libopenshot

Pros of MLT

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Wider adoption and integration in various video editing applications
• Extensive plugin system for adding new features and effects

Cons of MLT

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the framework
• Less focus on high-level video editing features compared to libopenshot

Code Comparison

MLT:

mlt_producer producer = mlt_factory_producer(profile, "avformat", filename);
mlt_playlist playlist = mlt_playlist_new();
mlt_playlist_append_io(playlist, producer, in, out);
mlt_consumer consumer = mlt_factory_consumer(profile, "sdl", NULL);
mlt_consumer_connect(consumer, MLT_PRODUCER(playlist));

libopenshot:

Timeline t(1280, 720, Fraction(24, 1), 44100, 2, LAYOUT_STEREO);
Clip c1(new FFmpegReader("video1.mp4"));
t.AddClip(&c1);
FFmpegWriter w("output.mp4");
w.WriteFrame(&t, 1, 100);

Both libraries provide powerful video editing capabilities, but MLT offers a more low-level approach with its C API, while libopenshot provides a higher-level C++ interface. MLT's plugin system allows for greater extensibility, while libopenshot focuses on ease of use for video editing tasks.

Pros of FFmpeg

• Extensive codec support and multimedia processing capabilities
• Highly optimized and efficient for various platforms
• Large community and extensive documentation

Cons of FFmpeg

• Steep learning curve for beginners
• Command-line interface can be complex for simple tasks
• Requires additional wrappers or libraries for GUI applications

Code Comparison

FFmpeg (command-line usage):

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf scale=1280:720 -c:a copy output.mp4

libopenshot (C++ usage):

Clip clip("input.mp4");
clip.Scale(1280, 720);
Timeline timeline(1280, 720, 30);
timeline.AddClip(&clip);
FFmpegWriter writer("output.mp4");
writer.WriteToFile(&timeline);

Summary

FFmpeg is a powerful, versatile multimedia framework with broad codec support and excellent performance. It excels in command-line operations and is widely used in various applications. However, its complexity can be challenging for beginners.

libopenshot, part of the OpenShot project, provides a more user-friendly API for video editing tasks. It's designed for integration into GUI applications and offers a simpler approach to common video operations. While it may not match FFmpeg's extensive feature set, it's more accessible for developers building video editing software.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as the need for a GUI, the complexity of video processing tasks, and the desired level of control over multimedia operations.

Pros of Kdenlive

• More mature and feature-rich video editing suite
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better integration with KDE desktop environment

Cons of Kdenlive

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Heavier resource usage compared to OpenShot
• Less cross-platform compatibility (primarily focused on Linux)

Code Comparison

Kdenlive (C++):

void MainWindow::slotAddClipToProject(const QUrl &url)
{
    QList<QUrl> urls;
    urls << url;
    pCore->bin()->droppedUrls(urls);
}

OpenShot (Python):

def add_file(self, filepath):
    file_path = Path(filepath)
    if not file_path.exists():
        log.warning("Failed to load file: %s", filepath)
        return
    self.files.append(File(filepath))

Both repositories handle adding files to the project, but Kdenlive uses C++ with Qt framework, while OpenShot uses Python. Kdenlive's approach is more tightly integrated with its GUI, while OpenShot's implementation is more straightforward and Pythonic.

Pros of Flowblade

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for contributors familiar with the language
• Focuses specifically on video editing, potentially offering a more streamlined experience
• Lighter weight and potentially faster for basic editing tasks

Cons of Flowblade

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to libopenshot
• Smaller community and fewer contributors, which may lead to slower development
• Limited cross-platform support, primarily focused on Linux

Code Comparison

Flowblade (Python):

def _get_track_counts():
    audio_tracks = 0
    video_tracks = 0
    for i in range(current_sequence().first_video_index):
        if current_sequence().tracks[i].type == appconsts.AUDIO:
            audio_tracks += 1
    for i in range(current_sequence().first_video_index, len(current_sequence().tracks)):
        if current_sequence().tracks[i].type == appconsts.VIDEO:
            video_tracks += 1
    return (audio_tracks, video_tracks)

libopenshot (C++):

void Timeline::ApplyMapperToClips(std::function<void(Clip*)> mapper) {
    for (auto clip : clips) {
        mapper(clip);
    }
    for (auto layer : layers) {
        for (auto clip : layer->Clips()) {
            mapper(clip);
        }
    }
}

Pros of Olive

• More modern C++ codebase with Qt-based GUI
• Actively developed with frequent updates and new features
• Designed as a complete non-linear video editor, not just a library

Cons of Olive

• Less mature project with potential stability issues
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to OpenShot
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily focused on desktop)

Code Comparison

Olive (C++):

void Clip::set_timeline_in(const rational &r)
{
  timeline_in_ = r;
  InvalidateCache(TimelineCoordinate(timeline_in_.ToDouble(), track()->Index()), kInvalidateAll);
}

libopenshot (C++):

void Clip::SetPosition(double position)
{
    position_=position;
    if (reader) reader->SetFrame(round(position * reader->info.fps.ToDouble()));
}

Both projects use C++, but Olive's codebase is more modern and uses Qt for its GUI. libopenshot is designed as a library, while Olive is a complete video editor application. Olive's development is more active, with frequent updates and new features. However, libopenshot, as part of the OpenShot project, has a larger community and more established ecosystem. Olive may have more cutting-edge features, but libopenshot offers better stability and cross-platform support.