6 ms·

Free and open source NLE video editor powered by WGPU, WASM, WebGPU, Rust, and Tanstack Start

esafak 6mo ago
Any plugin plans? In case you don't know, there is a standard for it: https://openeffects.org/ https://openeffects.org/ Would you like to share your development experience? I suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md and enabling discussions if you are open to PRs.
- mohebifar 6mo ago
  Great question! I actually have built a poc that is not released yet. It's on the roadmap. It requires some tooling for the devs building these plugins like a CLI for building the WASM binaries, bundling, manifests, etc. The current poc still has significant performance overhead, and that overhead grows as the plugin system becomes more powerful. If plugins are only allowed to apply a WGSL shader, the performance impact is almost negligible. But features that require broader access to timeline data, such as time shifts, speed ramps, or full timeline transformations, become much more expensive and make zero-copy architectures harder to reason about.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- mohebifar 6mo ago
  I added CONTRIBUTING.md. I also took a look at OpenFX. My current view is that supporting OFX in the browser would be hard, since the standard and its existing tooling are not designed around wgpu or browser execution. Tooscut would likely need its own plugin model rather than adopting OFX as is. That said, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts if you are open to contributing or discussing what a practical plugin system should look like in this environment. Please file a GitHub issue if you can
  - esafak 6mo ago
    That may be. I would study the OpenFX spec (https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx) to draft your own, then invite members of their community to critique it: https://openeffects.org/#get-involved https://openeffects.org/#get-involved
RobotToaster 6mo ago
This is absolutely not an open source license https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- mohebifar 6mo ago
  You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.
  - RobotToaster 6mo ago
    That isn't open source either. As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.
  - maxloh 6mo ago
    Nice change!
  - bilekas 6mo ago
    ELv2 is not open source either.
    - guelo 6mo ago
      It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
      - TimeBearingDown 6mo ago
        The accepted term is "source available". Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
        guelo 6mo ago
empressplay 6mo ago
I think you selected the wrong license. Your license currently as written actually forbids _using_ the software for a commercial purpose, eg if someone monetizes a video edited using your software, they are in violation of your license, which is not what you want. Look at something like the Hashicorp BSL [1] for inspiration on crafting a license that forbids specific commercialization of the software itself. [1] https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl
- mohebifar 6mo ago
  You are right. Thanks for the insights! I just changed the license to ELv2.
dylan604 6mo ago
If you want free, Resolve will run circles around whatever open source thing you can find. No need for WGPU, it just runs the GPU. Sadly, things like this just put a bad taste in my mouth about the whole concept of running code in a browser like this. It's buggy as hell. It doesn't run in all browsers. And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this. We've moved from Java and now to WASM in a browser, but only some browsers.
- vunderba 6mo ago
  +1 for Davinci Resolve. I used the free version for years (Windows and Mac versions) before finally picking up a copy of Studio which is still very reasonably priced and is a flat fee.
- Fabricio20 6mo ago
  Resolve requiring an account to download is what turned me away when I needed to do a quick edit the other day. Oracle much?
  - motoxpro 6mo ago
    Why not just have a throwaway email account for these types of things. Opens up a lot of great software if this is a barrier for you.
  - windowsrookie 6mo ago
    Black Magic gives video editing software that actual professionals use away for free. They sell professional grade equipment that regular consumers can afford. They also offer a ton of training videos teaching you how to edit professionally....for free. A ton of independent filmmakers have started their career using Black Magic software/devices. They are absolutely not anything like oracle.
  - nullpoint420 6mo ago
    I always put asdf@asdf.com and it lets me download it
  - ErroneousBosh 6mo ago

Any plugin plans? In case you don't know, there is a standard for it: https://openeffects.org/ https://openeffects.org/ Would you like to share your development experience? I suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md and enabling discussions if you are open to PRs.

mohebifar 6mo ago
Great question! I actually have built a poc that is not released yet. It's on the roadmap. It requires some tooling for the devs building these plugins like a CLI for building the WASM binaries, bundling, manifests, etc. The current poc still has significant performance overhead, and that overhead grows as the plugin system becomes more powerful. If plugins are only allowed to apply a WGSL shader, the performance impact is almost negligible. But features that require broader access to timeline data, such as time shifts, speed ramps, or full timeline transformations, become much more expensive and make zero-copy architectures harder to reason about.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
mohebifar 6mo ago
I added CONTRIBUTING.md. I also took a look at OpenFX. My current view is that supporting OFX in the browser would be hard, since the standard and its existing tooling are not designed around wgpu or browser execution. Tooscut would likely need its own plugin model rather than adopting OFX as is. That said, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts if you are open to contributing or discussing what a practical plugin system should look like in this environment. Please file a GitHub issue if you can
- esafak 6mo ago
  That may be. I would study the OpenFX spec (https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx) to draft your own, then invite members of their community to critique it: https://openeffects.org/#get-involved https://openeffects.org/#get-involved

RobotToaster 6mo ago

This is absolutely not an open source license https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

mohebifar 6mo ago
You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.
- RobotToaster 6mo ago
  That isn't open source either. As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.
- maxloh 6mo ago
  Nice change!
- bilekas 6mo ago
  ELv2 is not open source either.
  - guelo 6mo ago
    It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
    - TimeBearingDown 6mo ago
      The accepted term is "source available". Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
      - guelo 6mo ago

empressplay 6mo ago

I think you selected the wrong license. Your license currently as written actually forbids _using_ the software for a commercial purpose, eg if someone monetizes a video edited using your software, they are in violation of your license, which is not what you want. Look at something like the Hashicorp BSL [1] for inspiration on crafting a license that forbids specific commercialization of the software itself. [1] https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl

mohebifar 6mo ago
You are right. Thanks for the insights! I just changed the license to ELv2.

dylan604 6mo ago

If you want free, Resolve will run circles around whatever open source thing you can find. No need for WGPU, it just runs the GPU. Sadly, things like this just put a bad taste in my mouth about the whole concept of running code in a browser like this. It's buggy as hell. It doesn't run in all browsers. And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this. We've moved from Java and now to WASM in a browser, but only some browsers.

vunderba 6mo ago
+1 for Davinci Resolve. I used the free version for years (Windows and Mac versions) before finally picking up a copy of Studio which is still very reasonably priced and is a flat fee.
Fabricio20 6mo ago
Resolve requiring an account to download is what turned me away when I needed to do a quick edit the other day. Oracle much?
- motoxpro 6mo ago
  Why not just have a throwaway email account for these types of things. Opens up a lot of great software if this is a barrier for you.
- windowsrookie 6mo ago
  Black Magic gives video editing software that actual professionals use away for free. They sell professional grade equipment that regular consumers can afford. They also offer a ton of training videos teaching you how to edit professionally....for free. A ton of independent filmmakers have started their career using Black Magic software/devices. They are absolutely not anything like oracle.
- nullpoint420 6mo ago
  I always put asdf@asdf.com and it lets me download it
- ErroneousBosh 6mo ago