Olive: Professional open-source non-linear video editor(github.com)
github.com
Olive: Professional open-source non-linear video editor
https://github.com/olive-editor/olive
62 comments
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227
Also a bit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430
If you're more interested in the “free” than the “open source” part, Davinci Resolve has a free version which seems very powerful, and Avid offer Media Composer First. I think the main restriction vs. the paid versions is maximum output resolution. I don't know a great deal about video editing but have used Davinci for a few tasks and once I got my head round the basics, was quite impressed.
Just thought I’d mention these as they might be useful alternatives for some people as they are widely used in the industry so there is a lot of tutorial content etc. available. This looks really cool and is an impressive open source project though!
Just thought I’d mention these as they might be useful alternatives for some people as they are widely used in the industry so there is a lot of tutorial content etc. available. This looks really cool and is an impressive open source project though!
The free Resolve version is ridicolously powerful for it being freeware. BMD has been adding features and improving the package at a pace that is imho truly unprecedented in the industry.
The full version (notable features are a proprietary GPU-based h.264 codec and support for framerates beyond 60 Hz and resolutions beyond 4K (the free version does 4K) is still only 300 bucks or so.
The full version (notable features are a proprietary GPU-based h.264 codec and support for framerates beyond 60 Hz and resolutions beyond 4K (the free version does 4K) is still only 300 bucks or so.
That's really cool, I didn't realise the free version did 4K! As with most of these specialist types of applications (thinking of music software, with which I am more familiar), the GUI and concepts can take quite a lot of getting used to as they are so specialised, but Resolve actually seems reasonably user friendly for doing simple edits. No idea how to use all the Fusion stuff, etc, but seems really powerful!
Absolutely. In my view, it's not that Resolve is a $300 professional app with a free dumbed-down version—Resolve is a free professional app with a $300 amped-up version.
Many of the features added by Resolve Studio are super awesome things that most people don't need and that other NLEs don't have. I bought the Studio version for the realtime lens distortion removal filter, which saved me a lot of time on a project.
Many of the features added by Resolve Studio are super awesome things that most people don't need and that other NLEs don't have. I bought the Studio version for the realtime lens distortion removal filter, which saved me a lot of time on a project.
For my use I have replaced all GUI video editors, with a bunch of ffmpeg scripts (no irony).
Depends what you need to do I guess. ffmpeg or Handbrake are great for many tasks and would always be my first choice as they are so much quicker and easier to work with for simple things, but if you need to do some splicing together of footage, colour correction, etc. then really I think you need a visual environment to do it in above a certain point.
I can't really imagine how you'd do video editing with scripts, unless you are emulating a linear editing workflow. But then I can't imagine how it would be time-efficient.
Well, I am not doing heavy weight editing or making movies. Most of the time I need to remove audio, resize and re-compress for web, cut the first and last seconds, or splice together 2 videos. Generate thumbs. etc.
I have also fully replaced image editors with imagemagick on the cli and some bash scripts.
I have also fully replaced image editors with imagemagick on the cli and some bash scripts.
>If you're more interested in the “free” than the “open source” part
This phrasing will confuse people who are not familiar with the expression "Free Software". It would be better phrased like this:
>If you're more interested in the “free-of-charge” (as in beer) than the “Free Software” (as in Freedom) part
This phrasing will confuse people who are not familiar with the expression "Free Software". It would be better phrased like this:
>If you're more interested in the “free-of-charge” (as in beer) than the “Free Software” (as in Freedom) part
Sorry, my bad, you're absolutely right!
I had some trouble getting started with Resolve, myself, coming from tools like Premiere. I checked it out because some version of it curiously came on an SD card with my Blackmagic Intensity card.
You can quite often get older versions of Vegas Pro ridiculously cheap on humble bundle as well with all of the money going to charity
Yes, but then you're using Vegas Pro.
I had never heard the term "non-linear video editor". Apparently it means that the original files aren't edited (instead, the project points to sections of the original media):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-linear_editing_system
This is how all video editing software I've ever used works. Are there any video editors that aren't non-linear? Seems a bit unnecessary to mention.
This is how all video editing software I've ever used works. Are there any video editors that aren't non-linear? Seems a bit unnecessary to mention.
IIRC films used to be edited by manually splicing the master _physical_ film. This altered the original master copy. The development of non-linear video editing revolutionized the industry, starting with Avid and proceeding to the Amiga toaster and now to the marvels of magic that we can literally carry in our phones.
While it would be possible to edit a film using the original camera reel, this is generally not a good idea because (1) most motion pictures are captured on negative film and (2) the repeated cuts, splices, and general handling of the film that happens during edit will inevitably damage it.
The solution to both problems is to produce a workprint from the camera negative and edit with that. This inverts the negative image and gives you a copy that you can play with freely.
Watching someone editing on a Steenbeck [0], you will quickly see the importance of not editing the camera negative directly.
Once the edit decisions are finalized, the original camera negative is carefully cut and spliced to match the workprint, and a pristine "answer print" is struck from the edited camera negative. Traditionally, this is also where color timing is done—the printer lights can be configured to balance different shots and scenes as the answer print is being made.
The final release prints are usually third-generation copies (if you don't count the camera negative as a copy)—(1) a handful of interpositives are made from the original camera negative following the exact procedure used to make the answer print, then (2) internegatives are struck from the interpositives, and (3) a large number of release prints can be struck from the internegatives.
A notable exception to this was the release of Dunkirk (2017). The 37 IMAX screens in the world [1] that were exhibiting a 15-perf 70mm film print were actually showing a first-generation copy struck directly from the original camera negative.
(All that said, it is possible to shoot on reversal film, which is positive out of the camera, and can be edited and projected directly. Also, I've never edited a film like this myself and likely got a few things wrong—so take this with a grain of salt.)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUxbfiZ_-9Y [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-onl...
The solution to both problems is to produce a workprint from the camera negative and edit with that. This inverts the negative image and gives you a copy that you can play with freely.
Watching someone editing on a Steenbeck [0], you will quickly see the importance of not editing the camera negative directly.
Once the edit decisions are finalized, the original camera negative is carefully cut and spliced to match the workprint, and a pristine "answer print" is struck from the edited camera negative. Traditionally, this is also where color timing is done—the printer lights can be configured to balance different shots and scenes as the answer print is being made.
The final release prints are usually third-generation copies (if you don't count the camera negative as a copy)—(1) a handful of interpositives are made from the original camera negative following the exact procedure used to make the answer print, then (2) internegatives are struck from the interpositives, and (3) a large number of release prints can be struck from the internegatives.
A notable exception to this was the release of Dunkirk (2017). The 37 IMAX screens in the world [1] that were exhibiting a 15-perf 70mm film print were actually showing a first-generation copy struck directly from the original camera negative.
(All that said, it is possible to shoot on reversal film, which is positive out of the camera, and can be edited and projected directly. Also, I've never edited a film like this myself and likely got a few things wrong—so take this with a grain of salt.)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUxbfiZ_-9Y [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-onl...
> it is possible to shoot on reversal film, which is positive out of the camera, and can be edited and projected directly. Also, I've never edited a film like this myself
I took a film production class in which we shot and edited negativeless 16mm film. Tape held together the splices when they were screened the day after editing, never had a problem. 25+ years later, my guess is they’d fall apart if you tried to project them. I didn’t pay to get a VHS transfer made then so they’ll probably never be seen again; no great loss.
I took a film production class in which we shot and edited negativeless 16mm film. Tape held together the splices when they were screened the day after editing, never had a problem. 25+ years later, my guess is they’d fall apart if you tried to project them. I didn’t pay to get a VHS transfer made then so they’ll probably never be seen again; no great loss.
Editing film was very much non-linear editing to being with. The transition to tape based editing meant that you were limited to managed edits from source decks to a destination tape deck.
That too, but non-linear means that you are working with random access files, basically. Linear editing systems were typically tape based. You'd then have to access the footage in a linear fashion. Typically you had 2 or 3 input tape decks and one output tape deck. This existed both for analog and digital tapes with more or less advanced software support to access the tapes.
For people who work in the TV industry there's still good reasons to differentiate. TV news is still edited using linear editing in a lot of small local stations (because it's fast and cheap).
It's a standard term of art in video editing.
All of this has happened before: https://youtu.be/x3l7CpnpyGw
Maybe they meant non-destructive
This is a standard term in video production, despite the fact that the parent never heard of it.
[deleted]
So there's kdenlive, shotcut and now this (maybe more). I hope some of them would merge together so there'd be more ppl to maintain it and add functionality.
Yeah the problem isn't even that there aren't FOSS video editors there just aren't any ones that could actually replace the video editor I use for my job. There's probably a dozen semi-usable video editors out there but I wish there was something I could get myself to use as more than just novelty.
If you’re a hobbyist or just want something open-source to play with, this might be acceptable.
If you want a real professional-quality NLE on Linux, there’s Davinci Resolve. In the commercial world, it’s more known for its color-grading features, but it’s a decent editor as well.
If you’re an actual professional (you edit video for money), you’re going to be on a Mac or PC and using Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere, or MAYBE Final Cut Pro (but probably not).
If you want a real professional-quality NLE on Linux, there’s Davinci Resolve. In the commercial world, it’s more known for its color-grading features, but it’s a decent editor as well.
If you’re an actual professional (you edit video for money), you’re going to be on a Mac or PC and using Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere, or MAYBE Final Cut Pro (but probably not).
> it’s more known for its color-grading features
Can't you move this to a preprocessing / postprocessing step, i.e., out of the editor?
Can't you move this to a preprocessing / postprocessing step, i.e., out of the editor?
Sure, that's how a lot of professional workflows go: edit in Premiere or Media Composer, then color-grade the final shots in DR. There are a bunch of high-end hardware desks and controllers for Resolve that make it especially good for professional grading work.
Arguably Resolve is picking up quite a bit of momentum in the editing space as well, e.g. DR16's "cut" page.
yeah, DR16 is a huge jump forward on the editing side. Several of the big YouTubers have been test-driving it and have said many good things vs. Premiere.
I think if they had a monthly subscription option like Premiere & Avid do, they'd get a lot more people willing to give switching a try. The free version is VERY solid, but $300 just to get 4k support is a pretty big showstopper for a lot of potential converts.
I think if they had a monthly subscription option like Premiere & Avid do, they'd get a lot more people willing to give switching a try. The free version is VERY solid, but $300 just to get 4k support is a pretty big showstopper for a lot of potential converts.
The free version supports 4K (Ultra HD) but not 4K (DCI), which seems a reasonable cutoff point to me - amateur 4K yes, professional 4K please pay.
ah, I missed that. That is a good cutoff, I think. The free version doesn't appear to support GPU-accelerated h.264 encoding, though, which is a pretty big loss.
The free version uses the h.264 codec of the OS, which limits decoding speed and encoding quality on Windows. OTOH exporting to an intermediate codec and then using x264 or a similar best-of-the-breed encoder is probably preferable anyway, from a quality PoV.
The thing is, most people don't actually need 4K.
In fact, I believe most modern films—including big-budget blockbusters—are still being mastered in 2K (with UHD Blu-Ray discs being upscaled from the 2K masters). My question to anyone for whom spending $300 on an NLE is a big deal: does your project really need more image resolution than titles like Jurassic World and The Hunger Games? Keep in mind that, in addition to spending the $300 on software, your image processing and storage requirements have now quadrupled.
For a close look at the impact of image resolution on cinema viewing, I highly recommend Steve Yedlin's excellent Resolution Demo [0].
[0] http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
In fact, I believe most modern films—including big-budget blockbusters—are still being mastered in 2K (with UHD Blu-Ray discs being upscaled from the 2K masters). My question to anyone for whom spending $300 on an NLE is a big deal: does your project really need more image resolution than titles like Jurassic World and The Hunger Games? Keep in mind that, in addition to spending the $300 on software, your image processing and storage requirements have now quadrupled.
For a close look at the impact of image resolution on cinema viewing, I highly recommend Steve Yedlin's excellent Resolution Demo [0].
[0] http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
My point was less about people who need to worry about spending $300 for an editor, though, and more that $300 is a fairy big entry cost to "kick the tires" to see if DR can replace Premiere in their workflow. Versus someone who's looking to go from FCP->Premiere or Premiere->Avid and can pay $20 for a month.
But $300 is not the entry cost to kick the tires. Resolve is free! There is this idea out there that Resolve Studio is the only pro version of Resolve, but that is just not true.
I used (non-Studio) Resolve for months coming from Premiere before purchasing the Studio version largely to take advantage of the real-time lens distortion removal effect.
In my view, the non-Studio version of DaVinci Resolve is a fully capable pro NLE and a formidable competitor to Premiere Pro and FCPX. There are some amazing features added in the Studio version (such as the face refinement tool and real-time spatial and temporal noise reduction) but they appear to me to be non-essential unless you are doing certain very specialized types of work.
There are limits on resolution and frame rate, but they are well in excess of the resolutions and frame rates used by most big-budget Hollywood films.
Is there a specific feature exclusive to DR Studio that is preventing you from kicking the tires with Resolve?
Edit: I’m not affiliated with BMD by the way, apart from being an enthusiastic customer.
I used (non-Studio) Resolve for months coming from Premiere before purchasing the Studio version largely to take advantage of the real-time lens distortion removal effect.
In my view, the non-Studio version of DaVinci Resolve is a fully capable pro NLE and a formidable competitor to Premiere Pro and FCPX. There are some amazing features added in the Studio version (such as the face refinement tool and real-time spatial and temporal noise reduction) but they appear to me to be non-essential unless you are doing certain very specialized types of work.
There are limits on resolution and frame rate, but they are well in excess of the resolutions and frame rates used by most big-budget Hollywood films.
Is there a specific feature exclusive to DR Studio that is preventing you from kicking the tires with Resolve?
Edit: I’m not affiliated with BMD by the way, apart from being an enthusiastic customer.
There are professionals using FCP.
Sure, hence the “maybe”. More and more, though, it’s Premiere or Media Composer (although more Adobe except for high end commercial editing where Avid has always had a foothold).
And more and more Mac video editors are switching to PC to get higher clock speeds and better GPUs for dealing with 4K, 5k, and 8k footage faster for less $$$. It will be VERY interesting to see how that trend plays out once the new Mac Pro is released.
And more and more Mac video editors are switching to PC to get higher clock speeds and better GPUs for dealing with 4K, 5k, and 8k footage faster for less $$$. It will be VERY interesting to see how that trend plays out once the new Mac Pro is released.
Agree, I'm quite looking forward to see it.
Maybe in the past, but every Hollywood client of ours has switched to Adobe Premiere.
I was quite excited when I read the headline as the number of video editors are pretty limited for Linux. However, I was disappointed when I visited the website to read that it is still is alpha.
Can a product claim to be professional when it is still in alpha?
By the way, congrats on launching!
Can a product claim to be professional when it is still in alpha?
By the way, congrats on launching!
> Can a product claim to be professional when it is still in alpha?
"Professional" distinguishes the target audience and use cases; a professional NLE video editor that isn't done yet is different from a lightweight personal video editor that's close to feature-complete.
"Professional" distinguishes the target audience and use cases; a professional NLE video editor that isn't done yet is different from a lightweight personal video editor that's close to feature-complete.
What will Olive offer than you won't be able to get from Blender with the 2.80 UI overhaul?
Standard workflow features targeted towards video editing, hopefully.
I use Blender for all of my video editing, but that's despite the Blender video editing UI, not because of it. The Blender devs are very clear that video editing is not a focus for them, and it's only recently that Blender got a maintainer for the video editor.
3-point editing, a core part of most NLE workflows, is just not a thing in Blender. Things like transforming (move, rotate, scale) a video clip, adjusting clip speed, etc. are awkward, glitchy, incomplete, or all of the above.
Blender is crazy powerful, but it's definitely a Venn-diagram relation to dedicated NLE software, not a superset.
I use Blender for all of my video editing, but that's despite the Blender video editing UI, not because of it. The Blender devs are very clear that video editing is not a focus for them, and it's only recently that Blender got a maintainer for the video editor.
3-point editing, a core part of most NLE workflows, is just not a thing in Blender. Things like transforming (move, rotate, scale) a video clip, adjusting clip speed, etc. are awkward, glitchy, incomplete, or all of the above.
Blender is crazy powerful, but it's definitely a Venn-diagram relation to dedicated NLE software, not a superset.
The screenshots look nice. This is a segment Open Source has traditionally lagged so it’s very cool to see new entrants.
I was really excited a while back for the OpenShot rewrite, but one thing I never liked was the new (iirc similar to the old) UI. I can’t exactly pinpoint what, it just had more of a “Windows Movie Maker” style UI, and it wasn’t my cup of tea. This UI, though, looks pretty nice imo.
I’m curious to dig in and see where this project is headed. Would be amazing to see an opensource NLE working towards hardware acceleration and supporting huge resolutions well, but I’ll also take an open source mid-tier video editing tool with a nice UI and be perfectly content.
I was really excited a while back for the OpenShot rewrite, but one thing I never liked was the new (iirc similar to the old) UI. I can’t exactly pinpoint what, it just had more of a “Windows Movie Maker” style UI, and it wasn’t my cup of tea. This UI, though, looks pretty nice imo.
I’m curious to dig in and see where this project is headed. Would be amazing to see an opensource NLE working towards hardware acceleration and supporting huge resolutions well, but I’ll also take an open source mid-tier video editing tool with a nice UI and be perfectly content.
Kinda off-topic, but not entirely - are there some articles and perhaps even reference code for how to get from standard color correction controls (like RGB curves, or HSL color wheels, etc.) - into a LUT?
Use case is just curiosity... was dabbling with applying a LUT to images and thought it'd be nice to create my own with controls as opposed to downloading one pre-baked or using commercial software to export one.
Use case is just curiosity... was dabbling with applying a LUT to images and thought it'd be nice to create my own with controls as opposed to downloading one pre-baked or using commercial software to export one.
"Even if Olive is missing something you need, come back in a month or two and it's possible it will have been implemented." -- I'll just tell that to my client.
The main site[0] has some more information.
It's still considered alpha-quality, but claims to be rapidly evolving. From the screenshots, it looks like it's already fairly capable. I wonder if it could be a useful alternative to Kdenlive.
[0] https://www.olivevideoeditor.org/
It's still considered alpha-quality, but claims to be rapidly evolving. From the screenshots, it looks like it's already fairly capable. I wonder if it could be a useful alternative to Kdenlive.
[0] https://www.olivevideoeditor.org/
[deleted]
This is a tremendous effort, but it won't get me to switch from the very reasonably priced Adobe Premiere. For one thing, Adobe Premiere can encode and transcode many, many times faster with GPU and Intel AVX-512 support.
Open source is not trying to win your "business" by competing on features. Open source is about choice.
If you want a feature added, you have the ability to do it yourself or pay someone (possibly the core developers) to do it directly. Contrast to asking a company like Adobe, where you represent maybe 0.0000002% of Adobe's revenue (based on $20/mo vs $9 billion), what do you think the chances are they'll listen to your input?
If Adobe (or someone who buys them in the future) decides to change their pricing model, or drastically change their product, you have no choice, or you're stuck on an old version (if it still runs), or you just can't open any old projects anymore. With open source, that type of thing rarely happens and when it does, it generally leads to forks (and you can always fork it yourself).
It's really about flexibility, balancing risk, and ultimately, being able to get done what you're trying to get done. Even if you don't use it, the competition generally pushes everyone to keep improving.
If you want a feature added, you have the ability to do it yourself or pay someone (possibly the core developers) to do it directly. Contrast to asking a company like Adobe, where you represent maybe 0.0000002% of Adobe's revenue (based on $20/mo vs $9 billion), what do you think the chances are they'll listen to your input?
If Adobe (or someone who buys them in the future) decides to change their pricing model, or drastically change their product, you have no choice, or you're stuck on an old version (if it still runs), or you just can't open any old projects anymore. With open source, that type of thing rarely happens and when it does, it generally leads to forks (and you can always fork it yourself).
It's really about flexibility, balancing risk, and ultimately, being able to get done what you're trying to get done. Even if you don't use it, the competition generally pushes everyone to keep improving.
Yo competition is great but it's disingenuous, even borderline delusional, to suggest a video editing outfit to hire developers to fix up an open source project instead of using a paid one.
Good for you! I'm glad you enjoy your choice. I'll enjoy mine. I, too, am grateful that open source options exist, and will always be willing to try them.
[deleted]
Isn't it a bit too early to call this "professional"?
Some video editors seek to be the right tool for amateurs wanting to make simple edits.
What I take away from “professional” in this context is that it targets professional workflows and capabilities.
What I take away from “professional” in this context is that it targets professional workflows and capabilities.
It's only a target at this point. This tool doesn't seem to be currently used by professionals in a professional setting so it is not a professional tool. It may become one, one day, and I which them the best, but it is not.