14 ms·

Given the existence of free very feature rich alternatives, like DaVinci Resolve, why would someone spend so much time building this? Just to have an open sour

Given the existence of free very feature rich alternatives, like DaVinci Resolve, why would someone spend so much time building this? Just to have an open source alternative? I don't really get who would want to use this, if there are free options that are light years ahead of something like this. Or did they start this just for fun to learn?

astine 7y ago
"Just to have an open source alternative?" Seems to be a good enough reason for me. Open source isn't just about price. I don't know how I'd install Resolve, but for the minimal amount of digital video editing I did, installing OpenShot was a simple task.
webmobdev 7y ago
As someone here pointed out, > P.S.: If you want to try the free version of Resolve, be aware that features like H.264 support and even audio output using non-Blackmagic-hardware is not available in the free version (not sure about the new beta of version 16), but they work beautifully in the paid version. Makes you think - What's the use of a crippleware, even if it is free?
- shard 7y ago
  Between the choice of being crippled in my ability to edit video in OpenShot/ShotCut/KendLive, and being crippled in the choice of output formats in Davinci Resolve, I think the output format is the lesser issue. I have outputted FHD video with audio with no problem with just the basic free version of Resolve, and if I have to transcode it, the work there is minimal compared with the effort I saved and the result I was able to achieve from using Resolve. I had started using FOSS video editors due to ideological reasons (I use GIMP/Inkscape/Audacity regularly) and loathed to have my video edits be locked in a proprietary format, but at some point I had to admit that the end result means much more than the intermediate process, and switched to a commercial product.

14 ms·

Given the existence of free very feature rich alternatives, like DaVinci Resolve, why would someone spend so much time building this? Just to have an open sour

by superqd 7y ago

astine 7y ago
"Just to have an open source alternative?" Seems to be a good enough reason for me. Open source isn't just about price. I don't know how I'd install Resolve, but for the minimal amount of digital video editing I did, installing OpenShot was a simple task.
webmobdev 7y ago
As someone here pointed out, > P.S.: If you want to try the free version of Resolve, be aware that features like H.264 support and even audio output using non-Blackmagic-hardware is not available in the free version (not sure about the new beta of version 16), but they work beautifully in the paid version. Makes you think - What's the use of a crippleware, even if it is free?
- shard 7y ago
  Between the choice of being crippled in my ability to edit video in OpenShot/ShotCut/KendLive, and being crippled in the choice of output formats in Davinci Resolve, I think the output format is the lesser issue. I have outputted FHD video with audio with no problem with just the basic free version of Resolve, and if I have to transcode it, the work there is minimal compared with the effort I saved and the result I was able to achieve from using Resolve. I had started using FOSS video editors due to ideological reasons (I use GIMP/Inkscape/Audacity regularly) and loathed to have my video edits be locked in a proprietary format, but at some point I had to admit that the end result means much more than the intermediate process, and switched to a commercial product.