[Lumiera] Understanding lumiera view

Roland wildhostile at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 11:03:05 CEST 2010

Le 25/10/2010 15:55, Ichthyostega.. a écrit :
> Am 25.10.2010 03:27, schrieb Roland:
>> ...I understand that it can lead to other ways to work with media (maybe).
>> In particular, you seem to see Lumiera as a sort of programming language (as
>> Hendrik Boom suggested it) that would be graphical. But how far graphically
>> do you see it to be?
> Hi Roland,
> maybe I should clarify that notion a bit. The observation pointed out by
> Hendrik Boom is certainly valid, but actually we don't see Lumiera as a kind of
> programming language right now. We do employ some principles known from
> programming languages (like e.g. the ability to embody parts of the language
> definition into the language itself, which makes for a quite flexible tooling).
> But foremost, it's not an programming language, i.e. not general purpose, but a
> specialised tool for a very clear and distinct use case (professional editing).
> This use case imposes some special complexities, and we try to come up with
> technical solutions to be able to cope with these complexities maybe in a
> better way then existing tools do. All of this does have the potential
> to evolve into something more general purpose and open, (and that's intended),
> but foremost our goal is rather "pedestrian" (as hermanr put it nicely).
> We start to build a tool which really is up to that specific job, but has
> the ability to survive, adapt and evolve in a rapidly changing environment.
> I don't want to stop this discussion, please go on. How far graphically could
> such an editing / working environment be, conceivably? What do we mean with
> 'graphically'? Viewing video and effects in real time? Drag'n drop? Displaying
> the internal wiring as a tree of nodes? Having a shiny animated  display of a
> simulated Steenbeck?

I don't see Lumiera as a "shiny animated display of simulated 
steenbeck". I rather see it as usual video editing softwares (like 
Cinelerra) with other extended features. But as Hendrik Boom told about 
Graphical Programming Environment and you didn't seem to disagree, I 
thought you were thinking about something like Pure Data which I don't 
find user friendly even if it is said to be graphical.

Putting the "simulated steenbeck" display aside, there seems to be two 
- A windowed editor extended by a (easy) graphical programming language,
- or A Graphical programming language extended by windows.

Both of them can be implied in professional editing context. The one 
with maybe more acceptance than the other and the other offering maybe a 
larger palette of applications than the first. I would go for the first 
option (personally) but I'm not a professional. Professionals often 
don't care about interface... Like others DO care when it comes to use a 
tool on a regular basis. So what is professional editing?

> Probably, also the right balance is a problem. We have limited developer
> capacity. We can't build an immersive virtual 3D space where you'd put
> together your movies as in "minority report".

These discussions are virtual and don't imply anything.

> So, to start with, we'll certainly get tracks, clips and attached effects as
> boxes, with the ability to drag and trim with the mouse. But beyond that?
> Are there any 'graphical' ideas which are doable with a modest amount of
> dev power and which yield an improvement in a professional workflow?
> Cheers,
> Hermann
> _______________________________________________
> Lumiera mailing list
> Lumiera at lists.lumiera.org
> http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lumiera
> http://lumiera.org/donations.html

More information about the Lumiera mailing list