Linked by Paul Gallant on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:15 UTC
Multimedia, AV I've recently started a video production business. I decided to use Linux for my "office" type applications for security, stability, and budget reasons. I've really been impressed with the quality of these applications. I use Open Office, KOrganizer, Mozilla, and Gnucash for most of my work. After having such a pleasant experience with these programs I began to investigate what Linux apps were available for video production. I found a linux counterpart of just about every program I use:
Order by: Score:
Frame-by-frame editing
by blk on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:25 UTC

There's always CinePaint, the former FilmGimp which is what u're missing in Gimp ;)

v this may not be the place
by Gallen on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:26 UTC
OK
by Rob Potts on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:27 UTC

So what Linux program does DVD authoring and NLE with support for 3rd party plug-ins?

Is there a equivalent for FCP and DVD Studio, what about capturing 8mm, Super 8mm, or 16mm film?

Can I use Linux to build an inexpesive rendering farm for my DV streams?

cool
by foo on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:31 UTC

I never knew there was a mod tracker for linux! The Scene used to be a great place for computer musicians to strut their stuff.

GridEngine
by SGE on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:37 UTC

http://gridengine.sunsource.net

A lot of people are using GridEngine with Linux to build low cost, high-performance rendering clusters.

Video Production with Linux
by grapegraphics on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 20:58 UTC

I'm glad some people are attempting to do some content work on Linux rather than just programming... We need more articles like these...

all we could do is try

Video editing software
by marco on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 21:32 UTC

I know of people using Cinelerra with great results,
but it does seem to have stability problems. A much
more humble program is LiVES:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~salsaman/lives/

I wrote a tutorial for it, you can get an idea of how
it works:

http://www.reimeika.ca/amv/lives/lives_guide.html

Here are some actual videos edited with it (i.e. "it's
not just theoretical, it can actually do stuff" ;)

http://amv.reimeika.ca/

LiVES is very simple, but what I like about it is that
it is really stable. I have done 40+ hours of editing
(in multiple 5-hour sessions over a few days) without
suffering a crash. Currently the biggest problem I have
with it is the quality of the files it can generate,
but I've been working on adding support for PNG and all
the goodness that entails. The results are encouraging
(but there's still a lot to do before it becomes "user
friendly").

Cheers!

Cool article
by dukeinlondon on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 21:42 UTC

Nice article. Shame that you couldn't get cinelerra going. I would have liked to ear what it's worth from a pro user. Being mostly a home user, I'd be more interested in Kino or Mainactor. I've got kino working a few times in mdk9.1 and 9.2 but I haven't devoted the necessary time to really get into it and get it going.

I get the feeling that the mainactor port was commissioned by Suse and that it's being delayed by the imminent release of suse9.1. I might be completely wrong though.

Good ole days
by Kevin on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 21:48 UTC

I always enjoy seeing video articles, becuase Im a video production person my self. I wouldnt use linux if it was for something that was for a job. Not yet. Windows and Macs are still much better for professional use.

I say just do everything on an Amiga with the orginal VT and Lightwave! Lol. Well, mabye not. But it was an awesome system for back then. Even now it can put out high quality stuff if you just need basic edits.

Still, I fi was starting a comapny i'd go with either Avid, FCP, or Newtek's VT3. VT3 is a good system, inexpensive, and can produce very professional results...

:
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:10 UTC

http://www.apple.com/shake/ works on linux also.. need I say more

Re: :
by Marcus on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:12 UTC

Yeah, the Apple solution is not free.

Dream on!
by chris on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:16 UTC

>Yeah, the Apple solution is not free.

You actually think your gonna a good video editing system for free. Dream on!

Wrong title?
by Kon on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:22 UTC

'Amateur Video Production' is a better category.

I also don't see the point of running AfterFX inside a VMWare session? I wouldn't call this a 'counterpart' for the windows component.

Re: Dream on!
by Marcus on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:24 UTC

Since most of the solutions he's come up with were free, I think it was a viable point. However, I don't think you can hava a good video editing system for free - yet.

Home Video Editing
by Matt on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:37 UTC

For home video editing of dv streams, kino is a good option. Get the latest 0.7 version from kino.schirmacher.de/kino. Add in the 3rd party plugins like kinoplus, timfx, smilutils and dvtitler, and you have a great consumer grade non-linear video editor. The interface is a bit different to the usual timeline approach of the Windows editors, but it's a good, and stable product, and very easy to use.

I've tried cinelerra, and it is horribly slow and unstable. Although it does recommend dual 2GHz cpus + 1GB of ram. Running it on a normal desktop is asking for trouble.

Matt

Subject (Required)
by s on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:37 UTC

>Yeah, the Apple solution is not free.

> You actually think your gonna a good video editing system for free. Dream on!

Yes. why not?
Eventually, there will be.


Perhaps a better title would've been...
by Bascule on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 22:56 UTC

Video Production with Linux - Not Remotely Practical

I frequently see community developed free software applications being touted as "replacements" for time-tested, professional applications by OSS zealots. In this article we see these applications put to the test, and the one which would seem to be the crux of the article fell flat on its face.

When a PowerMac will most certainly get you the best performance out of your video editing software (The Windows ports of Avid Xpress DV/Pro perform pathetically compared to their Mac counterparts, and of course there's no Windows counterpart for FCE/FCP), and provide you with a single platform on which you can do *everything* related to audio/video/prepress production, it's no wonder the Mac continues to dominate the userbase of creative professionals... this is a realm where Windows is a minority player, and Linux is little more than a sideshow not even worth stopping to investigate, as was demonstrated by this article...

Linux Motion Picture Tools
by Robin Rowe on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:18 UTC

There's a list of Linux motion picture tools at www.linuxmovies.org. (See the bottom of the page.) Linux has great tools available, but many are not free.

Robin

Re: Shake
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:22 UTC

<<< Yeah, the Apple solution is not free. >>>

Thats where the whole problem runs. Do you want to be productive with Linux or do you want everything to be free? Unless people start changing their mindsets and quit living the pipe dream that all software is going to cost-free then Linux will stay right where it is at. Most developers are going to develop software for money and the sooner most Linux zealots see this the better.

So what I see is ...
by Kady Mae on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:22 UTC

Linux still lacks the software it needs ...

... and that VMWare's a nice snappy emulator to run the propriatry software you're going to need to get the job done.

And I'd like to thank the author for his candor on the state of what he found.

RE: Perhaps a better title would've been...
by galio on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:23 UTC

Just as an example, Mozilla is community developed free software, and is in all senses better than "time-tested, professional applications", like MSIE. It even has more history behind it, if that is the point.

Yup, video editing in Linux perhaps still sucks, but that has nothing to do with OSS. OSS can be time-tested and professional or not, just like propietary software.

Psst, Roberto!
by Kady Mae on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:24 UTC

Do you want to be productive with Linux or do you want everything to be free?>>

;)

But why would you even want to run a GUI program on Linux when you can go to the command line where all real computing takes place?

Who wants to edit video when you have the godlike power of root and the CLI at your hands?

---

RE: Re: Shake
by galio on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:25 UTC

free as in libre, not as in free beer

Animation
by CeSDEP on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:33 UTC

Soon, there will be FLash like animation programs for linux. One of the open source projects is F4L (http://cesdep.org/f4l/). Also, Macromedia may inhance Flash/WINE compatability.

Curious...
by Jace on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:35 UTC

Interesting article. Similar to my own conclusions. Linux doesn't offer what I need and want, yet. Maybe later :-)

Trackers, Quicktime
by dpi on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:35 UTC

"By foo (IP: ---.ks.ok.cox.net): I never knew there was a mod tracker for linux! The Scene used to be a great place for computer musicians to strut their stuff."

There are many more!

CheeseTracker (Impulse Tracker alike).
SkaleTracker (formerly FastTracker3), Freeware, GPL.
URL's and more trackers at http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=tracker

With a tracker alone you don't have much yet, there are Audio authoring, Bass sequences, MIDI, and such too.

For discussion and such with other Linux tracker users and developers irc.freenode.org #demoscene and for linux audio discussions #lad

And emulation: UAE + AmigaOS + ie. Octamed.

@ Paul Gallant about Cinerella

What kind of Quicktime file was it? Some Sorenson versions are proprietary. Sorry. You can however use MEncoder (part of MPLayer) + Windows DLL to recode it to a different format.

More info at http://www.mplayerhq.hu

Free as in Beer
by Kady Mae on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:35 UTC

free as in libre, not as in free beer>>

OSS is fine and dandy but since it's taken a DECADE for Linux to finally become desktop usable and the various desktop distributors are making their money off of proprietary portions (Xandros) or other value added programs (Lycoris, Lindows) as selling points ... don't hold your breath.

There's no financial incentive for any company to spend $millions to bring a pro-tool to market only to have to *give* all of the code away. They'll never recoup their losses.

The closest you'll get is some company taking something OSS, scaling the cruft off of it, slapping a (proprietary) cool, easy to use interface and adding(proprietary) new tools to it. And any production house switching to Linux will happily shell out for the program.

The company in question will give back the debugged version of the code they built on but NOTHING more.

I don't see many production houses switching to Linux for end to end production and editing until Adobe releases Premere and After Effects for Linux and it will be a frosty day in hell before they open source that code.

Here's my list of wants...
by Mr. Banned on Mon 22nd Mar 2004 23:41 UTC

I do a fair amount of editing and manipulation in Windows currently (Amateur w/pro-look aspirations), and have spent countless hours trying to find Linux apps which would let me either avoid some of the Windows hang-ups (Macrovision restrictions, for example), or would at least provide me with the same level of power and ease that I've came to expect from my Windows video tools.

Examples...

TmpGenc: Excellent mpeg editor (also does many other things well, right up to DVD authoring)

VirtualDub (and it's many spin-off's, such as VirtualDubMod): Amazing AVI editor (again, does much more)

MpegVCR: Ugly looking, amateurish looing program, but it allows you to quickly cut up mpeg's, and save the out without requiring you to re-render it! This is in itself a HUGE time saver over the aforementioned programs. If all's you're doing is chopping some commercials or whatever off a recorded segment, this is what you want, and it can save you hours over what you'd spend with other tools to do the same thing. Thanks to http://www.digitalfaq.com/">Lord for turning me on to this!!

There's a lot of other progs I have for odds and ends, but the above 3 would win Linux MANY converts if they had open-source counterparts. The Linux video software (Cinellera, Kino, and so on) is just too funky for someone to make a smooth transition over to them from the Windows world. I'm certainly not shooting down those who feel that "different is good" for Linux, but for the average amateur editor, they don't want to learn a whole new way of editing just to chop commercials off a show.

Stuff like Cinepaint is cool and immensley powerful (confusingly so!), but it's not what the amateur movie editor wants or needs.

So while I think that there are some impressive Linux-based Video editors out there, they're too few, and they're trying to be too unique via their interface, as opposed to having truly unique capabilities -Which Linux has the capability ot doing! It doesn't have a lot of the legal red tape that a proprietary software on Windows would be forced to work with, so the potential is there for someone to create a truly killer video editing app (Power and easy-to-use is a good thing!) that simply would not be possible, or at least propable to happen on the MS or Apple platforms due to licensing concerns and restrictions.

Is the author familiar with any of these?
by doggedblues on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:04 UTC

I suggest all of you who claim that Linux cannot be a professional video-editing solution, that you take a look a the following:

Aqsis - 3D animation
Blender - 3D animation
CinePaint - painting and retouching
Conform - editing system
Cuisine - DV editing system
DaVinci 2k - color correction
Fusion - compositing
Houdini - 3D animation and compositing
K-3D - 3D animation
Maya - 3D animation
Mental Ray - 3D animation
NUKE - compositing
Photogenics - painting and retouching
Piranha - editing system
POV-Ray - 3D graphics
Radiance - 3D graphics
RaveHD - DDR
RenderMan - 3D animation
Shake - compositing
SoftImage - 3D animation
Smoke - editing system
SpeedGrade - color correction
US Animation - cel animation
Wings3d - 3D graphics and more

Two of my friends are professional special effects artists and they do all of their work on Linux and that has been the case for over two years.

Once again...
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:12 UTC

...Roberto Donhert nullifies his own credibility by being unable to post a message without the words "Linux zealots".

I'm a Linux advocate, even a Linux enthusiast, and I have no problem paying for quality software - even if it's open source.

Let's contrast this with the hordes of Windows users who don't want to pay for quality software and trade warez...

Personally, I don't think there are satisfying Video Editing software for Linux yet, but I do know that there is a lot of interest for this, so it should only be a matter of time.

Meanwhile, let's try not to start useless flame wars, shall we? (Yes, Roberto, this is a message for you: go grind your axe somewhere else, please.)

Thanks goes to "A nun, he moos"
by doggedblues on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:20 UTC

Thank you for saying what needed to be said. This Roberto character uses every chance he gets to disparage the open source community.

It's interesting because I have never heard Linux users talk about warez, many don't really even know what they are, where as pirated software is all the rage in the proprietary world.

We have a culture that says sharing is good, based on the GPL. But more importantly, it says that if it ain't yours and the author wants to release it with whatever license, you must definitely respect that.

I am so tired of the mindless stereotyping. Frankly, if I were the editor of this forum, I would ban any comments with the word zealot in them.

Replies
by Bascule on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:25 UTC

galio (IP: 200.85.100.---)
Just as an example, Mozilla is community developed free software, and is in all senses better than "time-tested, professional applications"

My original comment was in the scope of applications which target the creative market, specifically in the area of video production. As far as the creative market goes, while several applications exist which target the problem domains of pro-applications, you will find no open source applications capible of filling the role of Avid Xpress DV/Pro, FCE/FCP, DVD Studio, Cubase, Logic, ProTools, or QuarkXPress. IE doesn't compare at all to these applications, which are all used for media production.

doggedblues (IP: ---.209.42.38.dsli.com)
I suggest all of you who claim that Linux cannot be a professional video-editing solution, that you take a look a the following

And which of these are you contending is a suitable alternative to programs like Avid Xpress DV/Pro or Final Cut Express/Pro? You've listed a number of 3D graphics/animation applications, but only three which look as if they might remotely approach the same problem domain as Avid or FCE/FCP. And as always, there's an enormous gap between the ideas of "possible" and "practical". Linux is simply not a practical replacement for an Avid workstation, especially considering the same system could be leveraged for use with a host of other pro applications for the same task (e.g. ProTools, DVD Studio)

While studios may be using Linux for Maya workstations, you can rest assured all video editing in these studios is being done on Macs.

RE: Free as in Beer
by galio on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:29 UTC

what I wanted to say with that is that no one is talking about "I don't wanna pay $1 for nothing!", but of libre software.

That of Linux and the rouad to the desktop, is a Linux issue (well, it isn't even a Linux issue, as Linux is no more than the kernel), what doesn't mean in any way that any OSS will have little market share.

Remember about MS' monopoly; companies producing commercial software will produce for the one that can give them more $$$.

As GNU/Linux gets even a 5%/10% of the desktop market share, it will stop being only a little player, and all that apparently MS fan companies, will start producing Linux versions of their programs/games, as they do with Mac, even closed or open sourced, and the monopoly will finally break forever ;)

RE: Video Production with Linux
by Bad Speller on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:38 UTC

Have you tried CCRMA?

They have patched Red Hat 9.0 ( etc)
for Low Latency (which leads to better Sound and Video).

Look up CCRMA on Google.

CCRMA is tons better than tracking down unresolved RPMs.

@dogged blues
by Rayiner Hashem on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:42 UTC

Note that none of those programs are video editing programs ;) Linux is great for lots of multimedia stuff, like compositing, 3D modeling, animation, etc, because the big software apps in those categories(Maya, XSI, Shake, Toonz) are available. That's not the case for video editing.

To the guy who mentioned Shake --- Shake is a compositor, not a video editor.

Time will tell
by ujay on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 00:49 UTC

One of the problems we have today is the assumption of bloated apps from Windows. Traditionally, Unix, and also with Linux, applications were specific. So we have such utility apps like a text to ps converter, a ps to gif or other image format, or even pdf. It is the combination of tools which made the overall processes work.

Now we are trying to make 1 build does all applications, just like Windows does. Is this really the way to go? A project of the nature of video editing may be better off with a new design plan. Take the process in chunks, build the specific processes to perform the function in a stable and reliable manner, and interface the processes into a main user panel. It is the strengths of the *nix platform coding style we want to enhance, not simply reproduce Windows and create code complexity of such an unmanagable level that exists today in the Windows model.

@Bascule
by root on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:01 UTC

I don't know what mini creative world you live. While I'm not a multimedia expert, none of the multimedia professionals, I know would tout Macs as the Multimedia mesiah platform.

We are talking about a system that can scale gigabytes of RAM per application per project. And not until recently, the Macintosh were abosuletly dismal, according to them.

When you talk about professional multimedia editing, you enter the realm of SGI and or Linux workstations, with heavily customized scripts and applications with giga-freaking-bytes of RAM that your Macintosh couldn't even dream of handling, at least not until the G5s. And of course all mighty Wine.

Yeah, for your amatuer multimedia enthusiasts the Macintosh platform is tantalizing, but in the real professional realm, we are talking Pixar or Disney, you'd be smoked for even suggesting a Mac only a few years ago.

Your statement "Video Production with Linux - Not Remotely Practical" is utterly naive. Because a lot of video production is done on Linux. Heck, even shrek was done on Linux. Yeah, video production for your amatuer-plug-it-in-wipe-my-ass-and-just-works producer isn't remotely possible in Linux and won't be for a while.

But I know a lot of friends in the Video Production/special effects industry that will attest to using Linux in their day to day work for producing large bugdet multimedia projects. I even know a person who uses GNOME on SGI at work. And he is a special effects expert.

Your claim that Linux isn't remotely usable for video production is completely bogus. It has been used for years even before the currently seeming Linux desktop boom. Yes, way before Macs where considered professional video production ready.(Anything prior to clusters of G5s)

Err
by Kon on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:16 UTC

What does using Gnome on a SGI box have to do with the price of bread? Nothing. Please stop clutching at straws.

Amateur desktop video production (what this article is about) and pro special effects and film production are *NOT* the same thing. The simple fact that both deal with manipulating moving pictures means nothing.

@Bascule
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:38 UTC

Linux is simply not a practical replacement for an Avid workstation

Well, truth be told, it depends on how much money you're prepared to pay. A Linux workstation with Piranha Edit is as capable as an AVID workstation (or a FinalCut Pro one, since it seembs to be the new contender).

I haven't been able find a price tag for Piranha for Linux, but I imagine it must be in the thousands...still, it's quite advanced (yes, I know it's primarily an effects/compositing package, but the Edit version has very advanced non-linear editing capabilities).

Free software not necessary, not probable
by pixelmonkey on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:39 UTC

This is one of those situations where proprietary software is bound to be better than the free (gratis) offering of the OSS community.

Would GIMP get developed as it does if image editing weren't a "general need" of the community? No. When Photoshop first came out, digital graphic artists were a niche, and some might argue they still are. That's why Photoshop is expensive; and graphic artists (viewing Photoshop the same way "hard" artists might view their paintbrush and canvas and paints) were willing to pay.

No matter how many GIMP lovers scream and scream, the GIMP, although a beautiful program unto itself, is not a Photoshop killer. Now, Photoshop has become one of those "killer apps" of computing, and so every general user feels they need Photoshop or something like it, so GIMP development will continue.

But now if we look at film editing, compositing, special effects, etc., we see that proprietary software makes sense, again. These are artists' tools--they are best designed by artists in a "cathedral" fashion, and they will cost money, and probably a lot of money.

Chances are one of the many OSS offerings will evolve into something like iMovie (due to community demand for basic DV editing), but none will evolve into Final Cut Pro and remain free.

I don't mind paying for good software, and any software developer with his head on straight shouldn't mind either. What I do mind is paying for bad software, and I especially will not stand for paying for software that I consider to be of the very basic and essential nature, i.e. mail clients, web browsers, word processors, etc. These are so basic to computing that they _need_ to be open, and they _should_ be free.

Although Adobe could shave a few Benjamins off its price tag for some products and make the rest of us happy ;)

RE: Err
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:41 UTC

Amateur desktop video production (what this article is about)

Actually, the article is from a guy who has "recently started a video production business", so the article in fact isn't about amateur desktop video production. You'll also notice that Bascule mentioned AVID workstations, which also isn't used for amateur desktop video production.

Re: Once again...
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 01:42 UTC

<<< ...Roberto Donhert nullifies his own credibility by being unable to post a message without the words "Linux zealots".>>>

Why, they seem to be the ringmaster behind "Free as in beer software all around" It makes the Linux community as a whole look bad. When Eric Raymond posts an Open Letter basically saying "Free Java or die" that not only reflects on Eric Raymond but on the rest of us. Believe me decision makers are smart, they see behind religous rants and ravings.

<<< I'm a Linux advocate, even a Linux enthusiast, and I have no problem paying for quality software - even if it's open source. >>>

So am I, I love Linux, its a great OS and I devote alot of time to it. Im also a Windows enthusiast, a Mac enthusiast and a UNIX enthusiast. Heck just call me a computing enthusiast and I dont have a problem paying for software either, but, it becomes a problem when certain people start throwing net hissy fits because they dont get their way.

<<< Let's contrast this with the hordes of Windows users who don't want to pay for quality software and trade warez... >>>

Get your story straight, a small percentage of Windows users who trade software illegally do not constitute hordes of Windows users, where you get your information from is by either participating or through chat rooms. Just like when I say "Linux zealots are a bunch of psychologically impaired, undersexed, religous fanatics". Am I referring to the Linux community as a whole? or am I just making reference to a certain number of people? Are you included in this description?


<<< Meanwhile, let's try not to start useless flame wars, shall we? (Yes, Roberto, this is a message for you: go grind your axe somewhere else, please.) >>>

Am I starting a flame war or are you? I made a perfectly good reference to the post I was responding to. Unfortunately Marcus was not referring to free as in freedom, he was referring to no cost. Well now he will try to come back and say he was referring to freedom just to try to rebutt. Oh well, do you think I actually care what you people think of me? Do I rely on you for a job? Will I ever? Probably and more than likely not.

{ Axe is sharp enough }

@Roberto
by contrasutra on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 02:00 UTC

Have you ever booted up Kazaa? Look at the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people trading warez (99% for windows). How can you say it's a few people?

Look at many countries where you can buy Windows on many streets for $1. Piracy is out there, and it's rampant.

I know about 100 people with Photoshop, only about 5 have paid for it legally. I don't pirate at all (in any media), but it's a fact.

Then you can look at the "casual" piraters who probably don't even realize it. I'm talking about the cousin who installs his copy of Windows 98 or MS Office on his family's PCs. This is even more common.


And Eric Raymond didn't want java to be free as in "no money", he wanted it to be free as in "open source". As people have pointed out, these are two different things.

re: Err
by Kon on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 02:13 UTC

Actually, the article is from a guy who has "recently started a video production business"

In fact it must be, since anyone running a video production business in their right minds would not be running VMWare on linux just to run windows apps, or toying around with sound tracker. So the only deduction to be made is that it is most definitely amateur. Maybe this guy is editing his buddies' home movies, who knows. But there is definitely no *production workflow* to be found in the article, besides a mish-mash of odds and ends.

Back to the topic...
by Rob Potts on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 02:44 UTC

I would like to use Linux for video editing/production, and I'm willing to pay a resonable price for simi-pro applications that would allow me to do this ($600 - $1500 USD). But I seriously doubt that the current vendors that produce video editing products are going to release these products on Linux.

For example FCE/FCP/DVD Studio Pro are one of the reasons we buy Macs. If apple made these apps available to Windows or Linux then we would see more of a decline in the sales of Apple Workstations. Not good business for Apple.

Companies that are willing to pay for SGI Workstations and Servers are also willing to pay 30K for the video editing software that runs on these systems. I doubt that these vendors would want to drop their prices so prosumers would purchase the products for linux. Again not good for business.

For Linux to see true video editing apps, someone not currently in the game will need to develop the apps, but they will have to fight hard for market share against those companies that are already established. This means that thier products will have to be more professional than anything out there today, easier to use, and affordable priced. -- I just don't see it happening

@Kady Mae - possible business model
by janeiro on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 02:50 UTC

what would be wrong with a vendor doing a dual licensing scheme like QT? For non-commercial use you can use the code in a GPL fashion, for commercial use you have to buy a license.

i'm not sure of the complexities of high end video editors, maybe they are chock full of trade secrets, but you'd think that releasing the core of a video editor as OSS like Real is doing with Helix. that way they get all the advantages of the OSS development model, but can turn around and sell the results to people who want it for commercial purposes.

whatever goes down, i hope something happens in the near future. even the ability to run windows versions of premiere and/or after effects in wine would make me happy (and yes i know AE is a compositor).

to your comment about linux being around for over 10 years and being barely usable on the desktop, i'd also argue that windows has been around for nearly 20 years and is still barely usable on the desktop ;)

Re: root (IP: ---.clarion.edu)
by Bascule on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 03:17 UTC

Your arguments seem to all be in the realm of 3D animation. Yes, Linux is a large player in 3D animation, and if you'd like to glob that into "video production" be my guest. If you'd actually read my comments you'd see I'm talking about the Mac as a DV editing and DVD authoring/post-production platform.

If you'd like to zealously tout Linux as a 3D animation platform be my guest, you'll see from my previous posts I've already mentioned Linux's usability in this field, and if you'd like to sing the praises of CinePaint I'm certainly not going to argue. However, all aspects of video production, not just 3D animation but DV mastering, editing, sound effects/editing, soundtrack production, DVD authoring etc. are primarily done on the Mac, and aren't being done to any noticible degree with Linux.

Yeah, for your amatuer multimedia enthusiasts the Macintosh platform is tantalizing, but in the real professional realm, we are talking Pixar or Disney, you'd be smoked for even suggesting a Mac only a few years ago.

The only systems at Pixar that aren't Macs are the ones that form their RenderMan cluster, and rumor has it that's slated to be replaced with an XServe G5 cluster. And again, that's 3D animation.

In their (2D) animation department Disney has moved largely from SGI to Windows. ILM is well known for their usage of Linux in the realm of 3D animation nowadays, but in the past when they were done with InfiniD and Electric Image... on Macs. All their matte work has been and is still being done on Macs. And you can be certain their video editing and post-production is also being done on Macs.

3D animation is not synonymous with "video production". It's a part, and can be a large part, of the video production process, depending on what's being produced. But you didn't even bother to mention that you're describing 3D animation, you used the term interchangably with "video production". Please, show me evidence of any video production house which does DV editing and DVD authoring primarily on Linux. I would love to see it. Certainly one of these companies that your "friends in the Video Production/special effects industry" has a web site that can tout their use of Linux in this field as zealously as you did in your post...

linux in film -> linux in video
by raindog on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 03:24 UTC

It's true, Linux currently sucks for video editing. I can get more done with the GPL Windows program Virtualdub in half an hour than I can with any of the Linux tools in a day, and I'm just a guy who wants to take commercials out of TV programs and write them out to VCD for myself. It's not even all that great for audio production, though that's been changing more quickly than it has in the case of video.

However, when people start trotting out the "5% market share is optimistic" and "No vertical applications will ever be free software" arguments, I feel compelled to remind you that Linux's market share in the film business, i.e. Hollywood, is rather a bit more than 5% already and that programs like Cinepaint (a more complete film and video oriented fork of the Gimp) are being developed largely by those people, not by random hackers in Mom's basement. Yeah, the film industry and the video industry have pretty different needs, but they do overlap and blah blah rising tide blah blah boats.

Also, I was really surprised to find out Shake was available for Linux at all. It does seem strange that they'd charge twice as much for a linux version over a mac version, but whatever, it's an Apple product so you can't exactly fault them (at least, until they gain a monopoly. ;) ) But this is another reminder that any video app whose audience is at least partly in the film industry is probably going to be ported to Linux sooner or later.

Anyone trying to run a video production business around Linux right now is just daft, but if the pattern exhibited in other markets over the last decade remains true for video software, it'll be another 2-3 years until Linux is viable for low-end professional work, and a few more years after that till it's just another uncontroversial platform for video people to pick from.

@Roberto
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 03:39 UTC

Why, they seem to be the ringmaster behind "Free as in beer software all around" It makes the Linux community as a whole look bad. When Eric Raymond posts an Open Letter basically saying "Free Java or die" that not only reflects on Eric Raymond but on the rest of us.

I believe ESR meant Free as in Freedom re: Java. I did not see the open letter. In any case, I really believe you overestimate the impact of open letters, be it by ESR or whoever. As you say, businesspeople are smart an look beyond the hype. They are interested in results - and Linux gives them those results. After all, they are able to look through MS's barrage of ads and market-speak!

Believe me decision makers are smart, they see behind religous rants and ravings.

In other words, you're proving my point! I.e. the effects of such ramblings (which most businesspeople won't ever be exposed to anyway) on the popularity of Linux are negligible.

Anyway, you're trying to change the subject. The point was that, once again, you couldn't refrain yourself from crying "Linux zealot." And again, that made your credibility drop to nil. Perhaps you should reflect on this.

Get your story straight, a small percentage of Windows users who trade software illegally do not constitute hordes of Windows users, where you get your information from is by either participating or through chat rooms.

Er, I work in the video games industry, and I often have access to piracy figures. Not only that, but doing an informal survey on normal users will show that a large percentage have at least one piece of pirated software on their PC (the most common being of course Windows itself and MS Office).

Piracy is a very large problem - in fact, in some countries pirated software outnumbers legit software by an order of magnitude.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Roberto, but there are indeed hordes of Windows users who trade pirated software.

Am I starting a flame war or are you?

When nearly every one of your posts makes references to Linux zealots, then I think it's pretty safe to say that you're not going for a conciliatory discussion.

Oh well, do you think I actually care what you people think of me?

Yeah, yeah, whatever. I actually had some respect for what you had to say before you developed your bizarre "Linux zealot" obsession. If you don't want people to take you seriously, then that's your problem.

Avidemux
by Andrew on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 03:56 UTC

Raindog, if all you want to do is cut out commercials from tv programs I suggest trying avidemux http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/ its fast, simple and easy to use for very basic video editing.

Re: @Roberto
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 05:23 UTC

<<< I believe ESR meant Free as in Freedom re: Java. I did not see the open letter. In any case, I really believe you overestimate the impact of open letters, be it by ESR or whoever. As you say, businesspeople are smart an look beyond the hype. They are interested in results - and Linux gives them those results. After all, they are able to look through MS's barrage of ads and market-speak! >>>

Yeah he meant freedom but guess what, it wasnt long before people showed up with their No cost approach. Basically read Jonathan Schartzes response on Open Sourcing Java and you have my views almost 100%. Alot of people see through the religous rantings and ravings of the open source community, that is how come you have people switching to MS or going back to it. Go to a LUG meeting you dont hear much technical anymore, all you hear is "switch to Linux because MS sucks" Sorry to me switch because MS sucks doesnt show the merits of Open Source. I actually looked into it for myself. Windows gives me the results I want when I am on that platform, I dont find Linux to be the cure-all/save all of this industry like most of the fanatics do. When people do '10 reasons to switch to Linux' editorials, no cost shows up in there somewhere.

<<< Anyway, you're trying to change the subject. The point was that, once again, you couldn't refrain yourself from crying "Linux zealot." And again, that made your credibility drop to nil. Perhaps you should reflect on this. >>>

If the shoe fits and you are a zealot then hey, you are a zealot. I dont call the sky green and I dont call it turqoise. If its blue Im going to call it blue. If you are a zealot and make remarks saturated with zealotry I am going to call people on that. Sorry if you dislike it.

<<< Er, I work in the video games industry, and I often have access to piracy figures. Not only that, but doing an informal survey on normal users will show that a large percentage have at least one piece of pirated software on their PC (the most common being of course Windows itself and MS Office). >>>

My point exactly, you have access to Piracy figures and Im sure you keep up with the people focused on those figures. Even tho MS gets slammed for product activation, I totally understand it. Piracy has always been around and it will continue to be around but as I stated a handful of users does not constitute hordes of Windows users. I think the number would surprise you on how low it actually is. As for the piracy rate of Windows and Office they do tend to be higher in the asian countries and overseas, the majority here that pirate think the software should be free or low cost, but considering most users here in the US have Windows shipped on their PC's, I doubt it is 'a large number of users'here running a pirated version of Windows.

<<< Sorry to burst your bubble, Roberto, but there are indeed hordes of Windows users who trade pirated software. >>>

As I said I doubt it and since you probably wont get a large number of users to admit to piracy this argument is useless. I have my beliefs you have yours.

<<< When nearly every one of your posts makes references to Linux zealots, then I think it's pretty safe to say that you're not going for a conciliatory discussion. >>>

Just because I make reference to Linux zealots does not mean that I think Linux is the only one that has them. Check my posts I make reference to Mac zealots, UNIX zealots, Amigans and Multicians. What I hate are people who try to make computing into a religon and that includes zealots who always seem to make reference to no cost software. Software costs money to produce, do you think Red Hat engineers work for free, What about Novell? Do they work for free? Most of Linux development comes from commercial engineers, IBM, Red Hat, Novell, HP, OSDL. The silent majority come from Universities and Academic institutions. It would surprise people how low the percentage is from hobbyists. Now Im off topic, sorry.

<<< Yeah, yeah, whatever. I actually had some respect for what you had to say before you developed your bizarre "Linux zealot" obsession. If you don't want people to take you seriously, then that's your problem. >>>

Two comments in a day regarding Linux zealots does not constitute obsession. As I said, I make reference to all kinds of zealots. You are 'free' to disagree with my statements and comments on zealots.

@Roberto
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 06:08 UTC

Two comments in a day regarding Linux zealots does not constitute obsession. As I said, I make reference to all kinds of zealots. You are 'free' to disagree with my statements and comments on zealots.

Two comments? You've been going on about Linux zealots for weeks, vocally complaining about how they're sending you hate mail, etc., etc. The problem is that you rarely nuance your statements unless confronted (like I just did), and so it has an inflammatory effect on discussions. So please stop. We know you don't like "Linux zealots". Meanwhile, I haven't read many of your posts complaining about Windows zealots, even though they abound on this and other websites.

As I said I doubt it and since you probably wont get a large number of users to admit to piracy this argument is useless.

Wait a minute. The figures I get to see are already alarming and you admit that there are actually more people who pirate that won't admit they do - so the actual figures are even worse!

As far as Windows is concerned, many people bought computers that had Win95 or Win98 installed, then installed a pirated version of WinME or Win2K or even WinXP over it.

Warez (i.e. people wanting things for free while they should be paying for it) is a much more prevalent problem - both in proportional and absolute numbers - in the Windows world than in the Linux world. When we're talking about millions and millions of users pirating software, I think the term "hordes" is well-deserved.

Anyway, this is waaaay off-topic.

@ Roberto
by leo on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 06:17 UTC

May god strike me down for getting involved in this..

Go to a LUG meeting you dont hear much technical anymore, all you hear is "switch to Linux because MS sucks"

Blanket statement which is obviously not true. Theres plenty of technical discussion at my local LUG, with no reference to Microsoft.

If the shoe fits and you are a zealot then hey, you are a zealot.

Last I checked, name calling lost its effectiveness as an argument in elementary school.

<<< Sorry to burst your bubble, Roberto, but there are indeed hordes of Windows users who trade pirated software. >>>

As I said I doubt it and since you probably wont get a large number of users to admit to piracy this argument is useless. I have my beliefs you have yours.


Umm.. This is not about beliefs. The amount of piracy that goes on is a fact, documented numerous times. Have you been around a university lately? The piracy rate is staggering. Do you want me to conduct a poll? I'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't own a pirated copy of some software, usually Windows, Office, or Photoshop although technical software like Matlab/Maple/Autocad is also popular.

Most of Linux development comes from commercial engineers, IBM, Red Hat, Novell, HP, OSDL. The silent majority come from Universities and Academic institutions.

So what is it? Commercial engineers or universities? Both of them can't be in the majority. Just because commercial developers work on some of the high profile projects doesn't mean they are in the majority. There are thousands of open source projects, the vast majority of which do not have developers that are paid to work on them.

It would surprise people how low the percentage is from hobbyists

You have this percentage? Cough it up.


Be different.
by BR on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 07:15 UTC

Hmmm...just a note from the audience. Something to keep in mind. Linux usually can do a lot of things, however because of it's background it does it differently(1). Part of the problem I'm seeing here is that what people migrating what is *JUST LIKE* programs(2). I'd be willing to bet that there would be a large group that would stick with Photoshop, even if the Gimp was on a tickmark, to tickmark basis. Inertia is a powerful force.

(1) An emphasis on the command-line. Tool-kit approach to solving a problem, etc.

(2) I've seen people looking for a feature, couldn't find it and think it wasn't there when it was, just not were they expected.

I now return you to your ongoing battle for truth, justice, and some guy in the background singing "My Way!" ;)

.mov file is a container not a format
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 09:29 UTC

and the author thinks he can just open up a .mov file and it's going to work?

what a tard. what's next? some guy complaining cause he can't edit a divx file in Adobe Premiere?

or a .vob file in Windows Movie Maker?

article reeks of "knows just enough to be dangerous"

next

not@Roberto but about Roberto
by ty on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 09:41 UTC

Roberto is a zealot zealot.

he's obsessed with labeling. he said it himself:

"Check my posts I make reference to Mac zealots, UNIX zealots, Amigans and Multicians" & "I make reference to all kinds of zealots."

This guy is obsessed with identifying, challenging and correcting zealots...and if disagree with him, YOUR A ZEALOT TOO!

not much usefull to be gained from this guys contributions, i'd say avoid him, and don't respond to his posts.

too bad there isn't a *PLONK* option, but I guess we'll have to do it the old fashion way...just train your eyes to skip over his ramblings.

ty

athlon-xp2800, 1gig ram, radeon9800(plain) running XP sp1
dual 450mhz celery, bp6, 1gig ram, gf2fx, running slackware
12" g4 pb, running os-x 10.3 panther

For simple Video Editing : Kino
by Manuel FLURY on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 09:48 UTC

If you just need to copy your video from your DV cam and make a VCD/SVCD/DVD the easiest way to do it may be Kino :

http://kino.schirmacher.de/

Plug your cam, record the video on disk, make your editing, choose your target (VCD/SVCD/DVD) then click'n burn, that's done :-)

Motion Graphics for Linux is a reality
by Jeff on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 10:46 UTC

No motion graphics software for Linux!? Can we say BLENDER!!! http://www.blender.org Check out the photo gallery at http://centralsource.com/blenderart and it should speak for itsself. Blender is capable of 3D Animations. If you don't call that "motion graphics", I don't know what would work.

and for those who...
by ulrich on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 13:30 UTC

and for all those who say theres no AfterEffects-like solution out there:

http://www.jahshaka.com/

ok, it still needs heavy development, but... time will come.
and the partnerlist on the site dosent really looks that bad ;)

wonder why nobody mentions this, cause theres also a story here at osnews.com
see http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4742

v @Roberto
by Chris A. on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 13:47 UTC
@ Bascule
by dpi on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 14:01 UTC

"In their (2D) animation department Disney has moved largely from SGI to Windows."

Please proof the "largely" part with numbers.

Quoting http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/05/1552255 and the eWeek link over there:

Disney's foray with Linux began in 2000 when Brooks and his team came to the realization that they could no longer afford to rely completely on their animation platform, which was based on Silicon Graphics Inc. technology. They began benchmarking Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Windows and Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux.

Disney needed support for leading commercial animation and special effects applications such as Maya, from Alias Systems (a division of SGI); Side Effects Software Inc.'s Houdini; and Pixar Animation Studios' RenderMan. When those applications were ported to Linux in 2001, Disney deployed Red Hat Linux 7.2 on more than 600 desktops. All the desktops run CodeWeavers Inc.'s CrossOver Office 2.0.1, which enables non-Linux applications to run on Linux.

Brooks and his team also moved all their GUIs to Qt, a multiplatform kit from Trolltech Inc., and ported more than 4 million lines of code to Linux.

"It was a pretty daunting proposition because we use a large number of third-party software packages as well as internally developed software," Brooks said. "But we came to the conclusion that the right solution was going to be Linux, and we've been pleased with the results."

By 2002, Disney had standardized its digital animation platform on Linux running on Hewlett-Packard Co. hardware. The company also uses Mac OS X, Solaris and Windows operating systems in its computing environment.

[...]

Today, Brooks runs Photoshop 7.0 on CrossOver Office on more than 200 workstations. CrossWeavers, in turn, has added support of Photoshop 7.0 to its CrossOver Office product.

Experts say the use of Wine by a corporation such as Disney to solve a technology problem gives legitimacy to the idea of running Linux on the desktop.


Standardized implies something different, huh? It also suggests Photoshop runs in CrossOver/WINE, which is simply a fact.

Also interesting:

Although Brooks considered and even tried to use several open-source alternatives, including GIMP, or GNU Image Manipulation Program (see related story), and Cinepaint (formerly FilmGimp), he said he ran into performance issues with the two programs. Artists also found the open-source programs less intuitive to use than Photoshop.

And while Photoshop is the program of choice among Disney's artist base, Disney is keeping an eye on Cinepaint and is even using the program in a few cases, Brooks said.


So Disney has their eyes on CinePaint. This is one of the many articles about this story...

Linux can't do movies?!?!??!?!
by mattK on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 14:45 UTC

Wasn't the entire movie Shrek done in linux? I believe there are at least a few professional hollywood production companies using linux now, it is far cheaper than SGI stuff and works pretty much the same.

The difference is they have specialized in house apps. Real pros don't use macs anyhow, they use a Unix variant (Irix, Linux, etc)

Re: Time will tell
by mattK on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 14:52 UTC

Ujay, You said what is said to little. Why duplicate the monolithic Windows way. Divide and conquer!

Mainactor
by AC on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 15:32 UTC

Mainactor from Mainconcept is an excellent video editor available for Linux. It's still only a preview verion, which is free, but once it's final, I don't think you'll find a better $199.00 editor out there. Link here:

http://www.mainconcept.com/mainactor_v5.shtml

More info about Cinerella
by dpi on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 15:42 UTC

The homepage of Cinerella states the program isn't aimed for "amateurs". Here's an extensive list of features in the program:

http://www.lmahd.com/cinelerra.html

Good read!
by Blackthought on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 16:28 UTC

I have also recently started my own video production business, and wanted to get the best system for the money. I thought about Linux, but it seemedl to complicated. I'm not a true compter geek, and didn't really want to spend most of my time configuring stuff. I finally settled on using Macs. I played with windox XP and Premeire Pro, but Final Cut seemed (is) a lot more powerful, and DVD studio Pro 2 is a very capable program as well. As a pure production solution the mac is nhard to beat. Even if you compare on price vs. performance. I am more than happy with FCP4, Dual 2 Ghz G5's, and the 23" HD cinema display. If I did 3D rendering I might go the linux route, but from what I hear most of the 3D progrms are being ported to OSX.

I wish you luck. Please write another article if things change in the Linux world. i would love to hear about it.

Huh?
by dpi on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 16:34 UTC

Sorry how can you define this a good read when the TS has only reviewed The GIMP and Cinerella while there are _many_ other programs (proprietary and Free ones) which can be used for amauteur/professional video production?

About the GIMP and other OSS tools.
by Kady Mae on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 17:59 UTC

Pros won't switch to the GIMP because:
1) no CMYK support
2) no good color calibration tools for printing
3) non standard names and menus. (I mean if an experienced PShop & Corel user can't find out how to resize/resample an image after 15 minutes ...)


I've seen some lovely on-line artwork created by the gimp, but the lack of CMYK support is what really kills it dead as a pro tool.

---
And somebody mentioned a program whose name escapes me now, it began with a J (Jashaka?) as being a rival for After Effects ... with some development.

Yeah, but a production house or in-home user wants a program that works NOW, not ... not several years from now.

---
And waaayyy up thread somebody said:

"to your comment about linux being around for over 10 years and being barely usable on the desktop, i'd also argue that windows has been around for nearly 20 years and is still barely usable on the desktop ;) "

I hear you. I'm *really* not impressed with this XP pro box I have here at work. But then again, at home, my OS choice is not XP. ;)



GIMP 2.0, 1.2.x + CMYK
by dpi on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 18:11 UTC

CMYK support is there in 1.2.x with the help of an additional plugin, and in GIMP 2.0 pre 2 (thus final 2.0). It's not complete, though. Details on the following sites

http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml
https://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2003-July/009631...
http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew?action=highlight&value=CMYK

"Yeah, but a production house or in-home user wants a program that works NOW, not ... not several years from now."

Juh, for most users, i agree. So don't see the above as an argument against this premise.

Interesting
by maximus on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 19:41 UTC

I think the article was an interesting experiment but when the author is done tinkering and wants to actually get something done then XP and MacOSX will be the OS of choice for video work.

@Kady Mae
by A nun, he moos on Tue 23rd Mar 2004 20:18 UTC

I've seen some lovely on-line artwork created by the gimp, but the lack of CMYK support is what really kills it dead as a pro tool.

Er...CMYK is useless in video production. It's only used for print.

In Answer to the Authors Original comments
by Danni Coy on Wed 24th Mar 2004 02:12 UTC

Ok I have heard quite a few people having these issues with Cinelerra - and I have just noticed that you are using Lindows (which I am afraid I don't have any experience with). Did you get the binaries from Lindows or the Cinerra Site? Cinelerra is compiled in a way that is very optimised for the system it is built on (redhat 9). You can compile it yourself but this is particularly daunting. My recomendation though is to look for Media Linux 2. It live distribution (you can run it straight from the CD) based on Knoppix that includes Cinelerra (and lots of other media goodies). Anyways if want further help you can contact me through my website.

Linux and Video
by Danni Coy on Wed 24th Mar 2004 02:26 UTC

OK I am buying into the firefight here....

1) Cinelerra IS USED IN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION for HDTV. That is a fact - you can buy a Cinerra Based solution here.
http://www.lmahd.com/cinelerra.html

2) Most Film Work is done on Linux in this day and age. Disney, ILM, Pixar, Weta all run 90-100% Linux based solutions. Disney in particular runs a 100% Linux shop This means the whole pipeline is based on linux 3D, Compositing, 2D & Video are ALL done on Linux. These shops use their own internal apps in most cases though. (some of these shops are looking at Mac based solutions But I think that desision is based on current Hardware Performance)

Non standard menus
by Danni Coy on Wed 24th Mar 2004 07:28 UTC

> 3) non standard names and menus. (I mean if an
> experienced PShop & Corel user can't find out how to
> resize/resample an image after 15 minutes ...)

Its in [Image->Resize Image] I don't know how you could get much more logical than that

RE: first question
by Danni Coy on Wed 24th Mar 2004 07:40 UTC

> So what Linux program does DVD authoring and NLE with
> support for 3rd party plug-ins?

The NLE is Cinelerra it does not have integrated DVD Authoring/burning but you can use DVDAuthor if you can find somebody who is willing to be a script monkey ;)

> Is there a equivalent for FCP and DVD Studio, what about > capturing 8mm, Super 8mm, or 16mm film?


There are drivers for some film readers I don't know the details (they were written by one guys from Rhythm and Hues if that helps.) I don't know what FCP is - The only product I am aware of that lets you author DVD's on linux is DVDAuthor which is a xml based application (a bit like building a webpage) - There are several graphical frontends available but they are in very early development.

> Can I use Linux to build an inexpesive rendering farm
> for my DV streams?

Yup -- Thats what cinelerra does best ;)

Media Linux?
by mattK on Wed 24th Mar 2004 16:03 UTC

I searched google and could not find a Media Linux 2. Got a URL?

Media Linux link
by Danni Coy on Wed 24th Mar 2004 23:05 UTC

medialinux is at http://www.opensourcelab.it you can also check out dyne:bolic from http://www.dynebolic.org/ (a simular product)