Dang, the level of feature depth you've achieved here is amazing, and the UX is great if you have some experience with other video editors. This is definitely workable, at least for smaller projects.
Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
141–150 of 285 posts
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the FAQ: > Why no Firefox support Firefox is my daily web browser. As a web developper, I always make sure my work is comptatible with all major browsers. But you can guess a web based video editor is a complex task to achieve, and Pikimov uses several key features that only exist in Chrome, Edge, and maybe Opera, and maybe, maybe, Brave. That's why Pikimov cannot currently work on Firefox (as of today: v127), t…
For AudioData and VideoEncoder, it should be possible to enable webcodecs by setting dom.media.webcodecs.enabled to true in about:config. - https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev/blob/af09c55c0e6253ba8f... - https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev/blob/af09c55c0e6253ba8f...
For VideoEncoder at least there's also a polyfill using WASM compiled libav (aka ffmpeg).
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#143What's that little blue bird icon in the top right corner? Seems to go to X, but I'm not sure why.
...jk!
On a serious note, this is REALLY cool. Great job.
Tiny feedback, your console is extremely chatty. I get this is a beta, but it still might be worth disabling that logging for production deploys.
I hope to see this evolve into a commercial product I really think it fills a need and it seems to work incredibly well.
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without Analytics, I'm blind: I can't tell which feature are popular and which aren't. I need those infos to undertand where I should focus, what are users the more interested in. By "Privacy respected", I meant that I am not asking you for your email, your name, and what you do on the editor stays on your machine: no cloud uploads of your files.
> Without Analytics, I'm blind: I can't tell which feature are popular and which aren't. I need those infos to undertand where I should focus, what are users the more interested in. I have a suggestion which has always served me well: Ask. Or don’t even ask, users will tell you what they want anyway. Analytics will only give you skewed information, as you are unable to distinguish the popularity of a feature is due t…
That's a totally reasoble way to do it, but it leaves you with other blindspots
People will tell you what they want anyway but also, sometimes people aren't aware of what they want or need
Non visible parts of aproject tend to get neglected a lot more if you just ask your users What will get more people talking to you, a 10% speed up split among many small interactions, or a visual glitch that doesn't affect usability but it's front and center?
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#145Side comment: Comparing a web-based software that runs on your own computer vs. installing a (say native) software and frequently updating, isn't it interesting that the former is faster to do? When using a web-based software to ru on your own machine, you are effectively, momentarily, installing it and are able to uninstall by clearing the cache.
And when you start a web app you might not even be "installing" 5% of the code, which is great for speed.
You can load+interpret JavaScript files dynamically as the user accesses certain features.
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#146Side comment: Comparing a web-based software that runs on your own computer vs. installing a (say native) software and frequently updating, isn't it interesting that the former is faster to do? When using a web-based software to ru on your own machine, you are effectively, momentarily, installing it and are able to uninstall by clearing the cache.
This is just a testament to the maturity of the platform, and the work that has gone into the portable engine segment.
Targeting Chrome targets all of the platforms, and the machines and platform is "fast enough" to do the job without having to dig deep into specific nature of the platforms.
It also leverages, I'm assuming, the deep knowledge the developer has of doing other things for the browser platform.
They probably could have targeted some other portable GUI toolkit, but this was more familiar. It may well be an even smoother experience than using other cross platform GUI toolkits, plus, of course, the platform is free.
Finally, distribution is familiar and likely easier, it's truly cross platform (no need to build executable on the individual platforms, even if its all from the same source base), etc.
No bundling, no signing, no app stores. Just a URL shared in a tweet and you're on your way. If it was OSS, it could be parked on a Github page for all eternity.
Overall, it's a really attractive platform for developers, just not yet fully embraced I think, as client based applications I mean.
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#147Where did you get the time to do this as a hobby? I spend evenings and weekends working on a project for the last 6 months and it's only half as good. 10x developer maybe, small team, millionaire? xD
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#148Can you please clarify, which exactly key features are missing from Firefox that make this app say 'use Chrome or Edge'?
Why the entitled tone demanding "to clarify which exactly key features"?
It is the right of developers to say "I don't want to support your browser" and you should respect that decision even if you disagree with it.
As a reality check, see this ticket: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390936
It took Firefox 17 years of back and forth with developers to add parity with an Internet Explorer feature that Chrome supported since version 1. This late in the game IE is already dead for good.
Not everybody has infinite time or infinite money to support Firefox, as an aside, you knew what you signed up for when you made Firefox your main browser.
So please, change the "clarify why you don't support Firefox" tone with "I want to make the site work with Firefox, how can I help you?". And good luck making the Firefox team change their mind when they decide not to support X feature, because it is also their right to do not implement the whole spectrum of features that Chrome supports.
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think web only is positive? 15 years from now, will this site still be up? Will you be able to open your projects from today, then? I think web only is a really compelling way to get someone to try a product, but I’d much rather install a tool like this. Unless you could host the site yourself, of course.
I see what you mean, but I'm not using anything from 15 years ago today apart from Linux.
You're using a 15 year old version of Linux?
Re: Show HN: I created an After Effects alternative
#150but I think each browser tab has a memory limit of 4gb? this means a web based video editor can only work on short clips?
Video editing is generally not done in memory at all. The videos themselves sit on disk and are played back from disk, and the desired cuts/effects are composited on the fly.
For speed, an editing app may also produce lower-res versions in memory for quick seeking and smooth playback, as a kind of quick preview. But that's easy to control how much memory you allocate for that, and even those previews can be stored or cached on disk.
Video editing is not especially memory-bound on modern machines. It's much more CPU/GPU-bound when it comes to applying effects, and IO-bound (including decoding-bound) when it comes to larger videos like 4K and 8K.