Thank you, Richard, for making this great software available.
I have used it for some time, and find it stable and pretty good for what I do with video.
Re: "prior art"?
> You're welcome, what's a chronofag btw.?
Like, "time eater" (chronos -- greek, fag... hm, think bacteriofag). Someone who spent one's time uselessly. :(
> Thanks for extensive explanation,
You're welcome, what's a chronofag btw.?
> not all developers want to "unite" and take over
> the world, some just do it for fun and
> because they just want to do exactly
> what they are doing. ;)
Thanks for extensive explanation, and sorry for being a chronofag, then. Good luck ;)
> Still maybe you reconsider e.g. Kino as
> a target to add a timeline (I'm almost
> exactly zero newbie at nonlinear, even
> if knowing a few folks who do that for
> living and parents who worked in cinema
> technology for a long time... so excuse
> the possible absurdity of this) -- from
> a user/maintainer's viewpoint of mine
> ;-), it's more pleasant UI both in terms
> of usability and i18n (fltk, WINGs and
> xforms all seem to have had issues with
> size of translated message areas from
> what I recall).
Actually it's considered infeasible by a main Kino developer to add a timeline, because of the way Kino works internally, it's just not designed for multitrack editing.
However, there is a certain interest from the Kino side to do something more advanced, based on MLT, a multitrack editing framework, but not much has been done in that direction, as far as I know. But kdenlive is based on MLT, and might eventually become Kino-2, who knows?
Concerning fltk vs. gtk+ vs. Qt vs. i18n, I am also well aware of the limitations of fltk compared to other toolkits, however I do not care, it's the simplest thing that works, and therefore I prefer it. ;)
If a string won't fit I will make the dialog larger in the next release and that's it. I know and like the dynamic resizing features of gtk+, etc. and I do consider them important for a number of applications, but I don't think it will make much of a difference to OpenMovieEditor.
You also have to consider why people are working on opensource software, not all developers want to "unite" and take over the world, some just do it for fun and because they just want to do exactly what they are doing. ;)
And every now and then something useful evolves.
> I am fully aware of these projects
Still maybe you reconsider e.g. Kino as a target to add a timeline (I'm almost exactly zero newbie at nonlinear, even if knowing a few folks who do that for living and parents who worked in cinema technology for a long time... so excuse the possible absurdity of this) -- from a user/maintainer's viewpoint of mine ;-), it's more pleasant UI both in terms of usability and i18n (fltk, WINGs and xforms all seem to have had issues with size of translated message areas from what I recall).
Good luck, anyways. Hope the projects will manage to find and maintain something common to share, yet decide what unique features make them what they are...
> Pardon me, but weren't Kino or Cinelerra
> projects not worth joining and already
I am fully aware of these projects, and I know a number of other projects that try to do the same.
Why did I choose to make my own? Well, because I want to have an easy to use but powerful editor. Cinelerra does a lot, but it's not easy to use, It does too much stuff that I'm not that much interested in. It's a great application, no doubts, but I don't now what I could add to it, it's complete.
Kino on the other Hand is somehow too simple for me, of course it has a lot of features, but it doesn't has a timeline or something similar to easily juggle some clips and audio around in creative ways.
And then there are some other video editor projects that were started recently, like openmovieeditor.
The thing is, projects in an early stage of development do not need a great number of developers, because the codebase can be easily handled by one or two. If too many people would get into such a young project they would mostly step onto each others toes. Therefore joining forces is not really a point.
I believe it's better to have a number of candidates, to wait and see which does best in the long run.
A more viable alternative to cooperation would be to agree on a certain plugin API to easily exchange plugins, like LiViDO www.piksel.org/Livido
Pardon me, but weren't Kino or Cinelerra projects not worth joining and already working?
That way, we might have had mature and usable software sooner, rather than a thousand alphas and a couple of betas. I think Freshmeat has an article on "too much free software" which describes the situation quite clearly...
I hope (or not? hm) that you've seen these and a few more, found something fundamental with the code which couldn't be sorted out with respective authors, and only then rolled your own -- but just in case, have you?
A framework for distributed industrial automation and control.
A simple backup utility.