Rendered at 07:12:09 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
pjmlp 27 minutes ago [-]
This will only handle toy videos, given the browser limitations in sandboxing and 3D rendering.
Not really sure why someone would use this instead of a proper native application.
mohebifar 17 minutes ago [-]
The goal here is not to replace Premiere Pro across every professional workflow. But it is also not intended to be a toy editor.
Modern browser and GPU capabilities are already sufficient for a large category of practical video editing tasks. We are not targeting blockbuster scale 8K movies at least for now, but we are targeting real jobs people do every day across social, commercial, and non-commercial video production.
skyberrys 2 hours ago [-]
I used it to combine the sounds from one video with the imagery of another video. It worked easily enough. It feels really simple to use, there aren't many ways for me to make mistakes. I could easily switch to using this tool. Fyi I used Brave Browser without issue.
mohebifar 2 hours ago [-]
Amazing! That's really great to hear! Let me know if you ever have any issues or feature requests in the GitHub issues.
xrd 8 hours ago [-]
I've been using kdenlive and it is functional as an open source video editor. I don't know if kdenlive supports shared assets and projects, but this feels like something this project could offer and exceed expectations. Is that on the roadmap?
mohebifar 8 hours ago [-]
Yes, that was part of the thinking behind the licensing choice. The goal was to keep the engine itself open source, while creating opportunities to monetize adjacent offerings like cloud file management, sharing, AI editing, and other higher-level capabilities.
TechSquidTV 6 hours ago [-]
I like the promise, but the hill is very steep and I don't see much on delivery here. Very hopeful, but I would rather see this kind of thing launch significantly further than where it is at. This appears to be a good base, now let's see it again when there is Text support, animations, transitions, filters, etc.
mohebifar 6 hours ago [-]
We actually already support text, transitions, and animation of basic properties as well as some filters. I would be interested to hear more about your use case and which capabilities you felt were missing from what you saw.
Seems interesting. I had not seen Omniclip specifically. But like most web-based NLEs I've seen, its UX feels unfamiliar. My goal was to build a desktop-grade professional editor that feels familiar to editors like Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and Final Cut Pro, rather than reinventing the editing experience.
Retr0id 7 hours ago [-]
Tried it in Firefox and it was working for a few minutes and then managed to crash the whole browser. Definitely a firefox and/or gpu driver bug though. I can't wait for WebGPU browser/platform support to get a bit more mature, because it's awesome (although the security implications do make me nervous).
mohebifar 6 hours ago [-]
Yep. Unfortunately, Firefox has a poor WebGPU support atm.
mohebifar 10 hours ago [-]
Free and open source NLE video editor powered by WGPU, WASM, WebGPU, Rust, and Tanstack Start
You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.
bilekas 3 hours ago [-]
ELv2 is not open source either.
guelo 2 hours ago [-]
It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
TimeBearingDown 1 hours ago [-]
The accepted term is "source available".
Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
maxloh 5 hours ago [-]
Nice change!
dylan604 5 hours ago [-]
If you want free, Resolve will run circles around whatever open source thing you can find. No need for WGPU, it just runs the GPU.
Sadly, things like this just put a bad taste in my mouth about the whole concept of running code in a browser like this. It's buggy as hell. It doesn't run in all browsers. And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this. We've moved from Java and now to WASM in a browser, but only some browsers.
tim-projects 3 hours ago [-]
In my experience getting it to run on my Intel gpu on Linux was not trivial. And when I did I discovered it doesn't support standard video formats making it a complete non starter.
Kdenlive is much better imho for basic edits
vunderba 5 hours ago [-]
+1 for Davinci Resolve. I used the free version for years (Windows and Mac versions) before finally picking up a copy of Studio which is still very reasonably priced and is a flat fee.
Fabricio20 4 hours ago [-]
Resolve requiring an account to download is what turned me away when I needed to do a quick edit the other day. Oracle much?
windowsrookie 3 hours ago [-]
Black Magic gives video editing software that actual professionals use away for free. They sell professional grade equipment that regular consumers can afford. They also offer a ton of training videos teaching you how to edit professionally....for free. A ton of independent filmmakers have started their career using Black Magic software/devices.
They are absolutely not anything like oracle.
nullpoint420 2 hours ago [-]
I always put asdf@asdf.com and it lets me download it
motoxpro 4 hours ago [-]
Why not just have a throwaway email account for these types of things. Opens up a lot of great software if this is a barrier for you.
csomar 4 hours ago [-]
> And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this.
This is a big barrier if you want cross-compatibility and making Linux usable for everyday people. My whole interface is a terminal and a browser. I could use/pay for something like this in the same way I use figma. I don't need an app and when I open my iPad I can access whatever I was working on.
The browser should have been the place to run all of this from the very start; but Apple/Google decided to create walled gardens for their systems.
empressplay 7 hours ago [-]
I think you selected the wrong license. Your license currently as written actually forbids _using_ the software for a commercial purpose, eg if someone monetizes a video edited using your software, they are in violation of your license, which is not what you want.
Look at something like the Hashicorp BSL [1] for inspiration on crafting a license that forbids specific commercialization of the software itself.
Would you like to share your development experience? I suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md and enabling discussions if you are open to PRs.
mohebifar 13 minutes ago [-]
I added CONTRIBUTING.md. I also took a look at OpenFX. My current view is that supporting OFX in the browser would be hard, since the standard and its existing tooling are not designed around wgpu or browser execution. Tooscut would likely need its own plugin model rather than adopting OFX as is.
That said, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts if you are open to contributing or discussing what a practical plugin system should look like in this environment. Please file a GitHub issue if you can
mohebifar 8 hours ago [-]
Great question! I actually have built a poc that is not released yet. It's on the roadmap. It requires some tooling for the devs building these plugins like a CLI for building the WASM binaries, bundling, manifests, etc.
The current poc still has significant performance overhead, and that overhead grows as the plugin system becomes more powerful. If plugins are only allowed to apply a WGSL shader, the performance impact is almost negligible. But features that require broader access to timeline data, such as time shifts, speed ramps, or full timeline transformations, become much more expensive and make zero-copy architectures harder to reason about.
8 hours ago [-]
bilekas 3 hours ago [-]
Nice tool, but not a very useful license.. I would love to integrate something like this as an additive to users but if I'm not mistaken, that's completely off limits for this license type ?
durakot 3 hours ago [-]
Had a look. "Professional" is doing a lot of work here.
bensyverson 9 hours ago [-]
Really cool! It may not replace a dedicated NLE for professional editors, but I love that it's a fully functional NLE that you could drop into an existing web app that handles video.
mohebifar 8 hours ago [-]
Yes, but the goal is to become the photopea of video editing. Something quick that you can launch via web that can support 80% of the day to day use cases.
bensyverson 8 hours ago [-]
Nice. It feels like mobile is the natural place for it—how feasible is that today?
skiing_crawling 6 hours ago [-]
What would be really awesome is if it could use the server its hosted on's GPUs. I have a multi GPU server and it would be great to be able to edit videos from my table or couch without spinning up my laptop so hard.
Jayakumark 8 hours ago [-]
great project but non commercial license, makes me not to go near it.
mohebifar 8 hours ago [-]
I see. I haven't decided on the commercial license yet. This might be temporary. I started this as part of another for-profit side project (for dubbing videos with AI). I may change the license later as the quote unquote "copyright owner". If I see the open-source community is active and finds it useful, I'd switch to a free-er license. Things are not super clear yet to me re what can be done with a web based video editor.
tredre3 8 hours ago [-]
I personally don't see a problem with having the code be for non-commercial use only, but your hosted instance probably should allow commercial use. Otherwise I don't see how you're going to become the Photopea of video, which you stated as a goal.
mohebifar 6 hours ago [-]
Thanks for the feedback! I honestly had not read the license thoroughly. I just changed it to ELv2.
cpb 7 hours ago [-]
+1 for seeking clarity on commercial use.
I want to support some colleagues with automating some of the setup of routine video editing. Can't consider this impressive work without that clarity!
mohebifar 6 hours ago [-]
Thanks so much for the feedback. I just changed the license to ELv2.
gnarbarian 4 hours ago [-]
very cool. I was trying to implement a MP4 encoder in webGPU recently by porting sections of ffmpeg (NOT EASY).
This is very cool!! but a test video I did and I played it back on Safari, the video playback was very, very choppy (m2 air). Is this a known issue?
mohebifar 8 hours ago [-]
Ah I believe I should have clarified browser support. Safari is not very well supported. Have you tried chrome?
stefan_ 6 hours ago [-]
So Safari doesn't work, Firefox doesn't work. It's professional video editing, right in the ~~browser~~ Chrome window.
ukuina 6 hours ago [-]
What is the problem with targeting the most prevalent rendering engine?
leptons 3 hours ago [-]
You seem pretty young, honestly. You likely don't remember a time when websites displayed a message "Only works in IE", or "Only works in Netscape". It was not a good time for the web.
skyberrys 8 hours ago [-]
This looks cool! I'll check it out later from my computer, I'm guessing it's not so easy to use on mobile.
Jaxkr 8 hours ago [-]
Great project. The last time someone did this idea well they got acquired by Microsoft. Clipchamp has since been enshittified, making them ripe for disruption. The wheel continues to turn…
bstsb 8 hours ago [-]
looking good! getting red/inverted video flashes on Firefox, M4 Pro. could be an issue with canvas anti-fingerprinting though, not sure its root cause
SlavikCA 8 hours ago [-]
Great project!
Is there similar project for image editing?
Just basic features:
- cropping
- rotating
- brightness & contrast
fragmede 8 hours ago [-]
photopea?
modeless 8 hours ago [-]
Yeah, Photopea isn't exactly basic but it's great. If this became the Photopea equivalent for video that would be awesome.
SlavikCA 7 hours ago [-]
Thank you. Just tried it.
UI is rather confusing.
caijia 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mohebifar 5 hours ago [-]
Good point. I agree that could be a very interesting direction.
I have used Remotion for years because the DX is great, but the performance and overhead is significant. Even something like attaching subtitles to a video can take around 10x more time and resources than bare FFmpeg because of the chromium layer.
A headless version of this wgpu renderer with a clean API and eventually a nicer DX layer such as a react renderer could be a strong replacement for that kind of workflow.
boppo1 4 hours ago [-]
>render video assets without needing FFmpeg on the server.
Help me understand: able to do video with less compute? Or offload compute to client browsers?
caijia 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
leontloveless 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
devnotes77 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
baibai008989 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cerrO 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dylan604 5 hours ago [-]
Brand new accounts with such a positive comments always make me think someone's mom just signed up to make the comment.
cerrO 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Richard_Jiang 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bitwize 7 hours ago [-]
Is it feature-parity with Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro? If not, then it's not professional.
dylan604 7 hours ago [-]
If you make money at it, you're professional. People are making so much money being content creators and don't give a damn about your definition of needing Pr or FCP to be professional.
It doesn't take much functionality to make jump cut videos and silly zooms an other non-traditional editorial styles that are the new normal for content.
However, as a professional editor, I laugh at these attempts using professional in the description when you're telling me to edit in a browser. <face_palm> It's great that they want to create a new thing and try some experimental stuff, but it's not going any where near my use of professional. Also, the landing page is dry as can be and not really informative. It's the visual equivalent of bullet points. What codecs does it support? What level of audio features are available. The lame video is just some panning shot. There's no editorial features being demoed at all. Does the timeline behave like FCP elastic or a more traditional timeline? What professional tools are available? Hmm, no data available, so I guess we'll have to just play with it. Oops, browser not compatible. Thanks for playing.
Not really sure why someone would use this instead of a proper native application.
Modern browser and GPU capabilities are already sufficient for a large category of practical video editing tasks. We are not targeting blockbuster scale 8K movies at least for now, but we are targeting real jobs people do every day across social, commercial, and non-commercial video production.
It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd
Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
Sadly, things like this just put a bad taste in my mouth about the whole concept of running code in a browser like this. It's buggy as hell. It doesn't run in all browsers. And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this. We've moved from Java and now to WASM in a browser, but only some browsers.
Kdenlive is much better imho for basic edits
They are absolutely not anything like oracle.
This is a big barrier if you want cross-compatibility and making Linux usable for everyday people. My whole interface is a terminal and a browser. I could use/pay for something like this in the same way I use figma. I don't need an app and when I open my iPad I can access whatever I was working on.
The browser should have been the place to run all of this from the very start; but Apple/Google decided to create walled gardens for their systems.
Look at something like the Hashicorp BSL [1] for inspiration on crafting a license that forbids specific commercialization of the software itself.
[1] https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl
Would you like to share your development experience? I suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md and enabling discussions if you are open to PRs.
That said, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts if you are open to contributing or discussing what a practical plugin system should look like in this environment. Please file a GitHub issue if you can
The current poc still has significant performance overhead, and that overhead grows as the plugin system becomes more powerful. If plugins are only allowed to apply a WGSL shader, the performance impact is almost negligible. But features that require broader access to timeline data, such as time shifts, speed ramps, or full timeline transformations, become much more expensive and make zero-copy architectures harder to reason about.
I want to support some colleagues with automating some of the setup of routine video editing. Can't consider this impressive work without that clarity!
it's for this:
https://ubernaut.github.io/recordMyScreen/
which uses a the wasm build of ffmpeg.
Is there similar project for image editing?
Just basic features:
- cropping
- rotating
- brightness & contrast
UI is rather confusing.
I have used Remotion for years because the DX is great, but the performance and overhead is significant. Even something like attaching subtitles to a video can take around 10x more time and resources than bare FFmpeg because of the chromium layer.
A headless version of this wgpu renderer with a clean API and eventually a nicer DX layer such as a react renderer could be a strong replacement for that kind of workflow.
Help me understand: able to do video with less compute? Or offload compute to client browsers?
It doesn't take much functionality to make jump cut videos and silly zooms an other non-traditional editorial styles that are the new normal for content.
However, as a professional editor, I laugh at these attempts using professional in the description when you're telling me to edit in a browser. <face_palm> It's great that they want to create a new thing and try some experimental stuff, but it's not going any where near my use of professional. Also, the landing page is dry as can be and not really informative. It's the visual equivalent of bullet points. What codecs does it support? What level of audio features are available. The lame video is just some panning shot. There's no editorial features being demoed at all. Does the timeline behave like FCP elastic or a more traditional timeline? What professional tools are available? Hmm, no data available, so I guess we'll have to just play with it. Oops, browser not compatible. Thanks for playing.