Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
github.com
github.com
Any big gotchas that you have come across or any tricks using it (special plugins, etc)?
You can version control your edits and do text operations since it's a MLT file so that helps.
Not really my thing but you can insert HTML5 overlays and animations. There's a demo on the youtube channel but it's quite "verbose" for most users.
GPU accelerated filters are really fast and I have no problems working with 1080p 15GB+ files. But that's nothing compared to what professionals use so I can't really comment on that.
I don't get this. Why is this true for the genre? I've been trying various video editors for 10 years, and they all crash. Every last one of them. I recently gave up on Windows Moviemaker because it crashes rendering anything over 30 minutes long. (Not only does it crash, it freezes Windows so bad you have to powercycle.)
I love this idea. I added the ability to scrub through the history of my paint app [1]. The circle gesture provides the direction, size, and speed which can be used to create a very expressive scrubbing tool. Fast tight circle scrub really fast and large slow circles scrub really slow with high precision. Can't wait to check out their implementation.
I'm not using KDE and had a few problems in the past after pulling too many things.
> 0 upgraded, 109 newly installed, 0 to remove and 30 not upgraded. After this operation, 289 MB of additional disk space will be used.
edit: nevermind, daily-builds https://kdenlive.org/download-development but it still needs some things installed
However openshot did commit the cardinal sin of second system effect. Version 1 was doing well, with a whole bunch of changes queued for version 2 including going cross platform, changing the UI toolkit, updating/changing the media toolkit, and a thousand other features. Version 2 has been imminent for well over a year now, and still doesn't seem too close to release.
IMO for anything more complex than that the UI gets on your way. I even learned most of the keybinds but it just doesn't feel intuitive.
Trying to do this for a recent project with anything else just did my head in with complexity...
(I guess the best i can think of as a comparison is the TED intro? where lost of different clips fly across the screen)
How about "CTTC".
"With CTTC, you can trim your video of boring dialog, and just keep the exciting chase at the end!"
"CTTC is pronounced 'see-tick', or by uttering its expansion: Cut to the Chase."
I would imagine all the heavy lifting would need to be done by a plugin or a local media encoding server. Portability and a rich editing interface would be the key features. Collaboration and version control would be a nice feature too. I am surprised how terrible the top commercial video editing programs are at simply sharing a project file with another person. Video projects really need the cloud backing the source files and version control.
All of this can be done in native applications, but imagine being able to work on a video project from any modern browser. Maybe you don't even need a local media encoder, the server could render your changes and stream them as needed.
Edit: I would love to be able to edit video on my Macbook Air and have a GPU cluster in the cloud doing all my rendering.
An NLE that checked out files from a remote server and then made edits to a text based file from which anything could be shared would be very useful though.
however, pro video files are BIG, and upload will take longer than actual editing process with usual upload rates.
More important: nobody wants to have a bloated webapp that runs in an already bloated web browser (all of them are!) and eats all your cpu power just by executing some cool javascript gui framework - you need every bit of performance for rendering.
Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
How is that a bad thing? I think that's a zero sum game way of looking at it.
No damage is done if someone makes a closed source version. They can add value and stimulate competition. More often, they fail.
Occasionally, core developers may enrich and provide additional functionality upon a permissive core. Why not look at Postgres as an example?
And what harm is done? Lost code contributions? Some have no interest in collaborating on software they can't incorporate / copy from later without restriction. It takes time to wrap ones brain around a codebase.
Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
> it's ideal for applications like this.
Ideal is subjective. Judging by the above, it seems as if enforcing envy trumps programmers doing as they wish with the code.
...to make it better for their uses, rather than their products? "Enforcing envy," though--please, be more of a jerk.
I'm curious as to what large-scale applications have you developed and released under a permissive license that make you such an authority on what others should do with tens of thousands of their man-hours.
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.
PostgreSQL is an application, not a library. It is permissively licensed. It has at least one major proprietary downstream derivative that contributes back significantly to the core. Its usually recognized as a successful open source RDBMS.
Please explain to me how it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications"?
Well, that's a lie, I'm not surprised.
Maybe those aren't the greatest applications ever, but imagine what it might be like given a different upstream product with similarly permissive licensing?
I am still seeing a complete lack of support for the claim that it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications", even restricting "applications" to consumer applications.
GPLv3 is a lot more restrictive than GPLv2 which is already restrictive.
Honestly, if had a GPLvX software and some guy came to me asking for a different license with the agreement that he would support it commercially I would be 100% ok with that (especially if he would agree to push bug fixes back to me - it would be a win-win for everyone).
How would that be any different than hiring a consultant to configure/support it in house? If you are using GPL software privately then you don't have to release the changes or the source. The only difference being is that if a whole company supported the one product they could have multiple people to work on it.