MarkoeZ said:
First of all welcome!
And yes it probably will. But how usefull it is depends on what you are going to edit and how long you are willing to wait for compression. Full length movie edits: not likely or not funny. editing/mixing small clips: highly likely. But if you are planning on using processor heavy filters/effects, remember that the processor operates at 500/600 Mhz. (overclockable to up to 900 Mhz.) so probably no.
Just realised i have no idea about any good linux movie editors, only have experience with windows/mac in that area. But same principles should apply.
I've never found a good free video editor. All of them have caveats that make them pretty much useless.
Care to impart your insights into Windows and OSX software? I've heard good things about Final Cut Express.
Mofokubik said:
Kind of funny you should mention that. I read somewhere that the makers of VLC are making a video editor. It's called "VLMC" IIRC. If it's anything like vlc it'll be open sourced, right?
I heard that too - but the project is still in pre-alpha.
WizardStan said:
OpenShot is currently my favourite open source video editor. It's fairly new, but quickly becoming very powerful. I see no reason it can't be ported to and used effectively on the Pandora.
Now
that is what I was looking for!
I might have to try it out in an Ubuntu VM, since there's no Windows version.
craigix said:
Video editing has become weirdly slow recently, and I don't understand why.
I used to edit videos on my DX4/100mhz PC with 640*480 videos. The software I used was pretty quick, generating the movie took a while but not too long.
I've recently used PC software which took almost exactly the same time on a 2ghz machine. That is disgraceful. Until very recently I was still using the old software on a 400mhz Pentium with Win98 because of that, now I use a Mac.
I also have a similar opinion of how slow Firefox is. Seriously, we can emulate the N64 on the Pandora but Firefox sucks just as much power to BROWSE THE WEB - something I could do back in 1995 on ancient technology. What a bloated mess it must be.
At least due to all these phones browsing the net we are seeing some pushes to optimisation and not a moment too soon.
There's a couple reasons. First one is the codecs. Codecs are using more and more processing power - so while older codecs literally use 1% CPU to decode(letting you decode/encode/navigate dozens of seconds of video in no time at all, assuming you have enough disk IO), the newer codecs hit your CPU much harder. H.264 footage might use 10% cpu per second. If you want to navigate 15 seconds into the future, and there's no I frames nearby (I think that's the type...), then it has to decode all the video up to that point. Expect a 1.5 second jolt.
New GUIs tend to be written in scripting languages to cut dev time, reduce bugs, and improve tweakability. This makes them use more CPU. Most video editing software now has full realtime overlays too, so that's another CPU-hitting feature. Maybe even post-processed previews while editing.
This should all add up to quicker and more powerful editing, if your hardware can hold up.
Lately I've been editing in H.264/mp3. (not as a job - just a hobby, to learn) I've found that tweaking all the settings like CABAC/BIP frames, etc., really enhances editor responsiveness. With all the advanced settings disabled and the bitrate set high(20-30mbit), the picture quality is almost lossless, and there's none of that nasty waiting. The only problem is most of the free editors have caveats like failing to sync audio/video, crashing, etc. when the settings are tweaked in this way.
The reason software like Firefox is getting
slower is because of feature creep - but to be frank, it isn't getting slower overall. I have an old Athlon XP with FF 1.5 and FF 3.5 on it. FF 3.5 is faster, and has more powerful addons and a more responsive GUI. It's just being optimized slower than most other software.
craigix said:
It does run well, it just needs 500-600mhz and a whole load of RAM. I just can't get my head around why it requires so much ram and cpu speed. What is it doing with it all? It is frustrating because I know it should not be like that, there must just be some very lazy programming inside it, or it is simply made by people who want to meet some absurd programming standards which result in degraded performance.
People complain when websites are broken. Firefox has very good compatibility now...
Did you ever see that switch statement mess for handling dates? It was crazy - about 200 lines of embedded switch statements to handle all the different types of dates people use.
WizardStan said:
The fact that it keeps using a little bit more memory for each page is disturbing enough (more so that it uses much more than the page actually contains), but that initial 26 megs scares me. I remember surfing the web on computers with 4 megs of RAM. Why does Firefox need 26 megs to display nothing? This isn't limited to Firefox, mind. Other browsers have this same surprisingly large overhead. I just don't understand it, really.
Perfect backwards compatibility.
People complain if older sites don't work anymore, and then they find another browser that does work.
The browser is the ultimate program for feature creep - and unlike other software, it's a mandated requirement by the user.
Wheels said:
Firefox uses XUL, which I've seen blamed for a lot of its bulk. Right now 3.0 is using 200MB on my laptop with a couple of extensions and eight tabs open. 3.5 is supposed to be great with memory management compared to previous versions and even other browsers, though I haven't had a chance to test it because someone decided they wouldn't backport 3.5 to Ubuntu's current "Long Term Service release" and never told us about it. Just the other day I got an update in the queue for 3.0.17.
Just use Ubuntu Tweak to enable the 3.5 betas. They're more stable, and easily 2x faster. I have a Via C7 box (NAS) which I sometimes VNC into. 3.5 feels about 3x faster on it.
WizardStan said:
That's my point, though. It decompresses the images, builds the web page in memory, and caches it. A week later, Firefox is using over a gig of memory (I have 4) with cached web pages that I'll never visit again and there's no way to disable it, believe me, I've tried all the suggestions. Building the web page and decompressing images isn't a bottleneck, so why decompress and store 5 megs of data when it can just store the 200 and rebuild it as needed? Especially when I'm not likely to ever need it. Suddenly my cache drops from 1 gig to 40 megs (or more realistically, one or two hundred)
You can restart your browser to clear it. There are extensions that will automatically store everything you're doing, if that's what you need...
But really, my computer has so much RAM that I usually keep Firefox open all the time. It's not uncommon for me to be playing a game with Firefox open in the background, a Java IDE, and videos encoding as well.
dflemstr said:
BTW,
@Jan-Nik: AJAX barely uses any extra RAM at all; *images* (and Flash etc) are still the black holes of the web.
Absolutely correct.
zhasha said:
Remember how people wrongly attributed the extreme RAM usage of Vista to caching? That cache system. The naïve OS will decide what to put in memory based on what's used the most. linux will usually keep around 40-60MB of RAM free at all time and the rest will be used to cache often used files. What goes into the cache should ultimately be decided by the OS in an effort to improve performance. When an app goes rogue and decides to cache its own crap, guess what, the OS can't free it when it finds itself with a shortage of RAM.
Ultimately this leads to reduced performance.
Okay, so rather than Defrag using 50MB, now it uses 1400MB, to boost performance by 25%.
Too bad Firefox ran out of memory and now runs 15x slower.
And the game I'm playing now slows to a crawl too - 60fps dropping to 15-20fps.
The fastest OS's are ones where every program strives to be minimal, because even though nothing is as optimized, it works consistently in every usage scenario.
