I also agree with this point of view. First technical issues then
Look'n like. (According to people who wants to participate) First
better ways then beautiful paths. Beautiful must be the result, may
be also the way to get there.
For exemple: the way to install cinelerra 4-2 in a folder and get it
work was really beautiful.
Simple, direct, amazing.
Le 27/01/2011 03:31, Edouard Chalaron a écrit :
I tend to disagree with the all story about the look of
icons etc..
To me it does not matter if the icons look crap. When I
buy a packet of biscuits I don't even look at the
packaging.
What is really missing in Cinelerra is the possibility to
incorporate Freir plugins or even a 3DHQdensoiser via an
user friendly plugin system or even yuvdenoise or yuvfps
let alone opencv that is interfaced with ffmepg now.
For say the denoiser under Cinelerra at best does nothing
and if you are not using y4mstream the X264 is not even
working properly.
The histogram should incorporate a bezier curve system and
a possibility to save the correction, a bit like Gimp.
Unfortunately I am not a developper but I feel these are
more serious issues than the look of icons.
On the other hand the farm rendering is great and also is
the possibility to read 16 bits TIFF files and to work on
them. I truly hope lumiera is to use these options.
Just my 2 cents
E
--- On Thu, 27/1/11, Víctor lopez zamora <elpum...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From: Víctor lopez zamora <elpum...@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [CinCV] cinelerra fork.
To: cinelerra@skolelinux.no
Date: Thursday, 27, January, 2011, 2:52 PM
I agree, I think one of the main problems in cinelerra
is its graphical interface, icons ... is antiquated,
is not very intuitive and unattractive. Lumiera's gui
is great! clean... I like it. But Lumiera seems so
far...
I think before starting to rewrite all the code, could
have been interesting solve this problem in cinelerra.
Also cinelerra's engine has problems ... and
understand that these features are a long task to an
independent project, Lumiera.
Kdenlive and Openshot have an interesting interface,
but for me cinelerra is a more advanced and
professional editor. OpenShot 3d function does not
seem interesting to do awful title, I think it can be
much more interesting for this task directly work with
blender.
Lightworks in linux also seems far away... say end of
2011, but I doubt it, maybe we have before Lumiera.
Subject: Re: [CinCV]
cinelerra fork.
From: yosep...@gmail.com
To: cinelerra@skolelinux.no
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:50:06 +0100
My
idea
is to
make
cinelerra
more
pleasing
to the eye
and
more
functional. As an
example
of
pleasing
to the eye, OpenShot. As
an
example of more functional, cutting
files
button, more
effective or better (eg the
blurring
of
the
transitions), improved
file
management, because
the
internal
ffmpeg
gives
very
bad
results, and could
support
the
external ffmpeg
and
quicktime for linux.
Everything
I say
this without knowledge, is more
of an idea.
I know
that the graphical
environment is internal
cinelerra, but
that
creates problems, I think it
could
use
qt
or
gtk.
I have
done
something to OpenShot
(an effect, but
really
did not
do anything because they already
had
mlt). And
OpenShot
is
betting
very
heavily
on the 3D, but
does not
reach
to the
power of cinelerra
on other
things.
OpenShot, PiTiVi
and
Kdenlive are based on
MLT, which
is fine, but
I
think
that
cinelerra
is better. (is my opinion).
I imagine
an aspect
of
OpenShot, with
the
power of
cinelerra, more
3D, and some
improvements, and it would incredible.
I
thought
it
not
worthwhile to complicate your life, because
for
simple
things, you are no alternatives, and
more
complicated
things
are
supposed to Lightworks
will
someday, I'd love to
try.
Yosepkey
2011/1/26
Douglas Pollard <dougp...@verizon.net>
On 01/26/2011 12:44
PM, Ichthyostega.. wrote:
Am 26.01.2011 16:02, schrieb yosepkey:
Anyone know of a fork of cinelerra. If I
knew, I'd make one.
Anyone interested?
Hi Yosepkey,
some months ago there was a bit of
discussion amongst the remaining active
devs of the Cinelerra-CV version (which is
the topic of this mailinglist).
It wasn't really conclusive, but the general
tenor was that is is OK to
diverge maybe a bit more from the "upstream"
Version from HV. There where
several ideas -- mostly it seems that active
"manpower" and thus a more
long-term oriented initiative beyond just
fixing this and that bug is what
is lacking most.
Besides that, you're probably also already
aware that the Lumiera project
is an outgrow of an attempt to make a
general overhaul and cleanup of the
Cinelerra codebase, initially started as
"Cinelerra-3" in 2007.
Besides that -- excuse me, I'm asking just
out of curiosity -- why do you
especially consider to fork Cinelerra,
instead of joining Openmovieeditor,
KDEnlive or PiTiVi (or put any of the other
promising young projects here)?
Cheers,
Hermann Vosseler
(aka "Ichthyo")
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
Here's what I wish, since we are talking about
want's. I wish some really smart programmer would
write a program that could Analise a video file
and tell you exactly what is wrong with it. Every
now and then I do a video and there is an error in
the file and I can't find it. Usually I wind up
starting over again. Most of the time I don't
know there is a problem untill I try to burn to
DVD or upload to U-tube.
Doug
|
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
|
