Making Studio work with more than one DE
zettberlin at linuxuse.de
Thu May 23 10:19:03 UTC 2013
Am 23.05.2013 11:20, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> "Valid" for home usage does mean to be able to edit a video with a
> professional work flow, without crashing all the times etc. pp..
This describes what I do occasionally for many hours without any crashes
with KDEnlive. Regarding the professional workflow that is in fact just
the usual workflow I presented both CinelerraCV and KDEnlive to a
filmmaker, who is a friend of mine. He makes Movies for Cinema and TV,
has studied it to the full at Babelsberg. He told me, that both programs
work fine for him as long as cutting is concerned. He also told me, that
the material edited in these Programs would need to be processed on more
professional gear for toning/retouching the lighting. He also told me,
that he never ever would consider to do the latter on his Mac, thats a
job for dedicated workstations he stated apodyctically.
And he was quite impressed how much one can do for the soundtrack when
working with Xjadeo and Ardour.
> Btw. the myths that Blender is everything that's needed to make 3D
> animations is also nonsense. In addition not only a NLVE is missing, but
> also some other options, e.g. automatically lip sync (at least it was
> missing, I don't know if they have included it yet).
Try to find out, what other NLVE was used in making the Blender Movies,
especially Mango: I fail to find those tools in the project description:
They only mention free software on Linux, though shamefully get the
music from "external sources" that use whatever else....
> AFAIK Blender can be and is used for professional and good home videos,
> but it's just one production tool of many production tools.
It is used to produce full-fledged Motion Pictures that look much more
professional than many commercial Movies released on DVD.
> Unlikely that I'll have that kind of films you're talking about. If I
> watch films made in the USA, than more or less only films from people
> like the Coen brothers, Jim Jarmusch etc. and I usually don't own those
> films on DVDs or any other media. But again, first of all it's a myth
> that many films were produced using Linux only
Feel free to believe, what you was programmed to believe(to have a
Futurama-Quote at last in this thread ;-) )
> and second, I'm talking
> about software that, with certain qualifications, can be used at home,
> at least with "better" home PCs.
Try KDEnlive, just as is, without all the tweaking, it just works.
> For me
> claims that Linux is professional, is the more out of reason for people
> who prefer averaged Hollywood movies,
In terms of craft Avatar or LOTR or Cloud Atlas are the reference. No
country for old men is a reference too for its genuine 80ies feel but
many movies like Ghost Dog and the like have their qualities in
photography, play, script and so on, in technical terms they are simple.
If you have a photographer, actors and script in the league of Ghost Dog
or Blue in the face you can make such movies and cut them on Linux with
> averaged chart music.
> For the kind
> of art I like to do, at least for music, I can use Linux, but for people
> who want to do this mainstream stuff, all the tools are missing. We for
> example don't have auto-tune for Linux.
You talk about the middle-class, not the top-notch. The latter care for
songs, skill and personality of musicians, concepts and ideas to produce
albums that last. And the technical aspect how to record comes last.
Some of the greatest recordings of the last 20 years where recorded onto
analogue tape, some on 4-track machines, some even on 2-track.
All much less than a Linux-computer with a Hammerfall running Ardour.
> Back to the topic ;). I guess KDE 4 can be used to provide a sane work
> flow for audio production, but Unity and GNOME 3 don't provide a common
> work flow for this task. Xfce, LXDE, KDE = sane. Unity, e17 and GNOME 3
> = insane.
Insane is a bit harsh but the wording aside I agree.
> However, the work flow to make a home video in a Roland Emmerich style,
> does differ to making a home video in a Jim Jarmusch style.
The latter is much easier, that is correct.
> The same for
> audio, e.g. The Black Eyed Peas differ a lot to Motor City Hardrock from
> the 70s.
Different musicians, working differently, that is all. The flexibility
to provide the fitting workflow is in the producer, not in his/her software.
Rockbands still work today, in new ways and in the old ways alike, many
of the best "70ies-Rock" Albums are made in the last 5 years.
And of course they do not use Ardour. Because Ardour on Linux is not a
product. Mixbus is one, and so it is used. That is the difference: not
quality, reliability or flexibility, The question is just: is it a
product that is acclaimed in the industry.
And: is there a product with even more acclamation (got Sequoia, but
Protools could be more of a product right?).
More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-devel