
Olive: Professional open-source non-linear video editor - mrzool
https://github.com/olive-editor/olive
======
detaro
previously:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18838227)

~~~
dang
Also a bit at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984430)

------
tomduncalf
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!

~~~
blattimwind
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.

~~~
tomduncalf
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!

------
FriedPickles
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
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.

~~~
readbeard
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-
onl...](https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/imax-melbourne-is-the-only-place-
you-can-watch-dunkirk-in-top-quality/)

~~~
extra88
> 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.

------
lousken
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
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.

------
packetslave
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
There are professionals using FCP.

~~~
packetslave
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
Agree, I'm quite looking forward to see it.

------
yitchelle
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
> 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.

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

~~~
beering
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
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.

------
dakom
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.

------
dorkandstormy
"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.

------
Mister_Snuggles
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/)

------
fortran77
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
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.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
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.

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

~~~
zachrose
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
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.

