[Kdenlive-devel] Next release...
protux at web.de
Thu Jan 22 21:37:57 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 16:39 -0800, Dan Dennedy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:26 PM, reinhard <protux at web.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > bug 524 seems to be a real showstopper IMHO...
> > http://www.kdenlive.org/mantis/view.php?id=524
> I disagree. From what I have been able to reproduce you get 2
> different results depending upon the order in which you add the
> transitions. That is actually not totally unexpected, but it does
> warrant further discussion about being able to express and see the
> order of operations in a more explicit or consistent way.
> > ...since actually it seems still not possible to create complex
> > compositions with kdenlive.
> That might be the case, but it is not a showstopper.
Maybe I just choosed a wrong term - I'm not a native english speaker ;)
But it seems a limitation at the moment, which might discourage new
> I believe the
> immediate goal is more robust, stable performance for basic operations
> across a large number of formats.
But the homepage announces things like:
"Kdenlive is an intuitive and POWERFUL multi-track video editor...."
"Kdenlive should be used by video amateurs as well as ADVANCED users"
Which might mislead new user into wrong direction?
So, maybe it might be better to relativise this a bit? At least just in
> > Just another simple example: actually it seems not possible to let a
> > title clip fade in or out, which seems a very common task.
> It is just not obvious. You are taught to use brightness with
> keyframes to fade a clip to/from black.
Yes, you are right.
But the build in "Add transition" function (the arrows) of the title
clip was more obvious to me, in this moment, so that's why I used it and
leads me finally to write this comment.
Disabling the build in transitions of title clips seems a good interim
solution? Just if nobody has actually time to fix this behaviour in
More information about the Kdenlive