NotEnoughAV1Encodes-Qt VS git-cola

I like using NotEnoughAV1Encodes. There's also Av1an, and ab-av1.

I wish AV1 had more compatibility. Just playing around with NotEnoughAV1Encodes took a dumb 10-second clip with almost no movement from 24MB from my DSLR to 1.1MB after the AV1 encode. It's a bad example for a video, but I was just randomly trying AV1 with things and was impressed with the ratio.

If I'm not in a hurry for something to process then I set it to run on that. For instance, when I was looking at the AV1 codec I had it grinding NotEnoughAV1Encodes for days at a time.

If you want to mess with AV1, then there's AV1an that has a feature to target a VMAF. ab-av1 has their 'crf-search.' Although, most of the time I just use NotEnoughAV1Encodes with settings I like. Although, granted AV1 has less compatibility and it takes forever.

For some things, I've been going even slower using AV1 with NotEnoughAV1Encodes. Although, there's less compatibility for AV1, so keep that in mind.

NotEnoughAV1Encodes is great for AV1, I'm not savvy enough to get AV1 to grind all my CPU cores without it.

Do you do any videos? I've been playing with the AV1 codec using 'NotEnoughAV1Encodes'

Do you mess around with video at all? I just found out about the AV1 codec. Been using NotEnoughAV1Encodes to use all my computer cores to compress video. Then comparing the quality difference with ffmpeg-quality-metrics using VMAF. 33-second test video with my phone went down from 23MB to 1.6MB with nearly no quality difference. It takes forever to encode though. May not be compatible with all devices/browsers/etc. Then there's ab-av1 to help find the best settings.

this program is pretty boss, https://github.com/Alkl58/NotEnoughAV1Encodes-Qt

> Visual Studio does a decent job of abstracting the GIT nuances, but I personally use GIT Extensions, which looks and feels much better on Windows than the other cross platform UIs.

IDEs and text editors sometimes have nice Git integrations in the UI, but I wanted standalone software that I can use for anything from various programming projects, to something like gamedev projects (with Git LFS) or arbitrary documents.

In the end, I just forked over some money for GitKraken, it's pretty good, especially with multiple accounts on the same platforms, when you want to switch between them easily: https://www.gitkraken.com/

There's also Sourcetree which I used before then, kind of sluggish but feature complete: https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/

For something more lightweight, I also enjoyed Git Cola on various OSes: https://git-cola.github.io/ Even Git documentation has a page on the software out there, a good deal of which is free and has good platform support: https://git-scm.com/downloads/guis

Quite frankly, I spend like 90% of the time using a GUI interface nowadays, when I want to easily merge things, or include very specific code blocks across multiple files in a commit, or handle most of the other common operations. Of course, sometimes there's a need to drop down to the CLI, but you're right that some GUI software feels like it actually improves the usability here.

I think Git can be a pretty pleasant experience for most folks, as long as you use the basic features and maybe even consider a GUI, anything from Git Cola (free: https://git-cola.github.io/), to something like GitKraken (paid for all features: https://www.gitkraken.com/).

Curiously, the latter also let me setup different accounts that I can switch between with a simple dropdown, which was otherwise annoying when you have Gitea, GitHub, GitLab and others to manage, way easier than https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/setting-up-an...

Either way, suddenly you see the graph of your repo and most of the common actions are a click away, you can just let your brain idle and think about other things you're doing instead, in addition to that working really well with staging chunks of your code, or individual files, cherrypicking and so on.

Then again, personally I prefer squashing in merge/pull requests instead of rebasing, or even just doing regular merge commits and leaving the history as is (which doesn't really scale, but I haven't gotten to the point where that matters that much), so how I use Git won't work for everyone.

> We now have a large selection of tools that allow you to visualize what's going on (I use git-kraken), as well as google for help on doing something that isn't in muscle memory.

Git Kraken is excellent, though Git has a page on various GUIs, many of which are free with no restrictions: https://git-scm.com/downloads/guis

Personally, on Windows I like SourceTree: https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/

Some that have worked with SVN back in the day like TortoiseGit: https://tortoisegit.org/

On *nix Git Cola seems to do the job for me: https://git-cola.github.io/

Then again, the most complex workflow I've worked with was Git Flow and I didn't need anything more advanced than that. Come to think of it, I don't really do rebases often either and mostly just take advantage of squashing commits through GitLab/Gitea and such, when needed.

But hey, that's also valid, using Git in a way where you get version control but mostly keep the technical details out of your way (though Git LFS and certain cases with particular line endings being needed does make you drop down occasionally).

Try git cola. It's not the slickest but it scratches my pointy/clicky desires for git pretty well.

If you can tolerate a GUI, Git Cola might be a solution. I'm using it exclusively for some 5 years now – it's lightweight enough, but still makes you think about what you're about to commit. You can add things to .gitignore directly from there, too.

https://git-cola.github.io/

Default layout is pretty barebones, here's what I'm doing instead: https://u.ale.sh/my-git-cola-screenshot.png

i still don't know how to split one commit into multiples (without going insane (if it's even possible)) without a gui like https://github.com/git-cola/git-cola, and that should be a simple operation (especially with git's "split every change into individual commits make it easier to cherry pick" conventions)