V20.02 BETA is now available to test

hi, when it announced tha i can move video freely, i thought i can just drag and drop media into timeline and it will automatically add new track. but i dont know if this is a bug, but i still need to create a new track (audio/video track) and drag my video-for video track / audio-for audio track into the new track.

hopefully develepoer can create and detect an automatic new track when moving or dragging media files into empty timeline

sorry not a native speaker…

Your post is invalid in this thread. And, no, it is not required to add a new track first.

Thanks for the Vectorscope, a welcome addition, however the graticule markings are almost invisible, in particular the red, magenta and blue 75% marks

1 Like

Added Filters > Video > Rectangle .
This is an experimental video filter that uses the Qt Quick QML side of WebVfx.

Thanks for this expected new feature.
I think in next versions, circle and ellipse will be added

Preview Scaling:

If I use 360 the Preview starts with stutter where the FadeOut begins and remains on ‘Heavy-Parts-01’ until a next part.

If I use 720 or even None it is smooth…

The new vectorscope is awesome! I agree that the blue markers are difficult to see. Just wondering, would RGB values in the tooltips be useful to anyone else? I’m wondering about comparing colors quickly between GIMP and Shotcut without having to export a frame.

Preview scaling is phenomenal. I don’t have any bugs to report, but I have results from two tests that illustrate the performance gains:

Test 1: Fading


  • Video clip on V2 overlaps video on V1 by four seconds and fades in the whole four seconds. Hardware is 16 threads @ 2.4 GHz.


  • 4K timeline, 4K sources, no scaling: cannot play real-time
  • 4K timeline, 4K sources, 360p scaling: single-clip playback is easily real-time, but fade section stutters badly
  • 4K timeline, 360p proxies, 360p scaling: the entire sequence never tops 5% CPU! Incredible!

Test 2: Track Stacking


  • Put any video clip on V1. Same video clip goes on V2 overlapping the clip on V1, but has audio detached and deleted, a color grading filter added, then an opacity filter at 20% added. This filtered clip on V2 is then copied-and-pasted to V3, V4, V5 as high as possible until the audio from the clip on V1 starts to stutter.


  • 4K timeline, 4K source, no scaling: stutters with V1 alone; can’t stack
  • 4K timeline, 360p proxy, 360p scaling: stacks to 21 tracks!

If I replace the color grading filter with a Text: Simple filter, it stacks to 15 tracks.

The opacity filter is critical to the test because I believe Shotcut still has an optimization that says “if V5 is fully opaque, then don’t bother compositing V1-V4 since they can’t be seen anyway”. The opacity filter forces compositing and activation of all filters across all tracks for a more accurate measure of performance.

For previous projects, I had set the video mode to 360p using 360p proxies to get this kind of editing performance, and I see improvements in the new Preview Scaling feature that beat the old method. I was surprised to see Preview Scaling maxing out 8 of the 16 cores, whereas the old method would usually use 4, maybe 6 on a good day, but none at 100%. Also, the old method was only able to stack 18 tracks whereas Preview Scaling can do 21 (this is using the same hardware for both tests), so this is win-win all the way around. I’m very excited, as you can tell.

Specific note to @Earlybite (I hope I’m not breaking the thread rules by commenting on this since the stuttering thread was closed): You asked about performance of a 4-thread processor vs. a 12-thread processor. These test results suggest that a 4-thread processor with proxy sources could possibly be sufficient in 360p scaling mode. However, with 12 threads, proxy generation and export encoding will go significantly faster, and the preview while editing at 360p scaling should also benefit significantly since the preview appears able to utilize 8 cores efficiently. Let’s open a new topic if you want to discuss further to avoid cluttering this beta conversation.


At the risk of sounding greedy, could an option be added for 480p preview scaling? It’s an even multiple for 1440p monitors like the Apple Cinema LEDs that has an extremely good balance between picture quality and playback performance. I’ve noticed that using 480p proxies with a 480p video mode scales up cleaner to a full-screen external monitor than 360p/540p does to 1440p (using bilinear scaling for speed).

One issue to report.
Add a video, image or color clip to the source viewer or timeline.
Add size and position filter, select distort mode, resize the rectangle. The image will not fill the rectangle.


This is fixed for the next version.

1 Like

Can you elaborate on this? They are subtle on purpose so that they don’t obscure the vector data. I can lighten them or make the larger, but then they may hide the vector data. Additional thoughts would be appreciated.

I think this is not possible. The vectorscope only displays the chroma values (hue and saturation). It does not show the luminance values - which would be needed to calculate an RGB value. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the suggestion?

This is what the zoom scope is for. Please give it a try and let me know if it meets your needs.

I just noticed that the vectorscope tooltip has an error when it is outside of the scope. I will fix this for the release.

Yeah, I didn’t think that one through. Ignore me. :slight_smile: I tried the Video Zoom earlier today and it does exactly what I was looking for, but I was wondering before really thinking if the RGB functionality could be combined with the vectorscope to reduce the number of scopes on the screen for real estate reasons.

EDIT: I recall thinking that the FFmpeg avfilter.vectorscope filter allowed the color of the data in the vectorscope to represent the average or peak luminance at that UV value. I’m not requesting this as a feature, but it gets me thinking again about how much data can be packed into a vectorscope.

By the way, I love the multitude of scopes available now. Much appreciated.

In a room that has any amount of ambient light, it is difficult for my eyes at a reasonable distance from the screen to reliably detect the difference between the black background and the 75% blue mark in particular. I’ve got a calibrated Apple Cinema LED monitor, meaning it isn’t eye-blazing extra bright like a lot of monitors. Blue looks very dim on it. The RGB values of the Alexis Van Hurkman scope were RGB(0,0,255) but it’s showing up as RGB(0,0,85) on my computer. It’s really dark and really thin. Any chance HiDPI mode would make the lines extra-thin for some people?

I keep my ambient light down and my monitor is as near calibrated as I can get it, so it is not set exceptionally bright either. I sit about 1 1/2 metres away from it and, even if I set the vectorscope to maximum size, which is not usually practical, the red, magenta and blue 75% marks are almost undetectable. For me they (all) need to be brighter, bigger would help too. I find the vectorscope trace obscures the 75% marks when put over them.

Are the graticules not the defined acceptable limits for SMPTE 75% bars? Making them bigger makes them useless.

The use case of comparing Rec.709 RGB values to GIMP’s sRGB is not valid.

When I push saturation to make the trace extend past the 75% and 100% marks, the trace data covers (overlays) the marks and completely hides them. I guess I’m not seeing how these marks can obscure vector data if they are the lower layer.

I agree that marks can’t be made very thick because that makes finding the 75% point less precise. But if the marks were less wide but lots brighter, wouldn’t they be both visible and less obscuring even if they were the upper layer of compositing?

Does this statement effectively suggest that the Video Zoom scope is also not valid?

Added support for using a video clip in Transition Properties > Video .
This is handy to use with @jonray’s matte transitions.

Can someone elaborate on this feature?

Hey Thanks. I should have explained better. I am aware of the transitions I was just wondering how Shotcut supports those transitions now. I went to Properties - Video …but what then…

If you have the same value in sRGB and 709RGB, you don’t have the same hue, brightness and saturation. It’s a small difference, but it is different.

  1. Pick the Crop: Source filter and add it to a clip that is either in the Source tab or the Project tab. Then switch to the other tab and back again to the tab that has the clip with the Crop: Source filter. The filter will now say that it’s a GPU effect.

  2. Right click on a clip in the playlist and pick “Copy”. Go to Properties and change the speed. The playlist item’s running time will change even though “Copy” was picked.

  3. Using the Pitch filter adds lots of clipping sounds to the audio. Here is a demo I made using a video clip where I do 3 comparisons. The original clip with no modifications. The same clip but sped up 2x. Then finally the same clip sped up 2x but with the Pitch filter added with a Speed Compensation of 2x to match. There is no clipping heard in the first two examples but when it gets to the example with the Pitch filter the clipping sounds are heard throughout: https://streamable.com/hjtzx

  4. Can 6 decimal points be added to the Pitch filter to match the amount of decimal points in the Speed parameter found in Properties?

  5. I believe that the location of the Preview Scaling option should be under the player. It’d be better here:

I believe this is the best place because people who are going to be depending on this feature may want to toggle back and forth to see how certain things are looking especially if they are using the 360p setting. Since the zoom, grid and volume options are all toggle buttons this fits right in as it would be very convenient for a Preview Scaling button to have a small drop down menu with the different scaling options along with the ability to simply turn Preview Scaling off and on without having to choose “None” all the time. I also think that having that button be a little separated from the others under the player as I have it in the picture would be good to make the button stand out so that new users who will need it but are unaware that this feature exists can notice it better. Plus, when the eventual proxy generator gets implemented, it’d be nice to also have a toggle on and off button for proxy use placed alongside this suggested Preview Button. The current location of Preview Scaling being under Settings and having to scroll down that list is too hidden and is just inconvenient for toggling. Although, that location under Settings could still be kept in case users make the player very small and end up collapsing those player buttons.

  1. The change in behavior where now dragging from the Source tab to the timeline automatically toggles the tab to Project I think isn’t as convenient as it may seem. The convenience of having it stay on the Source tab even after dragging to the timeline is that if I have a large clip that I want to pick smaller clips out of to drop in the timeline, I can go from setting in and out points to dragging to the timeline again and again. By having the tabs switch, I would have to manually switch the tabs between picking smaller clips to drag which makes it an uncomfortable workflow. I could add those smaller clips to the playlist but I like to limit the playlist to more important clips rather than short clips that will just be one offs. So having to add them to the playlist just to drag them to the timeline then removing those clips in the playlist is adding unneeded steps.

I think the real issue that was going on here is that the current design of the layout doesn’t make it clear right away to the user that the tabs have switched between Source and Project. One problem is that the colors for the Source and Project tabs when they are active and inactive are too similar:

The colors could be more obvious when one tab is active and the other inactive. Perhaps when one is active the colors are inverted or made even brighter?

Alternatively or even additionally, there could be some kind of a border around the player with a different color representing each tab. So let’s say when the Source tab is the focus, the border around the player can be grayish:

And when the Project tab is the focus the border around the player can be that blue color that Shotcut uses:

Something like that will always make it clear to the user when the Source and Project tabs switch which would be very useful especially if one is deep into their workflow.

  1. The change to now allow the rectangle controls to be moved from anywhere within the rectangle is useful but it creates a problem: You can’t drag a clip from the source to the timeline if the rectangle controls fill the screen. I believe a button should be placed to the left of the word “Position” for the filters with rectangle controls. That would turn the option to be able to move it from within the rectangle on and off. I think the default should be off.

  2. I believe the “Rectangle” filter should get a new name. The current name does not represent how versatile this filter is. The default shape may be a rectangle but ovals/circles could also be created with this filter. Perhaps something like “Shapes: Squares & Circles”?

1 Like

The 161 matte transitions that @jonray collected and shared are short video files that could be used with the Mask from file filter.

The recent change allows the video files to be used when making an overlap transition.
Select the transition. Select properties, select custom, use the matte video file for the transition.


1 Like