Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 11th Jan 2010 08:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV I followed the hype: Reddit, Slashdot's front page, months of thumbs up on my blog and various video forums by Linux users for OpenShot. Given that I'm longing for a usable Linux video editor since 2003, and given that OpenShot version 1.0 had just been released, I naturally gave it a go, by also downloading its provided dependencies on my Ubuntu Linux 9.10.
Thread beginning with comment 403676
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: A common problem
by wargum on Tue 12th Jan 2010 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: A common problem"
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

The big studios predominantly use Linux and OSS programs in post production imaging.


And it is used in supercomputers, render farms, I know! You are talking about the super high end here that has soooo little volume.

For example, the open source nature of Cinepaint is the main reason why the major film studios and major animation houses use it, and not Photoshop. Not only is the development a lot faster (having 32-bit color depth years before Photoshop), but they can (and do) accelerate the app's development if they need a feature.


If Cinepaint is so great, why isn't it bundled in most distributions?

Post production techniques are constantly developing at a rapid pace, and every minute of the average theatrical feature film costs about one million dollars to make. With that kind of money involved in every detail and with competitors writing their own image manipulation code, do you think that the studios are going to settle for the stock features of off-the-shelf proprietary programs like Photoshop? They need an image editor that they can develop in-house to their advantage. This advantage is why Cinepaint is so much more attractive to the studios than Photoshop.


Again, you are talking about some people in the high end here.

Here's the NLE/compostitor, Piranha:


Man, this is so bad. Did you try to get it? For Germany they only mentioned a swiss distributor that has prices well hidden somewhere. I couldn't find it. This is a lot like when trying to buy other super high end and super expensive software like Maya.

Another big advantage of Linux NLEs over FCP: one can change to a darker theme so that the OS's window elements aren't glaring into one's eyeballs in a dark edit bay.


Yeah, whatever...

What's wrong with Ardour? ... Blender? Both are incredibly powerful programs.


Ardour is NOT a fully featured DAW like Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase etc. It has nothing to offer for MIDI.

Blender's UI is very very difficult to learn. I tried it myself, now I use Cinema 4D. I bought it and never regretted! Blender was originally proprietary commercial software. If it were better, they wouldn't be out of business by now.

GIMP is better than Photoshop in many ways. First of all, it's easier to use.

It's hard to find people like you these days. GIMP's GUI is awkward, that's common sense.

... Try that with your proprietary software!

Why would anybody do that? You travel with your laptop which contains all the software you need. Period.

I can do the same with Ardour, Blender and probably with Ant and Piranha.

The question is just: Is time worth anything to you? I mean if mentioned OSS would be all that great, why would anybody still buy software? The answer is: You glorify OSS like there is no tomorrow. But as I said, when you look a little deeper, you find problems in the OSS 'alternatives'.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: A common problem
by spiderman on Tue 12th Jan 2010 10:08 in reply to "RE[2]: A common problem"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


Blender's UI is very very difficult to learn. I tried it myself, now I use Cinema 4D. I bought it and never regretted!

Blender's UI is the most productive interface on the market. It's not difficult to learn but it takes time, yes. When you master it, you can be more productive than on any other 3D modeling software. Put one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse and learn the shortcuts.

Edited 2010-01-12 10:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: A common problem
by wargum on Tue 12th Jan 2010 12:25 in reply to "RE[3]: A common problem"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Sorry, but have you ever used something different? I, at least, used Maya, Lightwave, C4D and tried Blender. If you use this type of software you'll always have to use shortcuts a lot. And I do. So no argument here.

And if Blender is so awesome to use, why are the developers changing everything for 2.6 ??? They are a lot more honest than you are.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: A common problem
by tupp on Tue 12th Jan 2010 11:23 in reply to "RE[2]: A common problem"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

You are talking about the super high end here that has soooo little volume.

The OP of this sub-thread was trying to suggest that Linux media software is inferior. Of course, as you admit, Linux software is quite the opposite -- high end. The OP didn't make any assertions regarding the volume of users.


If Cinepaint is so great, why isn't it bundled in most distributions?

It is bundled with a many of them, and it is certainly in all of the major repositories.


This advantage is why Cinepaint is so much more attractive to the studios than Photoshop.
Again, you are talking about some people in the high end here.

Exactly. Linux software is much better!


Man, this is so bad. Did you try to get it? For Germany they only mentioned a swiss distributor that has prices well hidden somewhere. I couldn't find it. This is a lot like when trying to buy other super high end and super expensive software like Maya.

No... This is very, very good. Yes, Piranha is super high end -- $200,000+. Ant is probably less expensive, maybe $10,000-$15,000.


one can change to a darker theme so that the OS's window elements aren't glaring into one's eyeballs in a dark edit bay.
Yeah, whatever...

I guess some of us haven't been in very many edit bays.


Ardour is NOT a fully featured DAW like Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase etc. It has nothing to offer for MIDI.

Actually, I appears that it already has some MIDI functionality and in that regard is developing fast. Is that all?


Blender's UI is very very difficult to learn... I tried it myself, now I use Cinema 4D. I bought it and never regretted! Blender was originally proprietary commercial software. If it were better, they wouldn't be out of business by now.

I have used Blender a little and had no problem with the UI.

A lot of things can force a company out of business, even if the company has a great product. It happens all the time.


It's hard to find people like you these days.

On the other hand, it's very easy to find people like you, but perhaps we should refrain from personal remarks.


GIMP's GUI is awkward, that's common sense.

That is not common sense -- that is a common myth.

Specific examples, please.


Why would anybody do that? You travel with your laptop which contains all the software you need. Period.

Ummm, maybe they don't have a laptop. Or maybe, they don't want to carry a laptop. Or perhaps they are traveling to a location where there is a computer which is more powerful than one's laptop, so it would be easier/faster to use the live CD/USB, etc.

There many reasons why people currently use live CD/USBs. Period.


The question is just: Is time worth anything to you? I mean if mentioned OSS would be all that great, why would anybody still buy software? The answer is: You glorify OSS like there is no tomorrow. But as I said, when you look a little deeper, you find problems in the OSS 'alternatives'.

Again, with the personal remarks!

Time is worth much to me, and I save a lot of it by using Linux/OSS and by not having to constantly endure ignoramuses who pose questions and then follow-up with feeble and unrelated insults.

If your time is so important, why are you wasting it on inferior software, such as FCP? -- spend the money and get Ant!

You have only named one concrete OSS problem -- Ardour's temporary lack of MIDI functionality. You are going to have to come up with more examples than that one, if you expect to characterize Linux and OSS as "problematic."

By the way, there is no 64-bit Photoshop functionality on the Mac platform, so that cancels out your point about Ardour and MIDI.

Edited 2010-01-12 11:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: A common problem
by wargum on Tue 12th Jan 2010 17:03 in reply to "RE[3]: A common problem"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

The OP of this sub-thread was trying to suggest that Linux media software is inferior. Of course, as you admit, Linux software is quite the opposite -- high end. The OP didn't make any assertions regarding the volume of users.


So there is a NLE for Linux for the cost of a new car. I didn't know that, you score. I should have made clearer that I don't talk about the ultra high end but something that an average joe or prosumer/hobbyist can buy.

"If Cinepaint is so great, why isn't it bundled in most distributions?

It is bundled with a many of them, and it is certainly in all of the major repositories.
"

Really? Correct me if I missed something, but what I found out is that it is very difficult do get a package for a current distribution. Even specialized ones like UbuntuStudio lack Cinepaint. This is a quote from their website, that explains why:
CinePaint was removed from Debian lenny (testing) because Debian has dropped support for GTK1. CinePaint GTK2 exists and Debian packaging work is being done by Aedan Kelly. Experimental debs are [u]here.[/u]

So to me it looks like it is all a big mess right now. But again, correct me if I am wrong.

No... This is very, very good. Yes, Piranha is super high end -- $200,000+. Ant is probably less expensive, maybe $10,000-$15,000.

Talking about niches... See my comment above.

"Ardour is NOT a fully featured DAW like Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase etc. It has nothing to offer for MIDI.

Actually, I appears that it already has some MIDI functionality and in that regard is developing fast. Is that all?
"
I wait another 3 years and then look at it again. Meanwhile, I do some music with Logic Pro and all these Plug-Ins.

"GIMP's GUI is awkward, that's common sense.

That is not common sense -- that is a common myth.

Specific examples, please.
"
For me, the most annoying thing are the free floating windows. But the last thing I heard is that they implement an MDI for the next major version. I am glad Adobe recently changed PSE to MDI on the Mac, too.

Ummm, maybe they don't have a laptop.

A software for the cost of a car and then no money for a laptop?

Or maybe, they don't want to carry a laptop. Or perhaps they are traveling to a location where there is a computer which is more powerful than one's laptop, so it would be easier/faster to use the live CD/USB, etc.

This all seems so made up by you. How can you know that the Live CD will work on a different computer? And what if you need some more/different drivers? Again, looks made up. For me, the only use cases for Live CDs are 'safer' internet access, or administrative tasks like repair file systems, recover/save data and virus search.

If your time is so important, why are you wasting it on inferior software, such as FCP? -- spend the money and get Ant!

I wonder how so many people can produce awesome results with FCP, Premiere or AVID products.

I don't do much video editing, iMovie is fine for my needs.

You have only named one concrete OSS problem -- Ardour's temporary lack of MIDI functionality. You are going to have to come up with more examples than that one, if you expect to characterize Linux and OSS as "problematic."


Huh? You should have read my original post and name some other products other than a NLE for the cost of a new car. GIMP is debatable, Cinepaint seems to be a bad example, as mentioned above. There is no such thing as Cubase. What about DVD authoring? What about a decent video editor for the rest of us? What if you hate Blender's UI or?

By the way, there is no 64-bit Photoshop functionality on the Mac platform, so that cancels out your point about Ardour and MIDI.

What can't be done with PS 32 bit? And that will probably change this year with the release of CS5. Premiere will be fully 64 bit, too and come with the awesome looking Mercury Playback Engine. Of course it'll be much less than $10,000.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: A common problem
by sorpigal on Fri 15th Jan 2010 23:41 in reply to "RE[2]: A common problem"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"GIMP is better than Photoshop in many ways. First of all, it's easier to use.

It's hard to find people like you these days. GIMP's GUI is awkward, that's common sense.
"

No, it isn't. GIMP's UI is extremely, let me emphasize, extremely good. It was generally well thought out, it has been extensively tested and it is structured such that the user can work quickly and productively. Compared to the total junk that is photoshop... there is just no comparison.

The problem the GIMP has is that it is *unusual* and most people don't care for that. The people who stand the most to benefit from the great GIMP UI are the people least likely to use the GIMP: professionals. I say they are least likely to use it not because it's a bad UI, but primarily because professionals normally learn Photoshop *first*. Once you are used to that it is very hard to unlearn and relearn. Sit a pro-Photoshop guy down in front of the GIMP and he will be begging to go back to Photoshop within hours simply because it doesn't work as he expects it to, because it is not Photoshop and that is all he knows.

The second reason professionals, those who stick it out and learn how to use the GIMPs UI to their advantage, don't use the GIMP is an example of the same sad story we find in a lot of F/OSS projects: features. Photoshop has a lot of things it supports or can do that the GIMP can't (yet) do. For most users these specific features don't matter at all, but for the professional who needs them they are essential.

Criticisms of the GIMP which complain of lacking features or slow development are often legitimate. Sometimes a complaint of a lack of feature is invalid because the feature is there but it simply is called something else and was not discovered by the one who complained. Otherwise, such complaints are fine.

The people who primarily complain about the GIMP are Joe-Average-Amateur-Nobody who has his warzed copy of Photoshop, or bought it to fix red eye or add lens flare effects. These people complain about the UI, because it's different and not familiar. They don't use Photoshop (or the GIMP) enough to appreciate what they have.

This is you. Congratulations.

Sadly, the GIMP developers are gradually cracking under the pressure from the vocal majority of idiots who don't know what they're talking about. They have slowly introduced UI changes which make the GIMP more like Photoshop, sometimes at the expense of usability. If only there were another GTK image editor which would serve the needs of this class of loser! The GIMP would soldier on without such harmful interference.

The day the GIMP starts defaulting to one-big-window will be a sad day indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 2