> I think you are writing from a user's perspective. From the user's > perspective, Cinelerra is "almost there". I agree. In terms of features, > Cinelerra is near-complete. Or so it seems, at least.
True enough, user I am. Though I have enough experience in programming to be at least slightly informed on the state of Cinelerra's source, and yes, it is a fair mess and needs cleaning up, but I would still question ultimate usefulness of a core rewrite. > I know indy film makers tend to lust for the "film like" judder > of 24 or 25 fps. I don't. We're not doing the users a favour > by forcing them to deinterlace. 24fps progressive is the accepted standard for film, and it is quite widely the opinion that it provides the necessary tone and feel movies require to properly distance themselves from the viewers' actual realities. It is not and indie film absurdity to want to shoot at 24p to achieve a part of what's known as film look; it is a valid concern and thing to desire. Of anyone --filmmaker or not- you are officially the first I've run across to prefer the look of interlaced video. I do, however, completely agree that *having* to deinterlace is a fair annoyance; many times you don't have to deinterlace and don't want the associated quality loss. However, there are also times when there's no way around deinterlacing --scaling an image, applying fx, etc. At that point, a high-quality deinterlacer is vital. > Interlacing is not going away soon. HDTV has 1080i, like it or > not. Interlacing was originally devised to work around a technical limitation of earlier TVs. Even with modern CRTs that limitation is minimal if not gone entirely, and with the increasing number of plasma and LCD tvs, the need for interlacing is reaching an end. 1080i is just one of many HD formats, including a number of preferred progressive. Ultimately, as a user, I can't say whether a rewrite of Cinelerra's core is necessary. As a user again however, I can say what Cinelerra --a user oriented program- needs to become truly more useful and competitive. Color correction, deinterlacing, asset management, and the ability to deal with interlaced footage, with possible exception of the last, all seem fairly distanced from the core code... -=Derek > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:14:32 +0200, Derek McTavish Mounce > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting thoughts, Richard. While I do think that Cinelerra could >> use >> a deal of refactoring and general cleaning up, I very much agree that a >> completely new base is not necessary. A lot of work has been put into >> what's already here, and it would be a shame to lose it. > > I think you are writing from a user's perspective. From the user's > perspective, Cinelerra is "almost there". I agree. In terms of features, > Cinelerra is near-complete. Or so it seems, at least. > > But software is never truly finished. Once the user is well aquainted > with the software the urge for more sets in. Awkward corners in the > workflow is discovered. Neat features in competing products get > mentioned. > The software has to take up suggestions and respond to complaints in a > timely manner, or the user base will become increasingly annoyed. > > > Did I just write "the software has to..."? Wasn't there a word missing? > Yes, there must be a 'developer' there. Someone with the time, skills and > _desire_ to do it. What makes hacking on Cinelerra desireable? > > It has to be > > * Easy > * Fun > * Rewarding > > Pick any two! > > For a gargantuan program like Cinelerra, where many parts have high > performance and timing demands, "Easy" leaves only small subsets of > the TODO list. > > Studying Christian Thäter's laments about Cinelerra on IRC and in his > wiki, > I became rather pessimistic about the "Fun" and "Rewarding". Those who > can > take on the important work that isn't easy will not put up with > annoyances. > To them it is quite natural to conclude "I can't be bothered maintaining > this", > "I can do better myself" or both. > > If you are going to question a _developer's_ rationale for rewriting the > progam from scratch, you have to get a feel on how developing Cinelerra > is. > > >> Your three suggestions --particularly 1 and 2- are absolutely precise; a >> quality deinterlacer and a decent color grading solution are the primary >> lackings in open source video software. > > I am more concerned about the lack of Free Software that handles > interlacing natively. Deinterlacing is lossy. An NLE that deals > with TV material (not just cinematic stuff) ought to be able to > preserve interlacing throughout the workflow, no matter how many > effects or transformations you throw in. Enabling Cinelerra to > do that would require pretty deep changes. > > Interlacing is not going away soon. HDTV has 1080i, like it or > not. And 50Hz interlaced _is_ more fluid than 25Hz progressive. > I know indy film makers tend to lust for the "film like" judder > of 24 or 25 fps. I don't. We're not doing the users a favour > by forcing them to deinterlace. They may not have the camera > operator skills to make 25p look good. But they can still have > footage and stories worth watching. > > -- > Herman Robak > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > [email protected] > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
