7 ms·

Olive: Professional open-source non-linear video editor

128 points by mrzool 7y ago

Mister_Snuggles 7y ago
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/ https://www.olivevideoeditor.org/
steelframe 7y ago
What will Olive offer than you won't be able to get from Blender with the 2.80 UI overhaul?
- beering 7y ago
  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.
jchw 7y ago
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.
tomduncalf 7y ago
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!
- jchw 7y ago
  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.
- davidweatherall 7y ago
  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
  - dylan604 7y ago
    Yes, but then you're using Vegas Pro.
- throwaway66666 7y ago
  For my use I have replaced all GUI video editors, with a bunch of ffmpeg scripts (no irony).
  - tomduncalf 7y ago
    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.
yitchelle 7y ago
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!
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  > 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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johncoltrane 7y ago
Isn't it a bit too early to call this "professional"?
- zachrose 7y ago
  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.
  - johncoltrane 7y ago
    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.
lousken 7y ago
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.
- DoctorOW 7y ago
  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.
- SpeakThunder 7y ago
  The other open source editors are all built on top of the same buggy library that really stops them from being performant enough to be taken seriously. My understanding is that Olive doesn't use it and is a better program. However, it'll be hard for Olive to overtake Media Composer or Premiere because stability, time, and workflow are most important in professional editing systems, so if it suffers from of the usual rough edges that come with collaborative open source development, professionals probably won't ever switch.
packetslave 7y ago
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).
- bardonadam 7y ago
  There are professionals using FCP.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Maybe in the past, but every Hollywood client of ours has switched to Adobe Premiere.
  - packetslave 7y ago
    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.
    - bardonadam 7y ago
      Agree, I'm quite looking forward to see it.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  Arguably Resolve is picking up quite a bit of momentum in the editing space as well, e.g. DR16's "cut" page.
  - 7y ago
fortran77 7y ago
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.
- gregmac 7y ago
  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.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    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.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
    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.
FriedPickles 7y ago
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 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.
- wallflower 7y ago
  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.
  - fezz 7y ago
    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.
  - readbeard 7y ago
    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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUxbfiZ_-9Y [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-only-place-you-can-watch-dunkirk-in-top-quality/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-onl...
detaro 7y ago
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227
- dang 7y ago
  Also a bit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430
dorkandstormy 7y ago
"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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dakom 7y ago
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.

128 points by mrzool 7y ago

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/ https://www.olivevideoeditor.org/

steelframe 7y ago

What will Olive offer than you won't be able to get from Blender with the 2.80 UI overhaul?

beering 7y ago
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.

jchw 7y ago

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.

tomduncalf 7y ago

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!

jchw 7y ago
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.
davidweatherall 7y ago
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
- dylan604 7y ago
  Yes, but then you're using Vegas Pro.
throwaway66666 7y ago
For my use I have replaced all GUI video editors, with a bunch of ffmpeg scripts (no irony).
- tomduncalf 7y ago
  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.

yitchelle 7y ago

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!

JoshTriplett 7y ago
> 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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

johncoltrane 7y ago

Isn't it a bit too early to call this "professional"?

zachrose 7y ago
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.
- johncoltrane 7y ago
  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.

lousken 7y ago

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.

DoctorOW 7y ago
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.
SpeakThunder 7y ago
The other open source editors are all built on top of the same buggy library that really stops them from being performant enough to be taken seriously. My understanding is that Olive doesn't use it and is a better program. However, it'll be hard for Olive to overtake Media Composer or Premiere because stability, time, and workflow are most important in professional editing systems, so if it suffers from of the usual rough edges that come with collaborative open source development, professionals probably won't ever switch.

packetslave 7y ago

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).

bardonadam 7y ago
There are professionals using FCP.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Maybe in the past, but every Hollywood client of ours has switched to Adobe Premiere.
- packetslave 7y ago
  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.
  - bardonadam 7y ago
    Agree, I'm quite looking forward to see it.
blattimwind 7y ago
Arguably Resolve is picking up quite a bit of momentum in the editing space as well, e.g. DR16's "cut" page.
- 7y ago

fortran77 7y ago

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.

gregmac 7y ago
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.
- fortran77 7y ago
  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.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  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.

FriedPickles 7y ago

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 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.

wallflower 7y ago
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.
- fezz 7y ago
  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.
- readbeard 7y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUxbfiZ_-9Y [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-only-place-you-can-watch-dunkirk-in-top-quality/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-onl...

detaro 7y ago

previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227

dang 7y ago
Also a bit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430

dorkandstormy 7y ago

"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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dakom 7y ago

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.