Video Editing Software beta

[TEKnician]

This is where I point out that people who don't have a computer capable of editing video also don't have a computer capable of running a web-based editor, in case you didn't figure that out yourself.

You would normally be right if it is just a web based editor, it could also be made into a cloud based video editor in which case the computers that does the heavy lifting is maintained elsewhere so that the user just needs an internet connection capable of running say onlive, or Netflix

Wait...what?! You want MULTIPLE people to wirelessly access the SAME computer and run DIFFERENT PROJECTS and expect great results?



Not only is that something i highly doubt ANYONE WOULD DO (let alone for FREE for people doing some hobbyist stuff), that would cost one person way too much money. HE MIGHT AS WELL BUY THE USERS THEIR OWN EDITING RIG.


Ah forget it...


/interest

[ninja2929]

Wait...what?! You want MULTIPLE people to wirelessly access the SAME computer and run DIFFERENT PROJECTS and expect great results?

No not on the same computer, but the guy said he is working on a SERVER based rendering program. Which means that they have a server, or a really, really big computer that no single person could reasonably build, or maintain, so that users can use it. It probably wont be free, but if you think about it the hobbyist might be willing to pay a few bucks a month instead of having to pay a few grand to buy a computer capable of doing the same thing. Also how many people would pay a monthly charge so that when they finish with an amv could click render, turn on cod, or old republic, or wow, or the like and let a different much more powerful computer do the work to render your amv?

On a side note Onlive has a similar thing, for FREE they will let you access windows 7 on the cloud so y cant we have cloud based video editing and rendering?

[BasharOfTheAges]

This has to be one of the most moronic ideas I've ever heard. The mere premise of anyone actually needing something like this shows either a complete lack of hardware/software knowledge or a concentrated effort to scam people. The type of low-latency, high-bandwidth internet connection you'd need to make even the most basic of videos better than you could on a $200 low-end computer from Walmart only exists in a handful of hyper-connected cities. That sort of internet connection also costs enough that anyone using it surely has the funds to buy their own more capable editing system themselves.

[Mister Hatt]

I kinda agree with Bashar, the idea is really dumb. That said sandboxed cloud-based encoding isn't exactly unheard of but due to high-IO performance is rather shit. The easiest way to make that work is on bare metal servers constantly processing and separated by kernel cgroups.

That said Netflix is working on a port of avisynth to run on linux to much hilarity, although they're trying very hard to not get their name linked to the project. Not sure how they expect it to perform but I figure similar issues will become apparent, not least the joy of porting intrinsic MASM to NASM.

[zeblian]

I'm enjoying some of the banter here.

The concept here is that you go to a website, which is the central point in this application. Once you sign in you have access to your personal server, which has all of your files. Now this server is just a java program that can be run on any machine, including the local machine. The server handles sending the videos to the web interface in a format that your browser accepts and then receiving rendering scripts, which it then uses xuggler to compile into the video you want.

One of the things I noticed, was a comment about bandwidth, this only takes bandwidth if the server is not on your machine and not on your internal network.

When I've done some testing, I've been able to get the web interface of the video editor to run fine on something as cheap as a net-book.

My progress on this is slow since this is just a fun project for me and I've been putting a lot of research into getting my idea to work, such as using web sockets, and working with the issues the xuggler library has.

[Mister Hatt]

The problem isn't so much bandwidth to the server as the fact that you're gonna want to be using lossless or bluray which is huge. Nobody wants to upload 50GB. Even on a low end machine, it will perform badly as the crappy CPUs in netbooks cannot handle the rendering of the display for high resolution video. They simply do not have the cache size or clock speed, let alone VRAM buffers, large enough to do it efficiently. Vaguely related, Xuggle is horrible, cannot handle formats properly due to relying on the FFMPEG API instead of libav, and you should be ashamed of yourself. As pointed out already, the entire concept is flawed and doomed to failure, but you're welcome to learn this the hard way.