Top
Best
New

Posted by mohebifar 17 hours ago

Professional video editing, right in the browser with WebGPU and WASM(tooscut.app)
302 points | 105 commentspage 2
Retr0id 14 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 13 hours ago|
Yep. Unfortunately, Firefox has a poor WebGPU support atm.
skiing_crawling 13 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.
pjmlp 8 hours 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 7 hours 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.

pjmlp 7 hours ago|||
Except WebGPU 1.0 isn't modern, it exposes hardware capabilities from a decade ago, better than WebGL 2.0 sure, which is what mobile GPUs were in 2010.

And the sandboxing get up to 4 GB, which in most cases will kill the browser depending on how many tabs are open.

mashreghi 6 hours ago||
Most real-world edits aren't hitting those limits. Constraint ≠ useless, it just defines the target use case.
pjmlp 3 hours ago||
Depends on the target audience.
m00dy 7 hours ago|||
A chrome tab still has 4gb max memory limit right ?
mohebifar 6 hours ago|||
Much of Tooscut's heavy data lives outside the V8 heap. We use WASM linear memory which is not counted against V8 heap. GPU buffers is in VRAM. Bitmaps are also native allocations.

Also, video files are never fully decoded. We use the browser's native WebCodecs on demand. Only a small buffered window gets decoded and sent to the compositor. So it can even handle long 4K videos.

m00dy 5 hours ago||
good info, thanks.
mashreghi 6 hours ago|||
Sure, and most social/video workflows fit comfortably under that. Not everything is 8K RAW timelines.
mashreghi 6 hours ago|||
Same argument was made about Figma vs native tools, didn't age well.
pjmlp 3 hours ago|||
Figma is the exception that confirms the rule, and mostly used by Web designers anyway.
aprilthird2021 6 hours ago|||
Same argument was also made about progressive web apps vs native apps, and the latter are still going quite strong. Idk
onion2k 5 hours ago|||
Unreal Engine 5 can run in your browser. What "3D rendering" capability is missing for video work?
pjmlp 3 hours ago||
Unreal Engine 5 can limp on my browser, and usually most demos end up crashing it, not really a good example.

What is the most successful game on the browser, done with Unreal 5 that can compare to Flash 3D games, other than the citadel demo done with Unreal 3, and with Infinity Blade graphics as baseline?

Exactly, crickets.

mashreghi 7 hours ago||
Photopea wasn't "Photoshop replacement" either, still massively useful.
jofzar 5 hours ago|||
Imo photopea is a Photoshop replacement, it's just not a professional Photoshop replacement.

It's for everyone who had a pirated version of cs3 on their computer for basic edits.

pjmlp 3 hours ago|||
Never heard of it.
TechSquidTV 13 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 13 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.
bilekas 11 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 ?
mohebifar 6 hours ago|
Could you please tell me more about your use case. I've changed the license once today. I'm open to changing it again.
bilekas 4 hours ago||
So for example, we offer a Digital Assets Management system, we off free plan right up to enterprise plans. If I wanted to enhance the users experience by having a tool *your tool( loaded for them to make quick basic modifications to their video media in browser that would not be possible.

The enhancement is not core to the product and available to free and paid users, but because its a commecial product your ELv2 license does not support it. As I understand, and its limited, the ELv2 is best suited for tools that are source available but only usedage in backend tools / single developer experience.

In your case that may be the case, so it depends on your desired direction, if you want media creators to be able to use their tool individually then sure, your license is fine.

Jayakumark 15 hours ago||
great project but non commercial license, makes me not to go near it.
mohebifar 15 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 15 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 13 hours ago||
Thanks for the feedback! I honestly had not read the license thoroughly. I just changed it to ELv2.
cpb 14 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 13 hours ago||
Thanks so much for the feedback. I just changed the license to ELv2.
gnarbarian 11 hours ago||
very cool. I was trying to implement a MP4 encoder in webGPU recently by porting sections of ffmpeg (NOT EASY).

it's for this:

https://ubernaut.github.io/recordMyScreen/

which uses a the wasm build of ffmpeg.

rikroots 1 hour ago|
My tool uses the browser's built in encoders (which vary by browser, but whatever). I did use wasm though, for the MediaPipe background removal stuff.

https://kaliedarik.github.io/sc-screen-recorder/

thefourthchime 16 hours ago||
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 16 hours ago|
Ah I believe I should have clarified browser support. Safari is not very well supported. Have you tried chrome?
ErroneousBosh 4 hours ago|||
It's not supported in Chrome either.
stefan_ 13 hours ago|||
So Safari doesn't work, Firefox doesn't work. It's professional video editing, right in the ~~browser~~ Chrome window.
ukuina 13 hours ago||
What is the problem with targeting the most prevalent rendering engine?
leptons 10 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 15 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.
durakot 10 hours ago|
Had a look. "Professional" is doing a lot of work here.
mashreghi 6 hours ago|
If people can ship paid work with it, it's professional enough.
More comments...