Okay, before you dismiss Viddy just for the Instagram comparison, yes, it's true that this app will take your videos and add an "artsy" filter, but it also comes with some handy clipping, scoring, and sharing functionality. You can send your shots directly to YouTube, your choice of social network, or publish on the Viddy stream. Which, at the moment, seems to be dominated almost exclusively by 4 month old things Eliza Dushku shared. At least for me, for some reason.

viddy1 viddy2 viddy3

Viddy also includes a selection of songs you can use to create a soundtrack for your videos, presumably royalty free. The selection is actually pretty good, too. There are tracks by everyone from Snoop Dogg (before his Bob Marley phase, I have to guess), to Franz Schubert, Incubus to Anberlin. There isn't a ton of music, maybe a couple dozen items in total, but at least it's not generated, synthesized crap.

Video editors are pretty sparse on Android as is. This isn't going to suddenly fill the void, but it's slick, has a proper Holo-based UI and generally doesn't seem to suck. Except for the fact that you can't stitch multiple videos together. Oh, well. Baby steps.

Eric Ravenscraft
Eric is a snarky technophile with a taste for the unusual. When he's not obsessing about Android, you can usually find him obsessing about movies, psychology, or the perfect energy drink. Eric weaves his own special blend of snark, satire, and comedy into all his articles.

  • defred34

    I guess they couldn't find a more creative name than Viddy, huh?

  • didibus

    Can we stop condescending Instagram please. It's pretty obvious now that everyone bought into the concept and loves it. Just like color correction, synthesizer, auto-tunes, Photoshop or pretty much any technological advancement that allowed easier and better post-production at lower cost before it, people said it was a gimmick, or an insult to the art form, yet time passed and they all became de-facto and improved the art in the end. If it wasn't for those filters, you'd be looking at a stream of even uglier and less interesting pictures posted by your friends. And if photographers complain that it diminishes their work, then it's because their work suck. If their photograph can't stand out next to an iphone taken Instagram shot then they probably are not good photographer and should go back to the change room.

    • Wayne Randall

      Is okay to say these two are equally lame then?

    • GriffinSauce

      Yeeeah, have to disagree. Auto tune is used for pop music, most "true" musicians hate it and besides, it makes good voices sound like crap. Synthesizer doesn't count, it's a new sound, not a *degradation* of already existing sound. Photoshop and color correction are just tools, they can be used for good or bad. Your examples simply don't fit the argument.

      Instagram is fun and can make some nice pics, but that's basically it, anybody who thinks more ("I'm just like a pro photographer") is just plain wrong. And a lot of people *do* think that, *that* is the problem with instagram and why it's frowned upon.

      • didibus

        How do you qualify "true" musician? If it was a universal answer, you would not have used quotes around true. Auto-tune is just a newer form of voice post-processing. Before it, we had reverb, compression, equalization, and even before we had singing inside a massive church, or in an auditorium whose construction itself is designed to improve the sound of the singers voice. The only difference is accessibility, you've never consciously new about all the post-processing or real-time processing involved in singing, that you always looked up to it as divine and pure. Now that you know about auto-tune, and that is so cheap and easily accessible that anyone can use it, you condone it. What is common is cheap, our society values rarity, this is the only difference and reason why people hate on such things.

        A lot of synths (I have made some myself) uses samples as a basis for synthesis. It helps to more accurately model the sound. This is real-time post-processing of a pre-recorded sound. The filters in Instagram are just tools, there is a No Filter option if you want to post the original. The only difference is the filters are pre-configured, where photoshop, while it could have templates, allows you to manually change all settings of it's algorithm.

        Being a photographer is like being a "true" musician. What does it entail? If you take photographs, you are a photographer. If you make money by taking photographs, you are a pro photographer. If your photographs look really good, are inspiring or shout emotions then you are a good photographer. If your photographs are liked by many, then you are a popular photographer... popular hum, I wonder why it's called Pop culture...

    • Blake Ourso

      You should try some douche for that sand in your vajayjay.

      Instagram is crap. Would you really want a Mona Lisa instagrammed? A gorgeous scenery? Do you see giant corporations presenting products in front of backgrounds with vintage filters and crappy frames around it?

      Get a grip man. It's a fad. It's a hipster thing. It's also very dumb to give people credit for their 'creation' when everybody can click one of the very limited filters and be 'cool'.

      It is accepted, but only by dbags.

      • didibus

        It's a fad that sold for billions of dollars, and is scaring Twitter so much they had to copy it. I think it's time you get off your high horses and realize your the real true hipster, not wanting to follow the trend of the filters.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mizatt Matt Alexander

        I wouldn't give a shit if someone instagrammed the Mona Lisa. Filters can work fine if used in moderation.

  • Wilfredo Alarcon

    The name is a poor attempt at being clever. However, I'm liking the video app. I have to see the vid quality before I can call it a "keeper".

  • Ron Pemberton

    How can anyone today, dev an app for Android, and totally leave out sharing with Google+?