OpenShot Video Editor Reaches Version 1.0 128
An anonymous reader writes "After only one year of development Jonathan Thomas has released version 1.0 of his impressive NLE for Linux. Based on the MLT Framework, OpenShot Video Editor has taken less time to reach this stage of development than any other Linux NLE. Dan Dennedy of Kino fame has also lent a helping hand ensuring that OpenShot has the stability and proven back-end that is needed in such a project."
Openshot, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
I make porn videos. There's something about using "Openshot" to edit them that just adds some credibility to my artistic vision.
Re:Openshot, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
I make porn videos. There's something about using "Openshot" to edit them that just adds some credibility to my artistic vision.
... and GIMP for the titles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the fact that the author's name is Jonathan Thomas [wiktionary.org] is just too good to pass up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's funny you posted that Anon. I think that says even more about the stereotype Slashdot readers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But thank you for spreading the stereotype
Heh. You said "spreading," heh heh heh huh huh ha.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
throw that question at Wikipedia for the full details but in a NLE program you can do stuff like grab a clip from 2:45 to 5:32 in a 3 hour clip without actually making a copy until you are done (and this can be down to the frame level) sort of like they used to do with the film reels but without the nasty cutting the film problem.
Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (Score:5, Informative)
People were used to film and analog video tape editing systems. The simplest editing system for video in e.g. VHS was to have two video decks, one for playing, the other for recording. You had to wind/rewind the source tape, press play on the source deck, wait for the right time to press the recording button on the destination deck, etc. It was a pain.
There were more sophisticated editing systems. But it was difficult to have frame accurate editing even then. You needed an embedded timecode in the video signal. Some camcorders came with this built in. You needed special video decks that ensured frame accuracy as well. Some video decks came with a jog/shuttle for easier editing control.
Initial software video editing systems did not store the video on the computer. Computers were too slow and had limited storage to do that. I mean, can you remember 20MB hard disks being standard? Imagine storing and playing back video using a system like that. Or worse. Just not feasible. Especially when a VHS tape could store like four hours of video.
So software for video editing just controlled the tape decks. The tape still needed to wind/rewind so this was not a non-linear video editing system. NLE only started being used once you could actually store the video in the computer or whatever.
Re:clearly I'm a 'tard....... (Score:5, Informative)
All these replies miss the mark.
Before video there was film. Editing film means finding the strip of film with shot you want, cutting it out, and splicing with tape or cement to some other footage. That's what's meant by "cutting film" and is where the editing term "cut" comes from. A cut is the simplest form of edit. Clip by clip you splice together the story. You can start anywhere you want but when it's done, the beginning of the movie is at one end, the head, and the end of the movie is at the other, the tail. Shot by shot your story plays out from beginning to end on your edited reel of celluloid. If you decide you want a shot between two others, you cut the splice between the two shots and splice the new strip of film between them. It's easy to understand and very flexible.
When video came along editing changed and things got very inflexible. It is not practical to splice video tape because the image is not human readable and the video signal is too complex to make a simple noise free edit. The only way to edit video tape is to copy shots from a source tape to your master tape, assembling the video from the first shot to last, in order. If you make a mistake, you back up to the mistake and begin again. In video tape editing you can overwrite but you can never insert. Once a shot is down it can't shifted around in time. You can't insert a shot in the middle of an edited program without overwriting something. This is what is meant by linear editing.
You've edited your 30 minute masterpiece. Every cut is perfect. It just needs one thing: 7 seconds of sunrise before the scene starting at the 10 minute mark. Inserting the shot means having to re-assemble the entire remaining 20 minutes. More than likely you'll decide to give up 7 seconds in a nearby shot to limit the amount of re-editing you'll have to do, or live without the shot.
When computers came along it became possible to control video tape decks and video switchers. Such a computer can be programmed with an edit decision list (EDL), which is your entire program described shot by shot referencing source tapes and in and out times for each shot. With that information the computer can automatically assemble a video from source tapes in multiple decks. If you later decide you want to insert a shot between two others, you can change your EDL as easily as you would edit something in a word processor and tell the computer to assemble the entire video again, shot by shot, from start to finish. It's automated but it's still linear.
Today, with digital video, we can easily and inexpensively import video into our computer editing systems. We can cut it up and arrange it and rearrange it as much as we want, and in realtime. It's at lot more like working with film but much faster and more powerful. These editing system have completely removed the linear editing aspect of traditional video editing and this the reason we call them non-linear editors.
Re: (Score:1)
General..? General Ripper? :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Even this reply misses the mark. No one was asking for a history of editing.
Again, what decent editing system today isn't nonlinear?
Re: (Score:2)
1.0 ? Amazing ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1.0 ? Amazing ! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they already beat Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can only hope that one day Linux reaches this benchmark.
Oh, hang on. Just a second while I check my diary ... Oh yes, "1994 : start working in geologging ; decide to put off buying a copy of Xenix to see what this new Linux thing looks like ; prepare for Holland jobs ; get rid of lodger ; Linux reaches version 1.0 ; Xmas and New Year on the Central." Two OS projects making version 1.0 in 16 years - that's even worse than Duke Nukem Forever.
MLT? (Score:2)
Obligatory Princess Bride quote:
Oh wait... that's not it. Try again:
TLA Overload (Score:5, Insightful)
TLA overload. Since the summary is so short, couldn't the submitter or editor expand them?
To save everyone some time... (Score:1, Informative)
Deb and PPA (Score:2, Interesting)
This is pretty neat, they also provide a .deb and ppa for installing. The demo video looks cool, I've never heard of this software before but it's good to see something new come out of the woodwork and do something halfway decent.
Openshot in Ubuntu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Gstreamer Gnonlin and Pitivi? (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like the author of this program spent(wasted?) a lot of time trying to use Gstreamer as the back-end for his project but basically ran into a brick wall [openshotvideo.com].
If I remember correctly the developers of another Linux NLE called diva [archive.org] finally gave up on Gstreamer after years of struggling with it and subsequently abandoned their project altogether. Didn't the Diva developers also clash with the Gstreamer developers?
So it appears that the above developers put a lot of effort in writing Linux NLE's using Gstreamer but still ultimately failed at their attempts. Is there something inherently flawed with Gstreamer/Gnonlin? If Video software using Gnonlin as its back-end(Pitivi) can only be written by its author(Edward Hervey), Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers. I wonder if anything formidable will ever come of Pitivi.
Re:What about Gstreamer Gnonlin and Pitivi? (Score:4, Informative)
"It looks like the author of this program spent(wasted?) a lot of time trying to use Gstreamer as the back-end for his project but basically ran into a brick wall."
He didn't run into brick wall, he just felt that MLT will be better used for his project and he lacked initiative to communicate with Gstreamer/Gnonlin people (I have done it many times and I can say that Gstreamer guys are most accessible in Linux multimedia playground). Problem is also that Gstreamer and Gnonlin is complex for new beginnners who wants just drop the code and go. It requires insight and planning your app around framework actually. Some devs don't like it. Well, it's their choice.
"If I remember correctly the developers of another Linux NLE called diva finally gave up on Gstreamer after years of struggling with it and subsequently abandoned their project altogether. Didn't the Diva developers also clash with the Gstreamer developers?"
First, Diva was written in C#, which is not exactly a power horse, and it was also written in time when Gnonlin wasn't quite developed and wasn't ready for prime time. They also rewrote lot of stuff internally and in the end imho it was scrapped because of financial problems of Novell. And I really didn't saw them clash with Gstreamer guys.
"So it appears that the above developers put a lot of effort in writing Linux NLE's using Gstreamer but still ultimately failed at their attempts. Is there something inherently flawed with Gstreamer/Gnonlin? If Video software using Gnonlin as its back-end(Pitivi) can only be written by its author(Edward Hervey), Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers. I wonder if anything formidable will ever come of Pitivi."
Gnonlin is used in at least one other media editor which uses Gstreamer as backend - Jokosher. I have been personally involved in it and can say only kind words of Edward. Sometimes he is sharp, but more or less he helped with every problem we came across using Gnonlin. Jokosher was glitchy also for some time, but for last releases it has been quite stable.
And most important - Pitivi has serious commercial backing now and there are four core coders (including Edwards of course), all paid by commercial entities, to write it. I really put my money on Gstreamer stuff and apps, because of long term strategy Gstreamer community and app devs have. They are serious about what they doing.
"Gstreamer must be too cryptic for mere mortal programmers"
Well, I know hundreds of commercial coders who develop Gstreamer solutions for day's systems, like TVs, DVRs, mobile phones, etc. They must be zombies, because mortals can't handle it. Yeah, right :)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Jokosher that project that started out with a site advertising features that were planned for version 3 and yet still hasn't reached 1.0? Sorry, but i
Re: (Score:1)
Feaking Sweet! (Score:2)
I haven't installed it yet, but this looks better than anything out there so far. Hopefully it's stable and truly supports any format ffmpeg supports. Cinelerra has been stuck in the mud for too long (especially on file formats and titles), avidemux is too limited, as is kdenlive. If it's good, maybe I'll get off my ass and add a gentoo ebuild. I don't edit video very often, but I've always wished the tools were just a little bit better than what we've had.
Re:Feaking Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)
I just installed it on my Ubuntu 9.10 system and through together some short clips I had laying around and not only did it work exactly the way I expected, but when I exported them in a couple of different formats it was very fast (I tried Kino a while back and not only did it take a long time to import clips, the export was also very slow.) I'm really glad I read this story today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently I tried Pitivi to make a cheesy Christmas Christmas video. Otherwise all my experience has been with my copy of Adobe premiere Elements 4.0. I looked hard at the advantages of paying for a more recent copy of Adobe Premiere too, but it offered no advantages that I could see. (And it is sloooooooow, at least on my Vista hardware).
The workflow I developed was to edit using pitivi on Ubuntu, because the speed of Linux on my Quad-core helped make the labor go quickest. Then I exported video in a humung
Re: (Score:2)
OpenShot will never be in default by Ubuntu, and it is because of reliance to ffmpeg library, which is used by MLT framework.
Gstreamer have done this right - split plugins and do proper releases for them. Installable seperately, it gives freedom companies to release distros without being frightened by patent nukes ffmpeg will definitely attract. You said: "While it seems Pitivi support for gstreamer export would work really well, in practice I only found 1 maybe 2 useful export formats that Premiere would w
Re: (Score:1)
I installed openshot here (Ubuntu 9.10/AMD 64 quad) and it hangs at different points after start-up. Several times requiring restart of the X server. Off to post a bug report...
Music? (Score:2)
Interesting, yes.. but I'm more interested in where that music for all of the demo videos came from. The credits list titles, composers, and the fact that they are Creative Commons but no links or URLs. So are they pieces composed just for the project? Or is there some place out there with lots of "atmospheric" instrumentals under Creative Commons that are suitable for videos?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The very last screen on the main page has a microscopic (not to be confused with tiny) url: www.last.fm/music/Denny+Schneidemesser.
Flying 3D text... seriously? Designer needed. (Score:1, Insightful)
First of all, I know this is a big achievement, so congratulations to the team of programmers for getting this far!
But after watching the video and seeing the screenshots, I think this project really really needs a designer that is familiar with what professional video editors want. It looks SO amateur that I wouldn't go near it.
All the transitions look really cheesy, and the titling tool looks like Corel Draw circa 1995.
This is all just my smart-ass opinion after spending 10 minutes on the website and with
Re: (Score:2)
AdWords (Score:2)
Who do I have to suck of get my software slashvertised? Its a commercial product so I'm willing to pay also.
Start here [google.com].
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this thing support negative matchback, 3-perf or RED camera workflows? Or is it just another prosumer tinkertoy, like every other Linux media package?
Trust me when I say there is a LOT of interest in OSS alternatives (or any alternatives at all) to Avid, Final Cut Pro or Pro Tools, and a lot of money in support contracts if you were able to build the solution. But alas, Linux devs are constantly reinventing iMovie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to see them outdo iMovie in the first place. My last experience trying to edit movies in Linux was.... unpleasant to say the least, and I wasn't looking to do anything that fancy. Granted, it was HDV footage (but still MPEG2 from what I understand) so not completely mainstream but it'd constantly crash doing simple stuff like splitting up clips and rearranging them with simple crossover effects, or just refuse to recognize it at all and whatnot. I don't remember all the apps I tried but it was
Re: (Score:2)
"money in support contracts" and "Linux devs" (Score:2)
Too true, and this goes for many commercial closed-source programs. I daresay that open source - or at least open standards - is actually one of the bigger reasons for the interest, certainly in the media companies.
Unfortunately, however...
But virtually none in actual development, unless you're an in-house coder.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know, they never will add to it though. And when someone like me comes along and wants to add some glue to it to support timecode, I'll find the source a mess and several underlying architectural decisions that make the implementation impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think a solution to this is a media database along the lines of what Avid does whereby media is imported into a database and streams are accessed using some kind of query involving a clip identifier and time description. Possibly with a rate component to handle varispeed/shuttle functionality.
That would take the export to EDL/shotlist/whatever (it's been a while since I worked in professional A/V) away from the hands of developers of _user_interfaces_ like OpenShot. It could allow various export t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which software.... (Score:2)
... apart from RED's, supports RED camera workflows?
In any case, in the words of the director of "New Town killers" (Richard Jobson): RED workflow is a real PITA (so bad that he prefers to use Cannon DSLRs in video mode to shoot now).
i hope (Score:1)
the export function is somewhat working now.
always didnt work to select different bitrate etc...
maybe i can edit my 1080p MTS files soon....
Video Conversions in Linux (Score:1)
Oh good grief Was: Video Conversions in Linux (Score:2)
example command line
ffmpeg -i input -acodec libfaac -ab 128kb -ac 2 -ar 48000 -vcodec libx264 -level 21 -b 640kb -coder 1 -f psp -flags +loop -trellis 2 -partitions +parti4x4+parti8x8+partp4x4+partp8x8+partb8x8 -g 250 -s 480x272 output.mp4
Re: (Score:1)
Any windows video conversions took hours, but ffmpeg did conversions almost as fast as disk would allow.
He could've used ffmpeg on Windows, and you could've run Windows Movie Maker in Wine. This anecdote is more CLI vs. GUI, but I agree.
But does it (Score:2)
I-Frames, P-Frames, B-Frames... (Score:1)
This thread made me read up on video compression, and I can now articulate more precisely why my favorite video codec is Motion-JPEG - It uses 100% I-frames, which makes editing easy, and which makes fast motion scenes look better than codecs which use P and B frames. The only downside is that Motion JPEG doesn't offer the best compression, but it's still reasonably sized.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
``This thread made me read up on video compression, and I can now articulate more precisely why my favorite video codec is Motion-JPEG - It uses 100% I-frames, which makes editing easy, and which makes fast motion scenes look better than codecs which use P and B frames. The only downside is that Motion JPEG doesn't offer the best compression, but it's still reasonably sized.''
For some value of "reasonably sized", I'm sure. But you are including a lot of redundant information in your stream if you represent
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)
ZOMG, it's linux.
You're supposed to submit improvements, or fork it, or cobble together your own from GPL code.
Epic n00bertry
Re: (Score:1)
The concept of predictability for *nix addicts seems to be somewhat out of line with what "normal" people would expect when it comes to interfaces. Clever abbreviations and long lists of options that need to be typed in (and may be referring to the first letter, or the second letter, or some synonym of the option name) just don't seem to sink in with the general population.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately, your view of modern Linux is a Lemming fantasy that really doesn't have much in common with reality.
Good Thing Nobody Gives a Crap what you think. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Watch some of the screencasts in the video section of the Openshot website, it looks like it is fairly well featured with a not-too-steep learning curve.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, it's only adequate for home or Youtube videos/etc.
And its relatively easy to set your goals so that in a year there will be a version fulfilling them, warranting "1.0"
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
> As usual, it's only adequate for home or Youtube videos/etc.
You mean for MOST NORMAL PEOPLE that aren't interested in shelling out $1000 for a video editor?
You mean all those people that those silly "I'm a Mac" ads are targeted at?
Was that supposed to be an insult or criticism of some kind?
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like such people aren't the last to use free software OS or tools (never mind that they would be probably still much better served after shelling out $70 for consumer version of Sony Vegas...). Besides, the plethora of free NLEs available rarely have on their webpage "remember, we suck in this, this, and this, we are adequate mostly for simple yt stuff"; often make it sound like their baby is better than it is in reality - which goes around and bites them in the ass IMHO. Amateur / indy fi
Re: (Score:2)
Some windows users like to brag that their cheap NLE came bundled with their camera.
With MacOS, it comes bundled with the OS.
Either way, we are talking about relatively simple tools that are generally pretty cheap.
The original idiot (OP) was effectively whining that OpenShot was only suitable for the "common man". That's not a terrible thing really.
That means you can scratch another task off of the "need Windows for" list and it sounded like a Lemming was the one making the claim (as if it were some sort of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only suitable for the "common man" is the thing, the goal...then I hardly see what's the point of TFS. There is such software already. Worse, this one seems to be basically a one-man effort which was rushed towards the magical 1.0 number.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FCE has inexcusable technical faults though.
Comparable overall software, but without those faults, can be easily found for less than half the price of FCE. This link sums the situation nicely:
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2009/04/11/stay-the-fuck-away-from-imoviefce/ [gnomefiles.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
From my limited experience, the biggest problem with video editors on Linux is lack of stability. Cinelarra, LiVES, and Kdenlive crash so much they're not even usable. To make it worse, most of the crashes are random and unreproducible, so it's hard to submit helpful bug reports.
The way I see it, all OpenShot has to do is not crash every 10 minutes and it'll be light years ahead of the competition.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
My question, has anybody on the commercial side actually solved the problem of mixing and matching any audio codec, video codec, and container format out there? Or do they usually just target a few codecs? Kino, for example, was reasonably stable on Linux if you just wanted to edit dv video.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows solves that codec problem by having media codec plugins (VFW and DirectShow). Cannot understand why Linux does not have such infrastructure. Although libavcodec [wikipedia.org] from FFmpeg is so awesome it almost is not necessary to have plugins.
Re: (Score:1)
Windows solves that codec problem by having media codec plugins (VFW and DirectShow). Cannot understand why Linux does not have such infrastructure.
http://www.gstreamer.net/ [gstreamer.net]
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
There are really only two codecs to speak of IMO, MPEG2 (MiniDV, HDV) and H.264 (AVCHD) in and MPEG2 (DVD) and H.264 (online or BluRay) out. However, neither of these codecs are trivial to edit in their most effective form and there's a lot of optional encoding methods to cover it all.
For example MiniDV is quite easy because it got rather "dumb" frames, but both HDV and AVCHD use IPB encoding [wikipedia.org] which is really nasty to edit. You can't just cut the video stream at random points, you may need frames both before and after the cut point to decode it. You can't jump to a random frame, you must find the nearest I-frame and work your way from there. That creates a lot of complexity where you must keep a whole different set of indexes than the one the user sees to get frame-accurate editing and a lot of decode logic to get only the intended frames while discarding the extras and so on.
Pro editing tools DO have this mostly sorted out, if you're trying for the "no tool is perfect, therefore the OSS tools are as good as the commercial tools" argument then it's failing. It's not that many combinations that are really useful, it's that the few most important ones are really, really hard to do right. The decoding libs have this straight, I never have a problem playing back MPEG2 or H.264. But there sure is a problem editing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pro editing tools DO have this mostly sorted out, if you're trying for the "no tool is perfect, therefore the OSS tools are as good as the commercial tools" argument then it's failing. It's not that many combinations that are really useful, it's that the few most important ones are really, really hard to do right. The decoding libs have this straight, I never have a problem playing back MPEG2 or H.264. But there sure is a problem editing them.
Even with B frames off. H.264 is a total pain to edit in tools like AVIDemux. Best bet is converting to some other format first.
Don't forget about XviD. Virtually every device is fast enough to play back XviD, making it the pirate's choice. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The decoding libs have this straight, I never have a problem playing back MPEG2 or H.264. But there sure is a problem editing them.
There's now a library effort aimed at centralizing this "hard work" among the video editing suites, so the editors can focus on the front-end work.
No doubt this is over-simplifying, but re-inventing these wheels should hopefully soon be a solved problem in open source. (unless corporations decide they're good enough to crush at that point).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read. How the developers even manage to keep that massive jumble of libraries from bursting into flames I can't imagine.
Just because you *can* do something, it doesn't mean you *should*. Mencoder won't complain (much) if you give it mutually-incompatible options but it might produce something weird and unusable. Equally, it might produce something weird and awesome
Re: (Score:2)
I am not talking about anything illogical. Two examples. (This might seem long winded, but that's the point! What should be simple is actually complex and a big minefield)
The -delay and -audio-delay options control something very basic - correcting for a fixed delay between audio and video. Unfortunately, thes
Re: (Score:2)
``Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read.''
Woah, there is something that mplayer cannot read?? It has worked for me on so many things, both good and horribly broken, that I half expect that, one day, I'm going to accidentally point it at the wrong file and it's still going to somehow give me the video that I wanted. Hats off to the mplayer contributors, it's truly an amazing program.
Re: (Score:1)
Video processing in general is a complete minefield. Even mplayer/mencoder, the best of the bunch imho, has many, many options that won't work together, and can produce output that itself cannot read. How the developers even manage to keep that massive jumble of libraries from bursting into flames I can't imagine.
If you really think about it, the fact that anything on a computer works is amazing. At a low level, magnets read and write ones and zeros on ridiculously fast rotating platters, and then are assembled into files, which then is stored in memory, which is then passed through a video card and converted into some format that can be displayed on a screen. Throw in networked computers and the potential for signal loss over long distances and the probability that something at some point in the process will fail,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while, so I don't recall specifics, but Kdenlive crashed frequently for me. Not nearly as often as Jashaka or Wax 2.0 (Windows!), but enough to make me save the file religiously.
Consider yourself lucky (Score:2)
I have tried them all and concur with the GPP.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I see it, all OpenShot has to do is not crash every 10 minutes and it'll be light years ahead of the competition.
That's exactly the way I see it too. I'd love to quickly knock out some titles and clip some of the boring parts off a bunch of videos I've made of things like kids parties and snowball fights n'stuff, but the thought of having to swear loudly over my machine for hours on end is just too demoralising.
I'm playing with OpenShot right now. So far, so good. Sure, the tool bar icons all disappear when you re-size a window, but compared to totally crashing out that's nothing. Only been using it for about 30mins s
Re: (Score:2)
i've used avidemux for simple editing, and it worked great - that is, stable version. i tried trunk before that, and yeah, it did crash often. but that's why it's trunk :)
while avidemux isn't piled with features, it mostly satisfied my needs. some fancy subtitle editor built-in would be nice.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Is this one usable, unlike the other ones for linux?"
IMO, it already features [openshotvideo.com] everything that most people will ever need [youtube.com] and it seems quite stable, too, but I prefer Kdenlive [kdenlive.org].
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Yeah, I dislike computers in general for that reason -- everything makes easy/quick-to-learn vs. easy/quick-to-use tradeoffs.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could efficiently accomplish complex tasks with absolutely no learning, and hopefully a bunch of unicorns, too?
[Insufficiently specific] (Score:4, Interesting)
> Is this one usable, unlike the other ones for linux?
Ah, if I answer "Yes", you want me to imply the (unspecified) "other ones" aren't usable? And if I answer "No", what does that mean? Your question appears to be obvious flamebait, if you didn't mean it to be, you should work harder in the future to enable real discourse. A good start would be to actually list the names of the programs in question and for each one explain why you didn't think they were usable.
> That's one thing I never liked about linux, the tools are all either extremely dumbed down and
> featureless or incredibly hard to start using. I like power, but I like being able to jump right in.
Is this your standard "I am fishing for mod points" commentary on Linux? You didn't find even one tool which was both powerful and easy enough to use that you could just "jump in"? People here are posting that their grandmothers practically don't notice when they switch them over to Firefox from IE. I guess that means that you don't believe it's "a tool", or you don't think it is "powerful"?
A pity, since I would have classified "video editing" as really one niche where Linux, up until recently, was quite deficient compared to (what I've heard about) proprietary solutions on Windows and OS X. It happened by chance that LiVES reached 1.0 exactly when I needed a video editor to edit a short home video clip (less than 10 minutes long) and it was exactly what I needed (in terms of functionality).
> Additionally, is this 1.0 as good as the competition's 1.0?
No, ours goes to 1.1!
This question is even more idiotic. First of all, what program or programs are "the competition's"? Secondly, version numbers are arbitrary in that each vendor/OSS project defines totally different criteria as to what reaching the v. 1.0 goal means. One project might define it as "we have a rock-stable program which is useful for editing 98% of all home video" and another project might define it as "we feel our program is useful for simple editing tasks for production cinema".
OpenShot is great! Good news for 1.0 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
you obviously weren't around in 1999.
Re: (Score:3)
Allow me to suggest Sourceforge for the truly retro experience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
appearance over content: the downfall of modern society.
Re: (Score:2)