[Kdenlive-devel] more merges

[Rolf Dubitzky]

On Monday 15 September 2003 23:53, Jason Wood wrote:
> > The other option is to keep the original samplerate and put it into an
> > seperate audio track in the .avi file. Actually I would rather use .ogg
> > instead of .avi, but both should be working in a while.
>
> For video editing, would not a seperate .wav be better? The size of the
> audio compared to the size of the video is tiny, so the compression of ogg
> does not buy us very much, wavs are non-lossy, and an advantage (that holds
> for ogg as well, but not really avi) is that you can open up the file in a
> dedicated sound editor to tweak it.

Ogg is not an audio format, it's a container format, much like AVI. You can 
put all kinds of stuff inside Ogg files. The audio ".ogg" files usually use 
the Vorbis codec.  Hwne I say Ogg, I am speaking of video. 

.wav is already implemented, just try to play any .wav file. I use libsndfile 
I probably automatically support most of the hundreds of .wav formats.

> There is some work already in place for supporting separate audio tracks -
> at the least, the timeline can display tracks of different types, and there
> is a sound track class. However, they were put in place very early on so
> may need some work to get up to speed - my main thought is that there is
> probably no detection as to whether a clip can be placed in a video track
> or an audio track.

Sure, when asking for a file, piave answers not only the duration, but also 
the container format, and audio, as well as video codec format. A file 
without detected video codec is an audio file.

> So yes, it will require some work, but probably not as much as if it had
> not been anticipated in the first place.

Well, I was more concerned with the handling of the two parallel audio 
streams. One from the video file, one from the audio file. We can in 
principle define a default operation, but in principle we need to have to 
give the user the choice between various 'effects', e.g. 'replace' or 'mix' 
etc.

> I am doing these changes on my local machine. Cvs HEAD is still what I hope
> to become the Kdenlive 0.2.3 version. I have sorted out the issue with
> Kdenlive firing too many scenelists at piave ;-) (committed to CVS now) and
> I am happy with what Kdenlive is at the moment for a tarball release. What
> would you say is the best plan of action? I think with a lot of the changes
> going into Piave now, it is going to take some time before Kdenlive catches
> up, and a stable release now is a good idea before starting. What do you
> think?

If you think the current memory leaks in piave are at an acceptable level, I 
am fine with it, if not, then I need some time.

Cheers, Rolf

-- 
contacts: www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/~dubitzky