A place where people can seek feedback on their work (please use the monthly threads).A place where people can ask questions about editing, from storytelling to technique to technical tricks.
Our Wiki with Common questions/answers What We Are: We expect everyone to be civil and generally not act like a jerk.
#AVIDEMUX CROP NOT WORKING FREE#
#AVIDEMUX CROP NOT WORKING SOFTWARE#
Have a question about: Monthly thread "What software should I use?" Monthly thread for "What hardware should I use?" Monthly Feedback on your edit with the caveat that you need to comment on someone else's thread. PS: I’m happy that my first guess was probably right, the job is just done differently so not a bug but lets say a performance issue, probably not even Shotcut fault if they just use the filter from somewhere else as is.This reddit is to ask basic and intermediate questions about editing, primarily for home and personal use. Would be good to have another filter to do the same job in Shotcut if modifying Size, position and rotation is not possible. You are the judge, I can notice the differences but for what concerns me (and probably the majority of people) all the results have acceptable quality. There are 4 files: Shotcut, Avidemux, Kdenlive with Transform and with Crop S.T. Looking for image quality there’s some difference. Position and Zoom doesn’t cite a filter but I guess there is one somewhere.Īt this point I suppose Shotcut uses the same Position and Zoom filter for his Size, position and rotation. Looking at Kdenlive documentation Transform and Crop S.T.
Position and Zoom, takes 20+ minutes, worse than Shotcut.Ĭrop Scale and Tilt takes 4:15 minutes, good performance. Transform is what I used first and takes around 4:23 minutes, good performance. Kdenlive has three filters that can do the zooming: Transform, Position and Zoom, Crop Scale and Tilt. This morning I have looked again at Kdenlive and found out new stuff. I guess that I will just zoom with Avidemux and import in Shotcut but can someone explain to me why there is this huge difference? I’ve noticed that exporting in Shotcut with no filter at all has similar performance as Avidemux: 3 minutes with the CPU and 1 minute with GPU acceleration while Avidemux seems pretty much to take no performance penalty when zooming or not. With Avidemux zooming from a 960x540 window on the same spot takes 3-4 minutes using the CPU (x264) and just 1 minute using the GPU (Nvidia H264). With Shotcut I put 200% zoom and export takes 20 minutes with or without hardware acceleration. I have made some comparisons zooming a 5 minutes video of StarCraft 2 gameplay I had. I have recently discovered Avidemux and it is way faster at it, but it seems that it does the job differently.įrom an user point of view it seems that Shotcut zooms the whole video and crops at the requested resolution and position, meanwhile Avidemux crops the part of the video and zooms it to the requested resolution, it can be the reason of the performance difference? I don’t really know how these two programs works so it is just a guess. I’ve noticed that it hugely increases export times and I was wondering why. I often use size, position and rotation filter to zoom my videos at certain points. I don’t know what category this post should be put into.
Hi, thanks for this amazing open source software.
0 kommentar(er)
