4 ms·

I can see Illustrator and Photoshop running on a browser but I doubt we'll see After Effects and Premiere on WASM any time soon. IMO the solution will probably

by pier25 5y ago

I can see Illustrator and Photoshop running on a browser but I doubt we'll see After Effects and Premiere on WASM any time soon. IMO the solution will probably be a combination of browser based UI and cloud based processing. The drawback of this approach is that the server would need to host the project files.

thegoleffect 5y ago
An offline-first web version of AE/Prem is what we're working on @ Vidbase. Internally, it works today better than the desktop apps imo. Others are working on similar tools as well.
matsemann 5y ago
I'd actually like that. Like running a jupyter notebook on a beefy server somewhere. Biggest issue is probably that one still needs to be able to quickly seek in the movie, and watch rendered results in correct resolution without too much delay/downloading. But that delay could in practice end up being shorter if the server is faster at rendering.
BuildTheRobots 5y ago
Somewhat tangential, but if people are looking for an After Effects / Premiere alternative, I highly recommend Davinci Resolve. I can only really speak to the editing, but it seems leaps ahead of premier in a lot of ways. Very quick for scrubbing through 4k footage (even the free version) and far more intelligence when it comes to certain jobs (eg throw a folder of RAW photos in there to make a hyperlapse and it'll recognise them as a sequence and let you treat it as video). The free version contains 90% of the features and is completely free - even for commercial use. The studio version is a one-off £250 (two seats) with free major and minor updates for life. It ran on Linux before it could even run on Windows and has just been optimised for M1 Macs. Considering Adobe wants £238/year just for Premier (editing) or £600/year for the whole suite if I want After Effects (Resolve has "Fusion" built in for sfx, though admittedly the CS suite has far more to it than just that), for my uses it seemed like a no-brainer. And I got a free editor keyboard (£250 retail) when I bought the license. My only annoyance is that Premier is so ubiquitous that you can need a license to be able to open projects from other editors. And that also requires you're all on the same version as the file format gets bumped every version (infuriating if you've deliberately stayed a version behind because it runs better on your older hardware). I find it quite ironic as the two big Premier users (companies) I know will do their final cut in Premier, render it and then throw it to a colourist who imports their final video into Davinci for colour grading anyway. One of them already has plans to transition across for the edit, but as they have decades of combined experience working with Premier, it's a difficult if not dangerous decision to deliberately loose productivity whilst people retrain. If you're just starting out, especially at home or in a small team, then the idea of starting with Premier seems crazy.
- jon-wood 5y ago
  Second the recommendation for Resolve, just be aware it's the gateway drug to an expensive BlackMagic hardware habit.
  - nereye 5y ago
    For anybody thinking of getting the Davinci Resolve Studio (full version), you can buy the hardware editor (Davinci Resolve Speed Editor) and get Studio for free. The hardware is the same price as buying Studio on its own so it seems a no-brainer.
okhobb 5y ago
There is a YC W22 company hoping to do just that: https://ozone.tech/ https://ozone.tech/
lepouet 5y ago
Even for pro photographers, i doubt my 250Mb RAW images and 2-4Gb PSD files would be great to edit on the web...
bjano 5y ago
WebCodecs is available since the latest Chrome, so it is now possible to use hardware accelerated codecs from the browser. Instead of uploading & downloading GBs of data and paying for someone else's processing power, you can do everything locally as long as you don't mind a few limitations. I am working on a project using this approach: https://vidmix.app https://vidmix.app (still plenty of minor bugs, I was planning for a proper Show HN soon) Also because both the preview and the rendering is done with WebGL the result is guaranteed to match what you see while editing, unlike with some cloud-based editors where a different stack on the rendering backend is trying to replicate what the browser is doing with js+css

by pier25 5y ago

thegoleffect 5y ago

An offline-first web version of AE/Prem is what we're working on @ Vidbase. Internally, it works today better than the desktop apps imo. Others are working on similar tools as well.

matsemann 5y ago

I'd actually like that. Like running a jupyter notebook on a beefy server somewhere. Biggest issue is probably that one still needs to be able to quickly seek in the movie, and watch rendered results in correct resolution without too much delay/downloading. But that delay could in practice end up being shorter if the server is faster at rendering.

BuildTheRobots 5y ago

Somewhat tangential, but if people are looking for an After Effects / Premiere alternative, I highly recommend Davinci Resolve. I can only really speak to the editing, but it seems leaps ahead of premier in a lot of ways. Very quick for scrubbing through 4k footage (even the free version) and far more intelligence when it comes to certain jobs (eg throw a folder of RAW photos in there to make a hyperlapse and it'll recognise them as a sequence and let you treat it as video). The free version contains 90% of the features and is completely free - even for commercial use. The studio version is a one-off £250 (two seats) with free major and minor updates for life. It ran on Linux before it could even run on Windows and has just been optimised for M1 Macs. Considering Adobe wants £238/year just for Premier (editing) or £600/year for the whole suite if I want After Effects (Resolve has "Fusion" built in for sfx, though admittedly the CS suite has far more to it than just that), for my uses it seemed like a no-brainer. And I got a free editor keyboard (£250 retail) when I bought the license. My only annoyance is that Premier is so ubiquitous that you can need a license to be able to open projects from other editors. And that also requires you're all on the same version as the file format gets bumped every version (infuriating if you've deliberately stayed a version behind because it runs better on your older hardware). I find it quite ironic as the two big Premier users (companies) I know will do their final cut in Premier, render it and then throw it to a colourist who imports their final video into Davinci for colour grading anyway. One of them already has plans to transition across for the edit, but as they have decades of combined experience working with Premier, it's a difficult if not dangerous decision to deliberately loose productivity whilst people retrain. If you're just starting out, especially at home or in a small team, then the idea of starting with Premier seems crazy.

jon-wood 5y ago
Second the recommendation for Resolve, just be aware it's the gateway drug to an expensive BlackMagic hardware habit.
- nereye 5y ago
  For anybody thinking of getting the Davinci Resolve Studio (full version), you can buy the hardware editor (Davinci Resolve Speed Editor) and get Studio for free. The hardware is the same price as buying Studio on its own so it seems a no-brainer.

okhobb 5y ago

There is a YC W22 company hoping to do just that: https://ozone.tech/ https://ozone.tech/

lepouet 5y ago

Even for pro photographers, i doubt my 250Mb RAW images and 2-4Gb PSD files would be great to edit on the web...

bjano 5y ago

WebCodecs is available since the latest Chrome, so it is now possible to use hardware accelerated codecs from the browser. Instead of uploading & downloading GBs of data and paying for someone else's processing power, you can do everything locally as long as you don't mind a few limitations. I am working on a project using this approach: https://vidmix.app https://vidmix.app (still plenty of minor bugs, I was planning for a proper Show HN soon) Also because both the preview and the rendering is done with WebGL the result is guaranteed to match what you see while editing, unlike with some cloud-based editors where a different stack on the rendering backend is trying to replicate what the browser is doing with js+css