Hi tamara65 - I see that Elusien replied on a separate thread. Like he said, recording in front of a green screen, and then using the chromakey filter (to remove the green color) is how you change the background. 
1 Like
Hello, thank you for your answer, I tested this trick but I have a background of the video which is not green.
The problem is that it’s not really chatting … my videos are recycling videos … but here with this video it’s blocking … please give me another free tip online.
best regards
Hello, thank you for your answer, I tested applied what you told me but it resists too much the background. the video that I have does not have a green background I wanted to change the background with an image then with a video but it does not work. There are spots that remain displayed on the video. My videos are recycling videos … but here with this video it’s blocking … please give me another free tip online. thank you so much
best regards
Can you post a screenshot of the video so we can understand better. Unfortunately, the methods I described earlier are the only ones I know of for an arbitrary background.
If the object in the foreground never moves, you can use a mask. But I doubt this is the case with your video.
It’s really a nice sharing! Thanks a lot. I’ll send this to my friends.
Thanks SallySunny!
@lukemchale, seeing as you do music, do you know how to use Equalizers? On Shotcut’s latest beta, three new Equalizers got added so if that’s of any interest to you and if you have time maybe you can consider testing it out to see if you think it works well? 
Hi DRM - definitely, I would be happy to test. Having a better audio EQ tool would probably be my number 1 request for a ShotCut enhancement. The current “bass & treble” tool (with only 3 sliders, bass / middle / treble) is very basic / limited, and and I generally have to do export my ShotCut music projects to audio files and adjust EQ in other software. It looks like the current beta version is v22.01. Quick question - there are no issues with clips shifting position in the timeline, with the BETA version, are there? The current project I am working on is a music video with a lot of cuts and clips that are exactly lined up, so I just didn’t want anything to shift or move. Thank you - and I would be happy to test the new EQ tools!
Um, yes there is, see Please test the BETA for version 22.01 - #26 by DRM
Release will be out by end of the month.
Yeah, as Dan explained above you there is a bug I found regarding that however you don’t need to install the beta. When you go here for the beta you can download the zip file and use that for testing instead which is the portable one.
Great! 
Leave your feedback on the new Equalizer filters or anything else that you notice in the beta thread:
@shotcut @DRM
Hi guys - sorry, it looks like I was a bit slow, and the new release is out, and the [Please test the BETA for version 22.01] thread is closed. Just a quick update on my end. I have been using / testing the new Equalizer with a music video that I am working on.
a) “Equalizer 3-band”
Seems to work just fine, like the prior “Bass & Treble” filter.
b) “Equalizer: 15-band”
Thank you so much for providing this detailed band EQ! The individual EQ band adjustments work great, and I am using the 15-band EQ on my current music video project. The only unexpected result I found is that when you add the 15-band EQ to the track (or clip), the volume of that track (or clip) increases by approx 5 dB, even though all of the EQ bands are initially set to 0 dB change. I would have thought there would be 0 dB change (like is the case with “Equalizer 3-band”, or “Equalizer: Parametric”), at least until you change the EQ band levels. However, this is minor, because I can just use the “gain / volume” filter to reduce the track (or clip) volume back to where it was originally. So, I am still very excited to have the 15-band EQ available to use in ShotCut.
c) “Equalizer: Parametric”
Seems to work just fine. (And there is no change in volume when you first turn it on.) Thank you for providing this additional EQ option. The only feedback I have is that this filter is more difficult to work with because you don’t have a visual/graphical way of seeing the results of the filter. I realize this would be difficult to code, but here is a sample of the EQ tool from Waveform 11 (free version), with a visual tool for the EQ parametric adjustments. You make the adjustments by clicking / dragging / etc. right in the visual tool.
Again, sorry for my slow reply, and thanks for your awesome work and 15-band EQ! 
Hey, better late than never.
I’m curious, when you do your work on the audio, do you use the Audio layout that Shotcut provides?
I’m not an expert in audio so I’m wondering if the Audio scopes in that layout would help any when working with the Parametric filter.
DRM, that’s a great point / question. To answer, no I don’t switch to audio layout, when editing audio in Shotcut. The old bass/treble (3-band) EQ filter was too basic for me to use for music EQ, so I would do my EQ work in other software (Waveform 11), and pull the audio file back into Shotcut, and I didn’t think to switch to audio layout in Shotcut. I would just leave Shotcut in editing layout.
For the parametric filter, using the audio layout is a good idea. It wouldn’t necessarily show you a visual of the input settings for the EQ, but you could watch how the output is changing and you listen and make updates with the Equalizer: Parametric filter, or any of the EQ filters. 
Yes, a graphic EQ would be the very best - but with at least 5 bands: three for Bel and two for Shelf or High/Low-Pass.
But the new “Equalizer: Parametric” is already quite a big win.
Now Shotcut is perfectly sufficient for proper audio processing.
Yes. I reproduce this. Shotcut and MLT are not adding a gain increase. So it must be a side effect of the underlying ladspa plugin implementation.
I have not studied the plugin implementation enough to fully understand it. There are some hints in the code:
This is a fairly typical multiband graphical equalizer. It’s implemented using a FFT, so it takes quite a lot of CPU power, but should have less phase effects than an equivalent filter implementation.
If the input signal is at too low a sample rate then the top bands will be ignored, the highest useful band will always be a high shelf.
OK. So I guess it is using an FFT to operate in frequency domain instead of a more typical multi-stage time domain FIR or IIR. I do not know why the author chose this approach. Maybe this method reduces phase distortion - which would be quite large by stacking 15 FIR filters.
Maybe there is an error (or just side effect) in the calculation of the bin coefficients. For example, why is 700 being added to the gain coefficent here?
I would have to spend quite a bit of time studying this implementation to understand it and propose an improvement. I am not really inclined to modify this LADSPA plugin for a minor infraction.
I suggest that we accept this as a “known issue”. We can always keep an eye out for an alternate open source multi-band equalizer implementation that works differently.
1 Like
I’m in the same boat they are. I can’t explain why the 15-band EQ is raising the volume. Even on a 1 kHz sine wave, it raises the volume by 2.8 dB. Personally, I am unlikely to use this filter due to this anomaly.
As an alternative, I wonder if ladspa.34067 would work better. I assume this is from the Calf Studio Gear set of filters, which is quite well-known:
https://mltframework.org/plugins/FilterLadspa-34067/
I tried to make a quick mockup QML UI for it, but could not get it to load. I’m not currently in a debugger environment, so I couldn’t find out why. Part of me wonders how any Calf filters would even work, since I thought Calf was LV2 rather than LADSPA (v1), and I wasn’t sure if MLT even supported LV2.
Anyhow, if this filter did work, my thought was to use fixed Q values that lightly overlap into the neighboring bands, and fake it into being a graphic EQ.
That said, I’m more likely to use the parametric EQ than a graphic EQ anyway, and the current parametric EQ seems to work great. 
We only include the SWH LADSPA plugins.
That’s what I had assumed. Then I was surprised to see a mention of Calf in the MLT documentation. I was about to get excited and write some code! Calf is cool!