[Kdenlive-devel] Plan Of Action

[Jason Wood]

On Saturday 23 Aug 2003 11:02 am, Rolf Dubitzky wrote:
> On Saturday 23 August 2003 09:36 am, Jason Wood wrote:
> > I think that we should get round to a 0.3 release soon; a lot of new
> > stuff has been added since the initial 0.2 release, and with the addition
> > of .avi files, we will have (minimally) reached where we hoped to be...
> > or would you prefer to wait until mpeg is supported?
>
> Ok, my 0.02EUR.
>
> Next thing for piave before any release:
> - support seperate audio in DEVEL branch
> - merge back 'seperate audio' '.avi read' 'aRts plugin' back to MAIN
>
> The I can make a release, we can call it 0.2.3 or 0.3, probably 0.3

I still want to see a 0.2.3 release soon, which will effectively be what is in 
CVS for Kdenlive and piave at the moment. This is to bring more awareness to 
the project (because we can announce it on the usual channels), and to give 
those nice people who maintain rpm's and .debs an up-to-date tarball to 
produce packages from.

> > I think that now a lot of the underlying framework is in place, we need
> > to start picking one thing at a time and getting it working. At the
> > moment, we have a partial effect framework, a partial multiple-format
> > support framework, a partial implementation of separation of
> > video/sound... you get what I mean
>
> True, but after some things are more fun for me (video capture) some things
> are more requested by others (mpeg support).



> > I think that the one that will give the most benefit straight away is
> > separate video/sound, followed by effects. However, I think that video
> > capture will probably take less effort and be quicker to implement than
> > effects.
>
> my view is like this:
>
>                 KdenLive       piave
> effects         difficult      easy
> vide-cap        some work      work, but almost done
>
> > So how about this order?
> >
> > 1. Separate video and sound
> > 2. Video capture.
> > 3. Effects.
>
> Well, I don't really know how want to have 1. without 3.  I mean, seperate
> audio does only make sense if you can overlay it on the video or replace
> the sound in the video. You will have to specify how to merge two tracks,
> this is basically the easiest form of an effect.

For the interface, I will probably follow the way that Premier uses, which is 
that conceptually, video and sound are totally separate. When a video is 
placed on the timeline, it has a sound and video track that are "linked" 
together.

There are advantages to this approach - you can easily delete all sound from a 
video track, you can shift it's sound a few frames forwards or backwards if 
it is not quite in sync with the video for whatever reason. It also means 
that conceptually, whether the sound came from a video clip or and mp3 or a 
different video clip to the one currently showing is unimportant - they are 
all treated the same.

The disadvantages - well it means that for every video clip, you have two 
clips on the timeline.

>
> How about this:
>
> For 0.3:
>
> - You try to think about an implementation of GUI elements which allow to
>   merge two tracks (audio+video or video+video or audio+audio) including
> the choice of an effect.

See above ;-)

> - I finish the seperate audio and avi stuff.

ok.

> After 0.3 we can go back to the capturing. What do you think?

Sounds fine :-)

Cheers,
Jason

-- 
Jason Wood
Homepage : www.uchian.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk