Talk:Cinelerra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other Unix-like systems[edit]

Has anyone gotten Cinelerra to work on OS X, BSD, or any other Unix-like OS? Blackcats 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't, but I usually run it in a GNU/Linux environment. There's been some traffic on the Cinelerra-CVS mailing list about running it under FreeBSD in Linux compatibility mode, though -- I'll look through the archives and see what happened with that. -Yipdw 03:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a port for Mac OS X; see [1]. --84.112.140.110 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Video Editing 101 with Cinelerra"[edit]

Video Editing 101 with Cinelerra seems to be dead so I removed it from the article. - Srx 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Litigation Threat"[edit]

I can't help but think that the withdrawal of Broadcast 2000 was just simply because it was superseded by Cinelerra; much of Broadcast 2000's user interface style carried over to Cinelerra. The RIAA bit was just a bit of sarcasm - after all, Cinelerra can do anything Broadcast 2000 could do, and a whole lot more. - rjp

I'll remove that, then. I would like some more information on the history of the program, including the development from Broadcast 2000 to Cinelerra. Superm401 - Talk 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to include a bit about the fact that no one knows who comprises Heroine Virtual--its it one guy/gal a group of programmers or what? This is deliberate: "In a shrinking industry like we're in now, managers aren't ready to see staff engineers building killer apps outside their day jobs, and they aren't afraid to get rid of anyone who ignores the system. You can't release software under an individual name when that happens, so 'Heroine Virtual Ltd.' became the entity under which all our content creation tools would appear. We leave it to your imagination how many people are behind it." Interview with developer Jebba 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've created a page for Heroine Virtual finally. I'm planning on adding to the mysteriousness of the company later, but I used that website, Jebba, as one of my references. That might be the only reliable source that gives us some good detail on Heroine Virtual. Please contribute to this article! Crh0872 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

I don't think the history section is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Any comments? Spandrawn (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! History sections are especially important for forked projects (like this one) and projects whose authors do not reliably maintain public and truthful lists of such. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spandrawn, it's excessive and detracts from the article. This kind of information belongs on the manufacturer's website, not a Wikipedia article.--RadioFan (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supplemental reasons to keep History sections in product and project articles: Discontinued projects (like this one) whose authors might not preserve their own public history pages. And the fact that the history of anything worthy of encyclopedic coverage is common encyclopedic material even in space-limited printed encyclopedia. (Continuing to use my IP address for this page to benefit the history tracking) 77.215.46.17 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the History section for the reasons I gave in two comments above. I would have respected such deletion if it had been done by someone who had contributed a lot more positive material to this article. (Continuing to use my IP address for this page to benefit the history tracking) 77.215.46.17 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website 404[edit]

Our heroine seems to be missing in action as of now 78.27.66.184 (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert[edit]

This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It also reversed some noncontroversial copyedits. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and Cinelerra is not by any means "professional". Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strongly disagree. Cinelerra for a long time was the most capable freely avialable open source video editing application. Cinelerra is for video what Ardour is for sound. It is still the only possiblity to do larger projects based on OSS tools (but probably this is about to change). No one doubts the "professionality" is somewhat lacking, but this rather hightlights the general situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.24.191 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strongly disagree, Cinelarra got a Ted Turner award for being the best new professional postproduction product of 2004, this is stated with source in the article. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual[edit]

The manual link is dead. An updated list of manuals in various languages can be found here: http://cinelerra.org/docs.php

Sorry, I don't want to edit (break) the main page to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.7.187 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumiera[edit]

Can someone elaborate WHY the rewrite? Y23 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the Lumiera core devs. Basically we tried to improve Cinelerra for some time, but found it prohibitively difficult, because of certain traits of the Cinelerra codebase. (See my old writeup "Cinelerra Woes" from 2007 if interested in details). Initially, we intended to do a gradual transformation of the Cinelerra codebase, which could become a new major release. A more close look shows..
  • Cinelerra's backend was initially (10 years ago) quite innovative, but no one picked up those libraries. Other peoples developed the same stuff in libs now in common use by many Linux applications. So we should phase out the old engine backend and write a new one based on those libs
  • Cinelerra uses a GUI toolkit set ("Lib Guicast") written from scratch, just based on Xlib. Well — others did the same, most notably GIMP. But again, no one picked up on libguicast (and also it looks like the original author never really cared to get other people's interest in contributing to and thus sharing those libs). Thus, the GUI should be rewritten on top of either QT or GTK, which is what we do.
  • which leaves the engine code. It has a very sound and also quite logical basic design, but seemingly all of the tricky points and minute details which make for professional working where just discovered half way through and then somewhat half heartedly patched in on the fly, which explains a lot of the surprising shortcommings of cinelerra, like the inability to combine effects and transitions. Thus, in this case we closely stuck to that basic design, but develop things based on already knowing what problems to expect...
Together, for three different and separate reasons, this makes up for a complete rewrite... :)
Ichthyostega (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant elaborate, briefly, within the body of the main article. Gnassar (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy does not allow people associated with a topic, such as a core dev, to edit the article directly, so he was right in posting his long form answer here and letting other editors write a NPOV text in the article. Thanks to this core dev for actually doing the right thing. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing[edit]

The article has been tagged for notability and sourcing issues again. Of the references provided, only that from digitalcontentproducer.com appears to be a reliable source. The rest are from the official websites of either Cinelerra or Lumiera, or slashdot, all of which are considered primary sources or otherwise dont meet guidelines reliable sources and insufficient to establish notability. If references demonstrating significant coverage in 3rd party sources cant be located and used to update the article soon , it will be nominated for deletion. Also I notice some involved directly in development of this software are participating, please take a moment to read WP:COI as is advised above.--RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This product has received a notable award, which is independently sourced, I have thus removed the deletion request based on "lack of notability". I am keeping the valid request for better sourcing of the article. (Continuing to use my IP address for this page to benefit the history tracking) 77.215.46.17 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above list of unworthy sources is inconsistent with the actual list of sources and references in the article as of the time of the criticism, I see at least 3 3rd party sources there, at least two of them not mentioned in the comment above. While better sources are needed throughout, there is no reason to exaggerate the problem. (Continuing to use my IP address for this page to benefit the history tracking) 77.215.46.17 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors beware: Past discussion on this talk page was deleted by someone opposed to the discussion, I have not restored the deleted discussion our of respect, but please use the edit history of this talk page to read it before taking any action. Deletion of this notice will not be taken lightly. (Continuing to use my IP address for this page to benefit the history tracking) 77.215.46.17 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed rendering?[edit]

There is no mention at all of the distributed rendering capabilities. KenSharp (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linux-only[edit]

See Talk:OpenShot Video Editor#Linux-only User:ScotXWt@lk 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinelerra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinelerra&oldid=1198827152"