kind of user I was speaking to when I mentioned mplayer/mencoder.
If the parent poster spent more than 20 minutes on one software package with a broken UI, he could have figured it out how to get the desired effect with mencoder in less time. That's all I was saying.
I understand the discussion is about poor UI, I do. I get it. But sometimes the cli is faster, and easier. If you're an experienced linux user, and are having troube figuring out a shitty UI, then you could have figured it out on the CLI.
I, personally, have come to the conclusion that writing my own software is sometimes the best option. That is my mind set. If I can't find something to fit my needs, I'll find a way around it if it is a onetime thing, or I'll write it myself if it is something i will need more than once. I suspect a lot of deep-rooted linux people are the same.
If he's just using Ubuntu because he's a hipster, then he deserves to fudge around in shitty UI's. I like my linux, and I like writing software. Fact is, linux is not mainstream, and I like it that way.
Damn kids get off my lawn!
(I am only 26 years old, *sigh*)
Re: Attitudes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 21:31 · Score: 0

I appreciate your not responding to my grumpy-day post in a sarcastic and crappy manner.
I'm a fairly experienced Linux user (with a Computer Science degree) but I actually have a learning disability meaning I have huge difficult with text (what a pain that is) so I find man pages to be a huge chore. (That also explains my bad mood, although we'd really need a common frame of reference for me to explain why that is.)
I've thought a little about writing a video editor, but to be honest, it'd just go on the pile with all the other projects that never even get started. Hell, I'm impressed that I've got this far with Godot but if I ever actually get Spack Invaders moving (because it'll be spack, not good) then I've really done something. For once.
So in short, what was I talking about?
Re:Attitudes by cynyr · 2015-01-22 15:06 · Score: 1

A bit late here, but personally the reason I'm against systemD isn't that i don't like/want a consistent interface, it's that there seems to be no documentation for that interface, or support for swapping out just a single part of it for another. Take logging as an example. Why can't they say we will verify that your logging daemon responds in a certain way, and then just run it? Right now i have to run systemD's logging, but i can forward it to something else as well. Same goes for dhcp for network interfaces. Why can't i be allowed to pick my own dhcp provider? this would allow for specialized dhcp clients if there is a niche where it is needed. Say one that works on AMD64 with uclibc and a static /dev/ because I'm trying to get a full rescue disk or bootstrapping image into something that will fit into an initramfs (because i can and want to).
Can I use systemD on a network rootfs? what about one with a separate /usr/ fs? or in the case of an old laptop I had, allow me to set the network card into 10MB-FD mode before trying to send any traffic as that particular network card would drop 99% of packets in 100MB-FD mode?
what media doesn't work on a fully optioned mplayer or gstreamer install? Well go2meeting's proprietary format they use for screen captures, and DRMed audio/videa, but that is about it

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.

KDEnlive for offline editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:32 · Score: 0

I use this all the time. It's not perfect but it does allow me to semi-easily create my own in-house tools/effects without having to kiss some corporation's ass to get my hands on an SDK to do so. There are some great realtime video mixers out there as well. I got in on non-linear editing about 20 years ago and despite a few new tools and effects, overall there's nothing new to report.

OpenShot 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:33 · Score: 0

OpenShot 2.0 was a kickstarter project that is supposed to be released on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Its been a while since there was an updated, but who knows... it might still happen.

Re:OpenShot 2.0 by kramulous · 2015-01-20 16:11 · Score: 1

I've been using OpenShot heavily lately. I like it.
It has some bugs but it gets the job done. Surprisingly well. The other big thing going for it is that it is incredibly simple to use.
I started to use Blender but I had to abandon it. It was going to require a significant investment of time to be able to do similar stuff. I just don't have the time at the moment.

--
.

Misleading. DreamWorks, ILM, etc use Linux too by raymorris · 2015-01-20 11:39 · Score: 1

TFS could be slightly misleading. DreamWorks, Industrial Light and Magic, and other major studios have been using Linux for a long time, along side MacMac and some Windows. It's not that they don't use Windows, they are multiplatform, where the person doing hair on a character may use a completely different software stack from the person doing the mouth.

those PiTiVi guys still going ya know. by thirdwikidotorg · 2015-01-20 11:40 · Score: 1

PiTiVi is still going strong, even though it only take 30seconds to break it in Unity.

Probability of seeing it in 16.04 is about $12,327 to 1+ bug reviews of whatever Ubuntu-Y will be.

I should preview before submitting by raymorris · 2015-01-20 11:40 · Score: 1

That should say:
It's not that they don't use LINUX, it's that they are multiplatform.

Lightworks, anyone? Not FOSS, but not expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lightworks is a Linux-first NLE that added Windows and recently Mac versions. It is the editor of choice for many in the "major motion picture" realm. You've seen its results at your local multiplex. Operationally, it emulates a Steenbeck flatbed film editor. www.lwks.com

Re:Lightworks, anyone? Not FOSS, but not expensive by Jethro · 2015-01-20 19:03 · Score: 2

This needs to be upvoted. Lightworks is professional-grade video editing. No hand-holding or easy shortcuts, and the learning curve is very, very high. After years (probably over a decade) of using very amateurish video editing software, learning Lightworks was not easy, but I'm very glad I did. And having said that, I have a ton to learn.
I don't care if it's FOSS, and neither do any major studios. It's free for personal use and not terribly expensive to license.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.

Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 11:52 · Score: 5, Informative

LightWorks is not FOSS. It works on Linux but so do Maya, Bitwig, RenderMan, and so on. Neither of those is FOSS.
There is professional software available for Linux in this market but just like OSX and Windows you have to pay for them.

Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:56 · Score: 0

and none of those are nlve's either, whats your fucking point
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by chill · 2015-01-20 12:06 · Score: 1

LightWorks is, and they have a free (as in beer) version. Not FOSS, but a professional NLE tool on Linux.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:13 · Score: 0

LightWorks is a NLVE. His point is that it is not FOSS, and neither are the other tools that OP mentions.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by KugelKurt · 2015-01-20 13:14 · Score: 1

and none of those are nlve's either, whats your fucking point
RTFA!
The article claims to list "6 free and open source video editing tools" and includes LightWorks in that list.
That's my point. And now GTFO.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:57 · Score: 0

The article claims to list "6 free and open source video editing tools" and includes LightWorks in that list.
It's true that the title of the article is what you say. I wonder if editors changed the title from something more boring.
If you actually read TFA, in the introduction he says that with a good video editor, video shops could be all-Linux shops. The intro doesn't say "free free free", it's about something that can do the job on Linux.
Personally I would be happy to pay a reasonable price for good software. I don't make movies much but I'd happily pay iMovie prices for something iMovie-ish on Linux.
Hmm, looks like iMovie is only $15! Well, I would actually pay more than that for something similar on Linux.
Last time I edited a video, I used some free thing on Ubuntu and it was adequate. All I needed to do was snip out the part I wanted plus flip the video rightside-up, so it wasn't a demanding job, but the free stuff was adequate.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:25 · Score: 0

A practical person (not necessarily the RedHat developer who owns that blog) faced with a similar problem with limited choices just might consider free (but not open source) to be the right solution. Obviously Stallmanites like yourself worship the source code available in FOSS, but there are plenty of people that just care about the price.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 02:56 · Score: 0

The biggest problem of Lightworks is that attitude of the developers so far. They have been quite responsive to resolving bugs and improving the software but any discussion or mentioning of the open source aspect that they "announced" 2010 is harshly attacked, the thread closed and other silly things.
Their "license for free version" model even requires activation of the free version that they give away. Later in the development they dropped some features from the free version with a really funny explanation. In general it seems they are not very confident about their software/business model. I doubt that there will be an open source Lightworks that is really developed as a proper open source project. Either they will stick to closed source or will use a deliberately incompatible license / development model that is open source in name but still tightly controlled and sold by them. I admit I want free (in both terms) software and that they are free to do whatever they want with their code, but their behaviour and history so far does not really inspire much confidence. I wouldn't bet on them.
You want to open source it? Then go ahead, do it. Stop using lame excuses, "Open source when Mac/Linux versions are released". They have been released quite some time ago.
Re:Article confuses "on Linux" with FOSS by KugelKurt · 2015-01-21 14:32 · Score: 1

If you actually read TFA, in the introduction he says that with a good video editor, video shops could be all-Linux shops. The intro doesn't say "free free free", it's about something that can do the job on Linux.
Quote from TFA: "I often ask myself what the current state of video editing is for free and open source software (FOSS)."
Does this wording really mean "proprietary software under Linux"? To me it does not but maybe that's because I'm not a native English speaker.

Your Software is Minimally Exceptional, or... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:54 · Score: 0

"I ate my shit once. It was less than great."

It sounds like what is missing is software that's better enough than the alternatives. It won't be easy, and you're not going to overtake the "big guys" right away, but it should be possible. You really only have to be better than the free (as in beer) alternatives, and this is a tall enough order. Firefox did it. LibreOffice is trying.

No good video editors is an exaggeration by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:57 · Score: 0

I've been editing video on GNU/Linux systems since the late 1990s. There was something to be desired then. It hasn't been that way in over 15 years though. If you want to put down GNU/Linux find something that is actually lacking rather than making stuff up. While unconventional Kino was pretty good editor back in the day. The more modern editor I like is OpenShot- its reasonably stable and easy to use.

cinelerra by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:06 · Score: 1

cinelerra is a very capable open source video editing system for linux.

I use it on an I7 system with a gig of memory, and it handles everything I have done with it very well.

Re:Cinelerra by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:06 · Score: 0

Second Cinelerra. I did a 30 minute documentary a few years ago. Learning curve not so bad, and just had to learn how to not make it crash. Power was worth it. I'm sure it's gotten progressively better since 2009.
Re:cinelerra by flappinbooger · 2015-01-21 02:46 · Score: 0

cinelerra is a very capable open source video editing system for linux.
I use it on an I7 system with a gig of memory, and it handles everything I have done with it very well.
Sooooo..... While you edit with Cinelerra what color are the nipple clamps and how many times per minute does your dominatrix whip you?
Because if you regularly use Cinelerra you obviously like pain. Lots of pain.
I have made precisely one video using Cinelerra and after completing it - to prove a point to myself that I could - I said screw this and bought Sony Vegas and a copy of Windows to put it on.

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name

Certainly not from Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:07 · Score: 1

all of the best 3D and 2D tools, other than video, are entrenched in the Linux environment and perform best there.

What? Sure Blender is hugely impressive but the other leaders in that space (MAX, Maya, Cinema4D, Lightwave, etc) are Windows-based (or OSX). And most certainly the go-to tools for 2D like Photoshop, Motion, Illustrator, After Effects and other production tools like Flame, FumeFx, Turbulence, Phoenix FD, etc.. are all Windows or OSX software.

Re:Certainly not from Linux by jdawgnoonan · 2015-01-20 14:28 · Score: 0

I kind of wondered WTF on this whole thing too. I guess that the tools on Linux are probably great after you get done screwing around to make the XWindows system work right with your graphics drivers and your input devices work correctly. Actually my experience Linux is that it is really cool, and I enjoy tinkering to get it to work correctly, but by the time I am done screwing around with making it work right (which usually quickly gets screwed up by an update) I switch back to my PC or Mac where the UI is less customizable and less glitchy. Linux is an awesome kernel and makes for great servers. My experiences with it as a desktop have not made me think that it is viable.
Re:Certainly not from Linux by jdawgnoonan · 2015-01-20 14:29 · Score: 0

Meant not viable.
Re:Certainly not from Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Maya runs on Linux, and I think this is what a lot of the big VFX houses use it on. Nuke is like that too, along with Houdini. Not sure about the complete list, but there are a lot of high-end 3D and compositing programs that support Linux.
Video editing, on the other hand, tends to be lacking, which is what the article addresses.

Blender by The+Evil+Atheist · 2015-01-20 12:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interesting conclusion they come to with Blender. They have been making rapid improvements and enhancements to both features and interface. I've dabbled in Blender before and after the 2.5 redesign and while I didn't actually find the old Blender difficult to use (it took me 30 mins of dedicated time), the new one is better still. BUT I haven't used the video editing stuff, though I do know it was there. Must give it a try next time.

--
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.

Re:Blender by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:28 · Score: 0

Yeah, same feeling here. Last time I tried blender there was ZERO documentation about video editing, and I couldn't find anything on their web page or some documentation wikis. Gonna have to look through that linked youtube list.

Kdenlive is fine by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative

I confirm KDE is OK. I just finished a 2-hour project, with 3 cameras plus an audio recorder, and bad video that I had to fix from any imaginable point of view (chromatic aberration, colors, contrast).

KDE started to fall apart badly when I began to have three levels of nested projects: my main project uses virtual clips that are in fact projects, which in turn use virtual clips that are smaller projects. When you do this, with many tracks in each project, and complicated effects that have lots of keyframes, kdenlive segfaults often. When you do slightly less than that, it is perfectly fine.

Another limitation: kdenlive works not-so-well with video formats that have keyframes. You need to put your clips in a format where each image is compressed separately.

Re:Kdenlive is fine by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 20:38 · Score: 0

If you ever get to four levels of nested projects, the sky will fade out and the text "Level 2" will appear

The Foundry Hiero by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:08 · Score: 0

Not sure if Hiero from The Foundry qualifies, but I have been using this for my editorial purposes. The Foundry Nuke Studio v9 incorporates nuke+hiero so you can composite from within the hiero timeline.

Hey it's a blender slashvertisement! by kelemvor4 · 2015-01-20 12:09 · Score: 0

Woohoo! I'll stick with premiere.

SGI by sunderland56 · 2015-01-20 12:14 · Score: 4, Informative

The VFX industry has for most of the last 30 years been reliant on Macs and Windows machines for video editing

You seem to have skipped SGI hardware, and software like Discreet Flame/Fire, which defined both video and film editing for a decade.

Re:SGI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:31 · Score: 0

He also missed the Video Toaster (Amiga), which defined "VFX" for television for a similar period of time.
Re:SGI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 02:34 · Score: 0

The VFX industry has for most of the last 30 years been reliant on Macs and Windows machines for video editing
You seem to have skipped SGI hardware, and software like Discreet Flame/Fire, which defined both video and film editing for a decade.
Compositing and onlining, not long form editing. Avid Media composer and Avid Film Composer were "defining" the Editing with EDL's handed off to the Flame/Inferno guy's for on-lining. These were Mac Based Editors. Avid Illusion was competing with Flame on the SGI, but that again was a compositor.

No video on Linux by theheadlessrabbit · 2015-01-20 12:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Linux has the super low end and the super high end well covered, but it has a few serious areas that are lacking.

On the low end, OpenShot definitely beats windows movie maker, and it's about as good as iMovie, so for vloggers, it's all you'd need.

On the high end, Lightworks and Cinelerra are both powerful, comparable to Avid, but less stable, and the learning curve is steep; too steep for an amateur who is just messing around to master quickly.

But for a start up or mid-range video production company, neither option is acceptable. OpenShot is simply not good enough for their needs, and the high end is too much, the training costs for employees would be significant. There is no Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, or Final Cut 7 for the mid range companies to work with.

I've also had trouble rendering to h.264 in Linux. The files are sometimes corrupt - refusing to load in anything other than VLC, sometimes lacking features, like progressive upload that is youtube friendly, or just plain poor quality - not all renderers are made equal, some look better at a given bit rate than others.

--
-I only code in BASIC.-

Re:No video on Linux by kelemvor4 · 2015-01-20 12:26 · Score: 1

The files are sometimes corrupt - refusing to load in anything other than VLC
Do people still use players other than VLC? Weird.
Re:No video on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:42 · Score: 0

I never adjusted to VLC's interface. I've been using XBMC for most of my media consumption.
Re:No video on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 19:52 · Score: 0

Do people still use players other than VLC? Weird.
Monoculture is seldom a good thing.
If you have a lean program it is usually great at doing a single thing but won't work for some edge cases that some users might have.
If you have a program that can do everything it is bloated buggy crap.
It is safe to say that there are people that uses players other than VLC.
Re:No video on Linux by Beamboom · 2015-01-20 22:20 · Score: 1

I believe Kdenlive is spot on that middle ground. Complex enough for quite advanced editing (it's deeper than the impression that first meets the eye), still simple enough to get started on. And according to my recent experience (Kdenlive Version 0.9.10 on Ubunbtu 14.10) it's runs well now (as opposed to last time I tried it some years ago, that was crash galore).
Re:No video on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 22:30 · Score: 0

You can never be sure what VLC is doing to pretty-up the picture, so loading it into, say, Quicktime for Windows, shows it, warts and all ...
Re:No video on Linux by swaq · 2015-01-21 02:34 · Score: 1

I couldn't get VLC to play videos smoothly about 5-6 years ago so I used mplayer instead. Then mplayer2. Now mpv. I've had no reason to try to switch back to VLC.
Re:No video on Linux by flappinbooger · 2015-01-21 02:56 · Score: 2

Linux has the super low end and the super high end well covered, but it has a few serious areas that are lacking.
This post sums up everything thoroughly and completely.
From personal experience I can concur that for most NLE needs Sony Vegas (and Premiere for those whose brains work that way) provide the proper ease of use and feature set.
Sony Vegas is easy to self teach. The interface is clean, simple and intuitive. Much more intuitive than Premiere. Sony Vegas should be the target for Linux Video Editing developers. Vegas is up to version 13 right now. EVEN IF developers targeted version 9 or even 6 of Vegas ... that would be fantastic and many people would be filled with joy and singing.

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Re:No video on Linux by flappinbooger · 2015-01-21 02:58 · Score: 1

The files are sometimes corrupt - refusing to load in anything other than VLC
Do people still use players other than VLC? Weird.
VLC is to media playback as Reggie Love is to Barack 0bama - It just handles stuff - PERIOD.

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Re: No video on Linux by Roblimo · 2015-01-21 09:28 · Score: 1

Yep. I try various video editors every year or so and for the past 7 or 8 years have kept coming back to Vegas. Stable, does even the most complex things I need to do including fancy title work, and is the fastest, least hardware-hungry NLE I've found. Stable? You bet! I'm running a so-so HP AMD duocore with 4 GB RAM and I can't remember the last crash. "It just works."
Improvements in Windows stability over the last few years have admittedly helped. But Vegas gives my clients the best value for their money even if it means I need to boot into Windows to use it.
Is this partly because I'm accustomed to Vegas, to the point where I could give classes in it? You bet. But familiarity is also why I stick with Ubuntu (when not doing video work), LibreOffice, GIMP, Pidgin, Bluefish, and other FOSS (and a few commie) programs I've been using for a long time.
Re: No video on Linux by theheadlessrabbit · 2015-01-21 20:09 · Score: 1

Sony Vegas is pretty much the only program I use that still requires Windows.
It's powerful, easy to self teach, and until 10 came around, it was extremely stable.
But if your video card is anything newer than the GTX 500 series, don't expect any GPU rendering assistance.

--
-I only code in BASIC.-
Re:No video on Linux by theheadlessrabbit · 2015-01-21 20:12 · Score: 1

Thank you for the suggestion; I'm installing it in the background and I am going to try this out shortly.

--
-I only code in BASIC.-

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:30 · Score: 0

What exactly other 2D and 3D tools are "entrenched in the Linux environment" exactly?

Re:Huh? by OolimPhon · 2015-01-20 23:03 · Score: 2

What exactly other 2D and 3D tools are "entrenched in the Linux environment" exactly?
There's always Emacs...

VideoRedo Plus (Windows only) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:39 · Score: 0

VideoRedo Plus (VRDP) - Windows only.

Key features:
* generates cut lists (EDL files)
* can read cut lists created by comskip
* frame accurate cuts, not just GOP or keyfile based.
* can edit EDLs to correct mistakes from automatic processing easily
* can edit mpeg2, mpeg4, h.264 video files in about 10 different containers.

Basically, the tool is for removing commercials from TV recordings with as much automation as possible.

I don't use VRDP for transcoding, handbrake is better and runs on Linux.

AVIdeMux is close, but doesn't handle cut files made by other tools.

I still use an Amiga 3000 by liquidghondi · 2015-01-20 12:47 · Score: 1

My video toaster is still going strong ;-)

Blender is too confusing by buckfeta2014 · 2015-01-20 12:56 · Score: 1

If I couldn't use it for 3d animation, what makes you think I can use it for video editing... and since when can a 3d designer do video editing anyways...

--
Buck Feta. You know what to do.

Cinelerra by wolf1oo · 2015-01-20 12:57 · Score: 1

Anyone else use Cinelerra? I couple years ago it was a bit unstable at times but had some powerful features. It is probably only better now, although I haven't checked myself.

I need faster boot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 12:58 · Score: 0

Also binary log files.
I can't edit video without a networking overhaul.

I second this: blender's VSE mode is great by ciaran2014 · 2015-01-20 13:26 · Score: 4, Informative

It's daunting for the first few days (yep, days) but you'll get used to the blender workflow.

To edit video you need to go into VSE mode. You have to learn it, you can't just brute force and guess your way around, so go watch a bunch of tutorial videos (search: blender vse or blender visual sequence editor) and you'll be flying.

--
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki

Re:I second this: blender's VSE mode is great by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 21:09 · Score: 0

Perhaps it is just me, but I find the Blender to be awfully unintuitive. I use it on my game projects rarely, perhaps once per two months. And every time I use it, I find myself googling for information how to do even simple things, such as moving/resizing/centering objects, texture mapping of coloring the objects. Why does it need to invent the keyboard shortcuts and mouse button logic? Are there any other apps where select happens by right mouse button? Could there be a Blender for dummies -theme/skin, which would make it work with familiar shortcuts (ctr-c, crtl-v, etc) and mouse button logic. It would also make it easier to use on laptops and/or tenkeyless-keyboards, if the numeric keypad was not a requirement.

Blender python scripting by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:29 · Score: 0

Anyone tried scripting with access to the image buffer? Or do they not allow it?

SGI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 13:43 · Score: 0

Flame and Editbox on SGI were online editing / conform tools where you were paying big bucks for suite time, perhaps an order of magnitude greater than sitting on the Avid in an offline edit suite which is where, IMO, digital NLE was defined.

New Cinelerra for Linux on Feb 2nd. by walterbyrd · 2015-01-20 14:08 · Score: 1

http://cinelerra.org/1/

Re:New Cinelerra for Linux on Feb 2nd. by flappinbooger · 2015-01-21 03:04 · Score: 0

http://cinelerra.org/1/
Does it come in a box with handcuffs, nipple clamps, whips, chains and ball gag?
Because that program causes physical and emotional pain while using. (at least it used to)
I always pictured it's die hard users decked out in over-the-knee leather boots, leather chaps and vest, black eyeliner, full body tats, piercings and bright red hair, doing the editing while sitting on a chair made of metal spikes while someone yells at them constantly.

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name

avidemux by nluv4hs · 2015-01-20 14:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

As the proprietary vendors business models change, Linux video editing has increasing advantages, e.g. the lack of "subscription" business model. Avidemux is very powerful and actively developed.

If you have a Windows install and you buy Adobe Premiere Elements for $90, you will discover you must sign in, and Premiere Elements will max out your incoming internet connection for the entire time the program is open. But Premiere Elements works fine for video editing if you disable networking in control panel. So what's it doing with all that bandwidth?!

Got the whole context wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 14:24 · Score: 0

"FOSS tools have been less than great."
Let's get this straight:

less than great? No, you mean sucks. Period. Thank licensing for that.

Yes, professional tools are based on Linux--typically, they are heavily modified by the code owners. Piar comes to mind--yes it uses linux, BUT that's only a fraction. Then again, they're really based on POSIX compliant OSes.

Not open source, but... by Tumbleweed · 2015-01-20 14:40 · Score: 1

DaVinci Resolve, by Blackmagic Design, is used in actual Hollywood movies (though I don't know if those Hollywood studios are using the Linux version or not).

Re:Not open source, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:56 · Score: 0

I got a copy of Resolve when I bought one of their cameras but have yet to successfully get it running. It seems to be very picky about the linux environment it runs in.
Re:Not open source, but... by jones_supa · 2015-01-21 02:33 · Score: 1

In my experience, that's a constant problem for everything that comes outside of the distro's repositories.

we've got everything we need, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 14:41 · Score: 0

Blender for 3d modelling and rendering.

KDENLiVE for actual video editing.

Ardour 3 via Jack for Audio, with vst plugins from any source you like.

GIMP for Photoshop - it's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

Krita for storyboarding, sketching, and general preproduction drawing

Celtx - the offline version - for script & preproduction planning.

I've yet to find a good AfterEffects substitute, but blender's video editing gui mode can double well enough.

Re:we've got everything we need, pretty much. by UnknownSoldier · 2015-01-20 16:51 · Score: 1

You forgot the excellent InkScape.
Gimp is a joke compared to Photoshop. "Good enough" for small stuff; completely lacking features for anything serious.

Not bad...but definitely not great. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 14:45 · Score: 0

From my own personal use I'd have to give top marks to kdenlive as an all around great non-linear video editor...of course to work on sound you need another program, usually audacity for me, so you're exporting and importing a lot of files, it takes a while. I do know from watching some demos and YouTube videos that you can make very professional looking stuff with kdenlive in particular but at this point, those more complicated features tend to be the most buggy ones.

I wouldn't personally use linux for "professional" video editing at this point but its rather a niche market that a handful of companies have had cornered for years. Give it time! :) i can't believe how much has changed between early and recent versions of Blender for example...from an inexperienced perspective they still seem to improve quite a bit on each release and the UI is less cumbersome. Video for linux is perfect for home videos and some YouTube stuff though and that's 90 percent of use cases for that kind of program. Best thing to do is give it a try, if it doesn't work you're out no money and you learned something ;)

High hopes for VideoLAN Movie Creator by j741 · 2015-01-20 14:51 · Score: 1

Personally, I have high expectations for VideoLAN Movie Creator (because my experience with VLC Media Player has been excellent). Unfortunately, it's been in an "under-development" state for almost as long as I can remember. I just hope they get to a complete, stable release sometime soon. http://www.videolan.org/vlmc/

--
- James

Re:frist by MrKaos · 2015-01-20 15:00 · Score: 2

frist psot!

looks like you frailed.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

OpenShot by Trogre · 2015-01-20 15:02 · Score: 2

I use OpenShot exclusively for my video projects, except for very simple cuts [1].

It's moderately powerful with multiple tracks, fairly easy to use and has some great filters (effects) - making a video with picture-in-picture boxes for example is trivial.

Where it falls down is that it doesn't remember your encoding preferences, so for large edits it quickly becomes cumbersome having to set all your encoding tweaks every single time.

I also haven't found an easy way to transition the picture from one video track to another and back. There are defined fade transitions but they all seem to depend on the order of the tracks in the stack.

[1] Avidemux with Qt is my quick-cut editor of choice - it lets you cut out parts of a video and, so long as you start on a keyframe, can save it without having to re-encode the video or audio streams. This is a massive time and quality saver.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:OpenShot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 23:39 · Score: 0

I had high hopes for openshot, but then there was the kickstarter project for openshot 2.0. After numerous missed deadlines, the developer completely disappeared and no one has heard anything from the project in 6 months. Sounds like he took the money and said "screw you" to all the people who backed the project.
Re:OpenShot by omnichad · 2015-01-21 04:25 · Score: 1

quickly becomes cumbersome having to set all your encoding tweaks every single time.
If you have the hard drive space, just export as uncompressed. Send it to Handbrake or a custom ffmpeg script.
Re:OpenShot by Trogre · 2015-01-21 08:47 · Score: 1

I did not know that.
I see this on his blog, which could be related:

Legal Battle
In late June, OpenShot was sucked into some legal conflicts related to trademarks and intellectual property. While I would love to discuss all the details, I am not allowed to discuss them at this time. However, everything worked out fine for OpenShot, but it certainly took some money and time away from me during the process.
Licensing
After some serious discussions with community members related to licensing for libopenshot, I have decided to officially change the license to LGPLv3. This is still a bit problematic, due to a GPLv3 license of a required JUCE-based libopenshot-audio library. But soon, I will make the GPL components optional during compiling, so it will be easier to maintain the LGPLv3 license on derivative works.
If you have no interest in reading open-source licenses... just know that we are switching the license of our main library to be more open, and allow more people to use it without violating our license agreement.
More reason not to support companies that employ predatory business practises based on broken Intellectual Property laws.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:OpenShot by Trogre · 2015-01-21 08:54 · Score: 1

Could do, though I doubt it would achieve much since that is not the default so one would still have to select the container, resolution, frame rate and uncompressed Video and Audio every time.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:OpenShot by omnichad · 2015-01-21 09:01 · Score: 1

True, but at least you wouldn't have to remember any codec details, since uncompressed is uncompressed and you can leave the rest to Handbrake.
Re: OpenShot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-25 11:36 · Score: 0

Default settings are hard-coded, but you can change them in /use/share/pyshared/open shot/export_presets/*.xml

vi ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 15:43 · Score: 0

This is slashdot, we all use vi(m), we * NEED * video editing abilities in vi.

FOSS Aside... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 16:19 · Score: 0

There are actually a few incredible high-end programs that are often used professionally and have benefits for being used in a Linux environment (mainly via CUDA card configurations, from my understanding).

As mentioned above, Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve runs on Linux and if you don't need to work in higher than HD quality, is free. It started out as a color-grading application, but is slowly being expanded into a full editing suite.

Another option, though considerably more expensive, is The Foundry's Hiero. Also originally intended for a more specific use (shot management and conforming) it has a suite of editing tools which can be quite powerful. Also, their new product Nuke Studio takes one of the best compositing software around and integrates a timeline with editing tools. Extremely powerful, albeit extremely expensive as well.

As for using them in a Linux environment, I wouldn't know, as I'm pretty reliant on Adobe Audition and other audio tools that keep me on Windows.

Cinelerra by MrKaos · 2015-01-20 16:20 · Score: 2

I'd like to point out Cinelerra even though I don't use it, yet.

In a similar vein though, I am a big user of Ardour, Jack and jammin to produce music. The tools are appropriate for the task and, whilst not perfect, didn't cost me money and allows me to be able to focus on my projects. Since I don't pay for the application my only investment is the time to learn it, the same reason people stick within a certain commercial platform. The difference is the Ardour project allows any financial contribution I make to be in preference of features I'd like added, improving the efficiency of my workflow. Becoming productive in complex software is the biggest factor in using it and the only incentive to change is when one type of software can do things the others can't.

I think the emphasis of these questions does not apply appropriately. It should be 'What is the current State of the Art in Video production in linux" and the answer is it hasn't caught up to the state of the art in audio production under linux.

Now before the criticisms begin, I find Ardour architecturally superior to commercial audio tools because of the underlying jackd infrastructure, not because of its feature set. I have watched the developments in the audio production space over the last decade produce change radically as they became more stable. Nothing interesting is happening in the commercial audio production space, it's all happening in Linux. As infrastructure advancements similar to jackd becomes more common in video editing the application space their will undergo a similar change - just not yet.

Any investment in time to produce an A/V product requires yielding value on a previous time investment in a skillset. When I invest that skillset in proprietary software my knowledge investment can be rendered useless overnight quite easily however, open source tools provide me with a way to protect my knowledge investment because the software has it's own intrinsic rights.

Value on knowledge investment is the value proposition of open source. You may have to put up with some bugs however, tolerating them means not incurring static initialization costs from learning over and over and that results in a permanent knowledge base, the basis for radically inventive ideas.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

heard of autodesk? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 17:52 · Score: 0

Autodesk Flame and Flare are built on powerful linux servers and are the primary VFX / editors for many shops. The Foundry's Nuke is the other big one and it also runs on linux.

What setup? by tigersha · 2015-01-20 18:38 · Score: 1

Premiere Pro and FCP on MACOS/X

And the OSS freaks forgot about things like Motion, After Effects, Logic Pro (and a very large community of audio and synth plugins) that goes with media production. Video editing is just the tip of the iceberg.

If I want a Unix box I will just use one. What is this zeal to Linuxify everything? Mac is very good at Media editing. And it IS a Unix box, and yes, I do spend most of my life on a command line.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism

Need better OpenGL by zapadnik · 2015-01-20 18:48 · Score: 0

OpenGL needs to be better on Linux. If you have NVidia hardware then you are covered. ATI has very poor drivers and they are a pain to upgrade. Intel is ok for the drivers, but the hardware is not in the same league as discrete GPUs for high-end hardware video processing and transformation.

How would I know? I'm developing a cross-platform modern jet combat flight simulator using OpenGL. I hate to say it, but Windows has the best drivers by far. NVidia on Linux is also a fairly pleasant experience. ATI on Linux is ok, its just the installation is not a happy path for regular users. Mac also has good drivers, and the OpenGL profiling tools that come with XCode are extremely good.

Unfortunately, the Apple OpenGL drivers for the Mac Pro (I splashed out on one recently and got the dual D700 GPUs) are really bad, they run at half the speed of the Windows drivers on the same hardware (some people installed Windows on the Mac Pro for testing), and the Crossfire is not supported by the driver. It unbelievable that such and expensive bit of gear could be so massively let down by subpar drivers from Apple :( Plus, Apple is still stuck on OpenGL 4.1, which is many years old (the current version is at 4.5 and has some good changes, like the vastly better error reporting mechanism in OpenGL 4.3).

I love working with OpenGL, but only NVidia is doing a good job with installation and performance of OpenGL drivers on Linux (and cross-platform).

Re:Need better OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:30 · Score: 0

2008 called. They want you to install ATI drivers.
Seriously though, AMD drivers are state of the art atm.

What's wrong with SystemD? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 19:31 · Score: 0

> What's wrong with SystemD?

Nearly everything

Re: What's wrong with SystemD? by jones_supa · 2015-01-21 02:19 · Score: 1

Yes? Please continue.

Kdenlive, SlowMoVideo, Pencil by captainpanic · 2015-01-20 20:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Kdenlive
Kdenlive is great if you just want to edit some holiday movie or pictures. In my experience, the resulting movies look good, and any ugly problems can be associated with the limitations on my camera, not Kdenlive. It's an easy user interface, and it only gets complicated when you want to do more advanced effects (the complexity comes from the number of options, meaning you have to go through some menus and try out a bunch of things). Btw, last time I used Kdenlive, I used Linunx Mint 16, and had no problems with audio (or any problem in general). Also, the crashes that I used to experience in 2012 seem to be gone completely.

SlowMoVideo
I also used SlowMoVideo, to make slow motion videos and to speed up videos (which I then put into Kdenlive to become part of a larger project). It works, although its user interface has a rather steep learning curve (not the most intuitive interface). It lacks a simple method to just slow down or speed up a movie by a factor two. It appears that the makers expect people to want to use the full range of options all the time. (I realize that asking for less options will upset some people... sorry).

Pencil
Finally, I also used Pencil to make some animations. In my case, quality was poor, but that says a lot about my drawing skills, and little about the program. What I missed a lot was an easy method to stitch a series of pictures together into a movie. I think that Pencil claims to provide one, but I never got it to work. In desperation, I used some awful command-line tool and it took me ages to figure out the exact code to type in to get the desired effect.

Re:Kdenlive, SlowMoVideo, Pencil by Stuarticus · 2015-01-20 23:15 · Score: 1

I used Synfig to make some animations and would really recommend it, takes a bit of time to get used to but it's actually pretty great when you get used to it.

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.

Not 30 years but 20 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 20:48 · Score: 0

Before that video editing was done on Amigas.

Is nobody going to call this lie out? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 20:59 · Score: 0

>all of the best 3D and 2D tools, other than video, are entrenched in the Linux environment and perform best there

Um, no. What a ridiculous statement. Maya is for Windows and OSX only. http://www.autodesk.com/products/maya/overview

AutoCAD is Windows and Mac.

Adobe Creative Suite - Windows (Illustrator, After Effects, Premiere)

Sorry, it is pretty obvious where all the best 2d and 3d tools are.

Re:Is nobody going to call this lie out? by trumpetplayer · 2015-01-20 23:38 · Score: 1

I've just posted a related comment. I agree with above. Wings 3D and Blender are pretty good Mayas, though. Agreed on AutoCAD too, although I don't like it, and favor SolveSpace (Windows only) for that sort of stuff. Like I've mentioned, what I can't seem to find is a good (NURBS) surface modeler, like Rhinoceros 3D or Alias.
Re:Is nobody going to call this lie out? by antientropic · 2015-01-21 01:23 · Score: 2

>all of the best 3D and 2D tools, other than video, are entrenched in the Linux environment and perform best there
Um, no. What a ridiculous statement. Maya is for Windows and OSX only.
Maya has been available for Linux for years. See http://www.autodesk.com/produc...: "Available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X operating systems." It's just the free trial that isn't available for Linux.

Sadly a pretty cursory look by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 20:59 · Score: 0

He couldn't find the transitions in kdenlive, so moved on. He should definitely have another look as it's been a stable and powerful video editing application for some time now, and definitely does what he wants. Perhaps his distro packaged it badly or something.

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:02 · Score: 0

libcaca :)

Not to mention Audio Editing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 21:14 · Score: 0

Ardour is what you want, not Audacity.

Just buy? by SuperDre · 2015-01-20 22:40 · Score: 1

There are excellent video/audiosuits for linux which you can buy, so not being able to go linux only is BS..... And 3D and 2D are still best on Windows..

Well, Rhino by trumpetplayer · 2015-01-20 23:30 · Score: 1

"This is a shame, because all of the best 3D and 2D tools, other than video, are entrenched in the Linux environment and perform best there." I don't know of any surface modeler software for Linux that uses NURBS (the state of the art method, mostly) for working with surfaces, like Rhinoceros 3D or Alias do (both Windows only).

Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 01:32 · Score: 0

The lack of decent video editing tools on Linux prevents every VFX studio from becoming a Linux-only shop

The standards for film scans and VFX are DPX and EXR. These are image files and editing them is as trivial as editing sequence numbers. There has been no lack of VFX targeted editing tools on linux. Try piranha - a mainstay of VFX finishing since the '90s.

shotcut by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-21 02:13 · Score: 0

i usually do all my editing on the command line with melt from the MLT project.

fortunatly there is also a nice GUI for all of MLT's features. it is called Shotcut. written in QT and works on all major platforms.

ok. nothing for big projects. but cutting smaller projects works just fine.

Tracktion is an awesome DAW by log0n · 2015-01-21 03:23 · Score: 1

And it's for Linux.

http://www.tracktion.com/

Re:Tracktion is an awesome DAW by log0n · 2015-01-21 03:26 · Score: 1

Lightworks is a fantastic NLE.
http://www.lwks.com/
It's almost as if the OP isn't really aware of how powerful the tools are on Linux. Or maybe isn't that much a power user..
Re:Tracktion is an awesome DAW by log0n · 2015-01-21 03:29 · Score: 1

(fwiw, I've used Lightworks quite a bit. It's very similar to old school Final Cut Pro & Express circa ver4/5 (before they started iMovie-fying it))

15 years behind. At least. by Qbertino · 2015-01-21 04:06 · Score: 1

Video NLE on Linux or, more preciseley, in the FOSS department, is lacking. In recent years there are some tools that have become feasible - Pitivi comes to mind - but Video Editing has always been a high-end specialised market. Anybody doing video editing professionally has a full-time job already and no time to programm software on the side.

On top of that, there has been a huge consolidation in the Video NLE market, with vendors and products dropping left, right and center or simply entrenching themselves in their established niche of mostly gouvernment or conglomerate funded media - such as Avid or Media 100.

The climax of this development was Apple sewerely screwing up final cut pro as they switched to App Store versions only. Lots of much needed pro features broke or disappeared without a trace and the people moved to Adobe Premiere Pro in droves.

Then again, that premiere pro and final cut where the last big players in the field shows that there's been quite some cleaning out.

With 3D it's a little different in FOSS, because we have Blender. But let's not forget that Blender is a very fortunate exception. It has a little built-in NLE and a very neat compositor, but still is mainly a 3D toolkit. It used to be a commercial tool and we managed to buy it free for 100 000€, keeping the lead developer at the same time (Ton Roosendaal). Despite being in active development, Blender still has tough competition in the professional field, although they've been feeling the heat from Blender free offering vs. their 900$ - 6000$ range of products.

What we need in video is a programm like Fusion or Shake going full FOSS and the lead developers staying with the product, funded by a foundation or something. Or a crew like Pitivi actually getting through and sustaining with their crowd-funding model and adding in all the pro features people want.

Personally, I'm going to look into Pitivi this year to see if it holds up on simple to mid-range video tasks. They appear to be very ... avid (no pun intended) and active. Maybe it's even matured further. But I don't expect miracles. If you want to do non-trivial video work today, you need tools like Fusion, Avid and the likes - and those are all closed-source.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Nuke Studio is designed for VFX facilities by im_thatoneguy · 2015-01-21 14:13 · Score: 1

Blender is not going to address the needs of a VFX facility. Having a python checkbox isn't enough to handle the sorts of scenes and needs of a feature film vfx shot in most situations. There is a reason CG supervisors still pick Max, Maya or Houdini over "free" software and that's the cost of productivity. $3,000 is a small price to pay compared to being even 10% more productive. The average VFX artist is paid at least $65,000. So if you need 10% more artists to do the same thing in the same amount of time then you're paying $6,500 per year in lost productivity. That's substantially more expensive than $1,000 per year for maintenance. Which isn't to say that there aren't good video editing applications for Linux. For VFX studio editing needs Nuke Studio is enough and it runs on Linux:

http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/pr...

In fact from a VFX facility's perspective it integrates better into a pipeline than any of the other commercial editing applications and it works well with Nuke which is the defacto standard for compositing.

Nuke Studio, Flame and Davinci by im_thatoneguy · 2015-01-21 14:21 · Score: 1

If we're talking about NLEs for VFX then the obvious choice would be Nuke Studio (http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/studio/) It's integrated with Nuke which is used everywhere and it's a multiplatform app which runs on Linux, OSX and Windows.

Davinci is also for Linux and it's got pretty decent editing capabilities now. And like Nuke Studio it also has lots of VFX friendly features like handles and solid EDL support.

Another obvious option are the Autodesk (Discreet) systems. Flame Premium 2013 supports Linux. For a while there Flame/Inferno were exclusively linux.

So there is plenty of VFX editing on Linux, it's just pricey for the most part and not at all open source.

yes, it's unintuitive - here are some cheat sheets by ciaran2014 · 2015-01-25 23:32 · Score: 1

> I find the Blender to be awfully unintuitive.

Everyone does. The explanation I read was that 3d video is complex and very different from word processors etc. and you need a very specialised interface.

There are various keyboard shortcut cheat sheets you can print and stick to the wall:

http://ostrovskeho.sk/ucivo/da...

https://www.google.be/search?q...

--
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki

Slashdot Mirror

The Current State of Linux Video Editing

223 comments