Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Video: A Language for Making Movies

lang.video

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#21

Post by bux93 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #11
arm wrote: post #9

Archive.org link for the v0.2 documentation: https://web.archive.org/web/20210419191239/https://docs.rack...

This looks interesting. Thanks for digging that up. I've done a little video editing using Adobe Premiere (mid-2000's) and Shotcut (2022). The UI for both seemed overwrought and difficult to get what I wanted out of. A text description of timecodes and filter parameters sounds a ton easier to use. Having said that, I assume that would exist if the market actually wanted it.

This "language" looks more like a file format to be honest.

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#22

Post by noufalibrahim »

bjackman wrote: post #16
rjh29 wrote: post #6

There's no explanation of how to use it, or even a code snippet. And the documentation is down. So not very useful I'm afraid :(

I've always thought that tech websites often start with the wrong thing, with installation instructions front & centre like this one. If I'm coming to the website looking for that info I'll be happy to dig around a little bit to find it. If I'm coming to the website as a curious observer that information is not useful, it's wasting space that could be used demonstrating _why_ I'd want to install it.

Same. Installed it. Couldn't find a small thing I could play around with. Clicked on the docs link and got an error. Very disappointing.

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#23

Post by nextaccountic »

roydivision wrote: post #12
rjh29 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish people would stop using common nouns for program names, not only is it hard to search for, but it's kind of ... arrogant? Like you think you're the best there is and will ever be for that particular noun? Imagine if Google Chrome renamed to 'Browser'

Hey Apple, are you listening? Pages, Numbers, Photos, Finder, Messages...

Also Gnome

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#24

Post by Eduard »

rjh29 wrote: post #6

There's no explanation of how to use it, or even a code snippet. And the documentation is down. So not very useful I'm afraid :(

Additionally: no sample video (that's what this project is about, right?). And using terms only an ingroup can understand ("what's DrRacket again?")

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#25

Post by rscho »

rjh29 wrote: post #7
fouronnes3 wrote: post #3

I'll be that guy: curious name :/

I wish people would stop using common nouns for program names, not only is it hard to search for, but it's kind of ... arrogant? Like you think you're the best there is and will ever be for that particular noun? Imagine if Google Chrome renamed to 'Browser'

In this context, you'd import the language just like a library, and feed the file to the Racket compiler. This an embedded language, so there can be no confusion.

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#26

Post by shiroiushi »

oersted wrote: post #20
roydivision wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Apple, are you listening? Pages, Numbers, Photos, Finder, Messages...

To be fair these are part of a preinstalled suite of native apps, an extension of the OS, rather than being part of the larger app ecosystem. You could argue that implicitly they have the brand-name in front: e.g. "Apple/Mac Photos" or "iMessage". Every OS has a "Calculator" or something like "Notes", these are reasonable names. Just like you have Google/Apple "Maps" or "Calendar". It's standard to use such naming fo…

Yeah, that's basically how I treat Google stuff with generic names: I call them "Google Maps", "Google Photos", etc. When I hear Apple users talk about their music service, they call it "Apple Music".

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#27

Post by mkl »

rjh29 wrote: post #6

There's no explanation of how to use it, or even a code snippet. And the documentation is down. So not very useful I'm afraid :(

The documentation was hosted on another site, and at least one version of it has moved to https://docs.racket-lang.org/video/index.html. Sadly it says almost nothing - I think this is v0.0 and can't find a way to change that. The more recent documentation source code is at https://github.com/videolang/video/tree/master/video/scribbl... and there are examples at https://github.com/videolang/video/tree/master/video/example... (without any explanation, and they don't seem to do much).

Unsearchable name, Scheme-like syntax, no accessible documentation, no compelling examples ... not much chance of success. Still, the idea of a "language for making movies" is interesting.

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#29

Post by fragmede »

oersted wrote: post #20
roydivision wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Apple, are you listening? Pages, Numbers, Photos, Finder, Messages...

To be fair these are part of a preinstalled suite of native apps, an extension of the OS, rather than being part of the larger app ecosystem. You could argue that implicitly they have the brand-name in front: e.g. "Apple/Mac Photos" or "iMessage". Every OS has a "Calculator" or something like "Notes", these are reasonable names. Just like you have Google/Apple "Maps" or "Calendar". It's standard to use such naming fo…

> Every OS has a "Calculator"

wait till you hear about iPadOS

Re: Video: A Language for Making Movies

#30

Post by rscho »

bux93 wrote: post #21
EvanAnderson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks interesting. Thanks for digging that up. I've done a little video editing using Adobe Premiere (mid-2000's) and Shotcut (2022). The UI for both seemed overwrought and difficult to get what I wanted out of. A text description of timecodes and filter parameters sounds a ton easier to use. Having said that, I assume that would exist if the market actually wanted it.

This "language" looks more like a file format to be honest.

Well, it gets compiled to Racket code, and has distinct syntax, so it seems to fit the bill as a language.
Post reply on HN