Way to find a copy of the last frame before the ad after the ad

Help/How To
1

Hello,

is there a way to find a copy of the last frame before the ad after the ad?

Thanks

2

There is no ad detection in Shotcut if that is what you are asking.

3

No, after the ad, the last 30 seconds are often repeated, and I need to find the last frame before the ad in the replay.

Regards

4

That’s a shame, most of the time is wasted editing the videos.

Regards

5

I think maybe one thing you can do is to use

After splitting the video to remove the commercial, drag the clip after the commercial to another track. Then, you can try to use the align function to sync the after clip with the before clip. I have not actually tried it; just a theory.

6

Thank you.

Reference audio track V1, started with “Process” and unfortunately not found (at 0% and 5%). Clearly, according to the image, there is a repeat at 31:20 seconds.

P.S. Could this be due to the audio format?

7

I am curious about the use case. Why are there ads in the video you are editing?

8

I don’t know, they’re there. It’s like that in many films too. Does that have anything to do with my question?

10

Thank you,

That’s roughly how I do it too. But it’s time-consuming. That’s why I posted this question in this forum.

Would this be something for the next software version (black screens are rare these days)? Cut the film before the commercial break, find the last frame before the cut in the next few minutes of the film (with a 95% match). Make a second cut.

11

Possibly relevant. One scenario that would result in a film that includes ads would be something downloaded from YouTube or a similar streaming platform. Such a film would presumably be copyrighted material, being streamed with ads in order to cover the licensing costs.

Not that my vote counts for anything, but if the goal is to make it more convenient to strip ads out of this sort of content … I would urge caution. Is it legal to generate this ad-free material, even for personal use? Given how aggressive some companies are with respect to copyright, I’m not sure it would be a long-term positive for Shotcut to become known as a tool that is especially convenient for doing something that could be described, by such a company, as any sort of piracy.

Just to be clear, I do not intend to suggest that this is the goal of anyone involved in this discussion.

12

When I read that the OP wanted to remove ads from a movie, I remembered when I was recording TV on my VCR. Most of the time I wasn’t there to pause the machine when there was commercials. Maybe that’s the case here? :innocent:

13

That’s certainly the sort of thing I was thinking of. If this is done for “time-shifting,” e.g., recording a broadcast to view at a later time, that is explicitly allowed under US copyright laws as interpreted by the Supreme Court. As I understand it, this usage is limited to “private” viewing (including something like “the normal circle of family and friends”) and assumes that the recording is temporary. Any sort of public viewing or transmission of the recording requires appropriate licensing.

I would guess that, if one were editing out the commercials only to make it more convenient to watch a temporary recording for the purpose of time-shifting, it would be considered legal. But that seems like an awful lot of effort to go to, even if there were software to help “automate” the process, for a recording one does not intend to keep and reuse. Surely it would be easier just to fast-forward through the commercials?

I would assume that the primary use case for any NLVE such as Shotcut is the editing and creation of original material. There is a “fair use” under US copyright law which allows the inclusion of small clips from copyrighted material, used for academic purposes, for commentary / critique, even for parody. Specifically excluded is any use that involves all or a majority of the copyrighted material.

I stress that I am not a lawyer; I do not work for any organization that enforces copyrights; I have not personally experienced any adverse action regarding copyright (and I am careful not to). Accordingly, my understanding as expressed above may not be entirely accurate. Also, I say again that I do not intend to suggest that anyone in this discussion is seeking to do anything inappropriate.

I am making the point because I have read “horror stories” about people and organizations (including schools and churches) who get into some very expensive trouble, even though their intentions were good (or at least not malicious). I seek to be very careful about copyright matters as a result. Of course, as always, YMMV.