Talk:Avidemux

deleted in german Wikipedia

I was tempted to put this to the article, but removed it - its better read in the discussion at first I think:

Curious

The german Avidemux entry has been deleted Reason for the request for deletion was: "Begründung:Werbetext für ein Softwareprodukt zweifelhafter Relevanz. Eine Verbreitung wie sie zum Beispiel bei VirtualDub vorhanden ist kann ich hier nicht erkennen. Aber vor allem ist es purer Werbebläh. --Weissbier 09:49, 4. Mai 2007 (CEST)" That means "Reason:Advertising text for a softwareproduct of doubtable relevance. A widespread distrubution like par example VirtualDub has unfortunately I cannot see in this case. But above all it is pure advertisingbleh." Last Avidemux-entry at de.wikipedia:

• the page fetched from googlecache: Avidemux
• Locally hosted version (Googlecache-Entries removed) in case googlecache is refreshed: Avidemux

Though 12:0 votes for keeping it was deleted "Begründung: Im Artikel stand, das es sich um eine Software handelt und was sie kann. Das war alles! Damit ist keine wie auch immer geartete enzyklopädische Relevanz erkennbar. Dazu wurde auch in der Diskussion nichts beigetragen. --He3nry Disk. 10:16, 17. Mai 2007 (CEST)" "Reason: The article just said that it is a software and what it can do. That was all! In this way was no encyclopedian relevance visible. The discussion also did not add to it."

Future plans - is this necessary?

I don't think that the "Future plans" section is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Firstly, users interested in Avidemux development can see all these details elesewhere (mailing list with patches, web forum, bug tracker), this is just general info page about the Avidemux application, i.e. what it is and what it can do, not a development info. Secondly, the "Proposed (but unconfirmed or undecided) features" section is just pure speculation that's not based on anything real. It's just fantasy. Anyone can ask for any feature in Avidemux and then, without getting any answer, put it the "Future plans" section, cunfusing the readers who may think that these are planned features. That's pretty much what this section represents (random suggestions from various users without getting answers from the developers). Only Mean or other Avidemux developers know what they plan to do. And only when they say it's planned, it can be considered a planned feature. And even then, it may not belong here, in Wikipedia. J. M. 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I do not believe phrases such as "Some people think..." and "...boasts such features..." are entirely NPOV. – Glenn Seto 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

link down

the homepage http://www.avidemux.org/ appears to be down. 71.131.134.213 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Works here. But it is down from time to time. Anyway, the main page is really www.avidemux.org, the avidemux.sourceforge.net link is just one of the three Avidemux mirrors (not more important than e.g. the primary fixounet.free.fr/avidemux mirror). So I'm going to change the external links section to make it clear that the SourceForge.net mirror is not the main Avidemux address that deserves to be put at the top of the list, I'm also going to fix the old forum and wiki links. —J. M. 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Desync issues

I don't know if it worth mentionning it, but I had huge desync problems with Avidemux. I think it lies in the way Avidemux handle NTSC source 23.976 played as 29.976 (with 3:2 Pulldown), it's not doing the job correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.150.95 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link - OpenDML

The OpenDML link, next to AVI, under "Supported input formats" is broken. Reason is due to website redesign at Matrox.com . I couldn't find the new URL to fix it. 85.228.120.179 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Dubious Comments

I use avidemux as a simple editor. Comparing it with Adobe Premiere Pro is misleading, it is a vastly simpler piece of software that doesn't begin to do the same kinds of audio/video editing. However, it does open many more file formats without the fuss that Premiere sometimes makes about licensing. It's become a cliche to exagerate the qualities of anything open source, and in the long run, that doesn't help the reputation of the movement. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What actually matters in Wikipedia is this: all statements in all articles must be verifiable via reliable sources. It does not matter what you, I or any other Wikipedia editor think of Avidemux, open-source and the qualities of anything. The only thing that matters is whether the statement can be backed up by citing a reliable source. Furthermore, phrases like "...is widely regarded as..." (example from the article: "Avidemux has often been considered to be an open-source substitute for high-end commercial editors, such as Adobe Premiere Pro") are weasel words that should be avoided in Wikipedia. So if this particular claim cannot be backed up by quoting a reliable source (who exactly considers it to be a substitute for Premiere, where's the link?), without using vague, weasel expressions, then it's time to remove it. You can either do it right away, or mark the dubious claim(s) in the article with appropriate templates such as {{fact}} or {{weasel}} first, wait a couple of days (weeks, months) for someone to fix it, and if it doesn't happen, then remove it.—J. M. (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only references to it being an Open Source alternative to "Adobe Premier Pro" that I can find are at sites like the Open Source As Alternative site [1], but there is no objective comparison to say that it is anywhere near as powerful as "Adobe Premier Pro"; indeed that claim is NOT made. If you go to sites where you can download it, it is described as being designed to do simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks[2][3]and at their own web site[4]. I would suggest removing the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.109.161 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons

I have been a Linux user for a long time, and I avidly support open source and FOSS solutions. However, I don't like the way this article comes across. The constant comparisons with applications like VirtualDUB are problematic in 2 ways, I believe. First, it comes across as a "defensive advertisement," which is detrimental to the project in my opinion. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, readers may not have any experience using any video editing software at all, so these types of statements potentially don't tell readers about Avidemux at all; this is supposed to be a world-class encyclopedia after all.

I suggest the article be adjusted to simply explain Avidemux, and not compare it to other software solutions, except probably in a "Avidemux compared to other software" type section. This will first of all change the tone to one of professionalism, and second will be much more informative to the readers.

17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.83 (talk)

After re-reading the article 3 times, I can see that what I have suggested here has been attempted. The problem remains that my overall impression is that this article is more of a defensive advertisement. I will mull this over for awhile and perhaps offer some changes that I think everyone will agree on. LOL I will also log in prior to doing so! 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.83 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avidemux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/multimedia/avidemux2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210001542/http://www.openbsd.org:80/4.6_packages/i386.html to http://www.openbsd.org/4.6_packages/i386.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Update tagging

Tagging an article for updates is okay, but posting some refs here that outlines what needs to be incorporated would be much more helpful. Got refs? - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a content dispute about the "simple and easy-to-use" description in the intro. I can see right and wrong observations on both sides of the dispute:

• Removed promotional text from first sentence: I can generally agree that "designed for easy-to-use and simple video editing and video processing" is not something that should be included in the first sentence of the article, as it indeed smells of promotional, NPOV-violating language.
• "designed to be simple and easy-to-use" is not promotional, it's about UI and available options: Even it does not directly say "it is simple and easy-to-use", saying that it is "designed to be simple and easy-to-use" may just be a buck-passing practice of using weasel words to say the same thing. Who says it is designed to be easy to use? Certainly not the Avidemux author, who really knows how he designed it and why.
• The statement is true of any software. Nobody designs things to be complicated and hard-to-use. Also the terms are redundant with each other: The statement is definitely not true of any software. Firstly, the fact that some software is not designed to be easy to use does not mean it is designed to be hard to use. There are many software projects that are definitely not designed to be easy to use. Secondly, the terms are not redundant. There are many extremely complex pieces of software that are designed to be easy to use (e.g. Microsoft Windows or any modern web browser), and there are many pieces of software that are simple (and designed to be simple, doing just one thing) but not easy to use at all for regular, mainstream users (e.g. many command-line programs).
• Ever use Avid DV?: This is where the misunderstanding lies. Avidemux is a very different type of program compared to complex video editors like Avid DV. In fact, these complex video editors are often really designed to be (relatively) easy-to-use, considering the vast breadth of features they provide.
• simple" and "easy-to-use" are synonymous: No, they are not (see the previous points). As the Avidemux website says, Avidemux is a free video editor designed for simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks. And this is exactly what this program is designed for. It is designed to be simple (compared to full-featured NLE software like Avid DV), it is specifically designed for very simple, basic tasks like cutting out ads, demuxing or re-encoding video or audio tracks. But this by definition also means it is not necessarily designed to be easy to use: many things that users of more complex programs like Avid DV can do easily are not so comfortable in Avidemux or cannot be done at all (using multiple tracks, transitions etc.). Furthermore, it also means that Avidemux is designed for users who know what they are doing—that is, they should know what a container format, audio coding format and video coding format is, how to configure encoders, what combinations of formats and parametes are allowed, how to use its scripting capabilities etc. The Avidemux author never claimed the program was (designed to be) easy to use. It has always been aimed at more technical users.

So, my summary: Avidemux is a simple program for simple video encoding/editing tasks that is not necessarily designed to be user-friendly or easy-to-use (which does not mean it is designed to be user-unfriendly or hard-to-use). I think that "designed to be simple and easy-to-use", even if it was true, is not suitable for the first sentence, as it reads like promotional material. If the intro absolutely has to mention some characteristic, it can mention that it is designed for simple tasks, but perhaps this could be explained in more detail in the article, comparing the simplicity with more advanced NLE software.—J. M. (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed analysis here, but while you were doing that I replaced it with a direct quote and ref. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you J. M. As it was written, I think "simple" and "easy to use" were synonymous, but the distinction you make can clearly be made. Now Ahunt has made the second sentence a report on what the developers of the software intend it to be, and clearly thinks they have the final say. Meanwhile Editor-1, who has not left any edit summary or engaged in any discussion, has added further text of the same kind. I do not think what the developers intend the software to be is in any way encyclopaedic, and reporting it in this way, in the second sentence of the article, is pure promo. 355pr355 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course the design goals of the development team for the software are encyclopedic. Why would they not be? - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Of course" is not a convincing argument. Compare to, say, a film. Should the second sentence of any article about a film quote the director of the film saying what they were hoping to achieve with it? 355pr355 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparing software to films is a poor analogy as products go. For products like boats, aircraft and software we usually indicate what the design goal was, when known. See Fireball (dinghy) or Ozone Zeno for two good examples. I have no problem if we paraphrase the design goals instead of using a direct quote. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those two articles contain anything resembling the promotional tone you are so keen on here. Are you associated with this software? 355pr355 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No I am not, don't even use this software. Before making wild accusations against editors, please read WP:AGF. - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

355pr355 is a sock of a long-term nuisance. WP:AGF is, to put it mildly, not this person's forte, and he's community-banned from Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that post, I see he has been blocked and cannot even edit his own talk page now. That is not at all a surprise, given the discussion and his editing on this article. I think we can close this thread out. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh thank god! (😂) this guy was on the nerves! Avidemux is a free and open-source software that doesn't get anything for download, use, and modify it; I don't understand what was his problem, sometimes I thought he is a developer of a proprietary commercial Windows software that Avidemux has kicked it out of business!😂 -- Editor-1 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP seems to paint a picture of basically trolling. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.