-
Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
-
[Walter Soyka] “Is film editing destructive? Those cuts are real!
Is linear tape-to-tape editing destructive? Once tape is recorded, its previous contents cannot be restored.
What’s the difference between a timeline operation that causes an overwrite of something that was in a timeline track”The difference is that mistakes in the first two examples couldn’t be fixed with an “undo”. In some cases – like negative cutting – mistakes destroyed actual irreplaceable media.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “Clearly I am and continue to be a talentless, hack.”
My your getting touchy. I’ve never seen your work, outside of a nice music video you demo’d, I have no opinion of your abilities, other than to recognize that you’ve been supporting yourself in video for many years, which is no mean accomplishment. I was discussing technique and your own proclaimed problems with dealing with traditional timelines. By the way bad technique does not equal bad editor — Dave Winfield had a terrible hitch in his swing, awful technique, yet he’s a hall of famer.
[Bill Davis] “while you appear to remain pissed off and strangely sensitive to someone using a word you don’t approve of to describe a piece of 4 year obsolete software.”
The term “destructive timeline” was not solely aimed at legacy, it was aimed at every fixed track timeline I’m aware of. I’m currently using PPro, which exhibits those same timeline behaviors as Legacy, as Avid, as Lightworks, as Media 100.
And I’m pissed off because you are actively corrupting the language of media workers. “Destructive” has a specific, non pejorative meaning when dealing with DAW’s and imgage editors, and your use of it in this context confuses that useful term.
I first brought this poor choice of wording to your attention assuming you hadn’t thought it through, but now you stand on your right to be wrong. Well you certainly have that right, you can call black white all you wish, but I will jump in here whenever you do to try and argue for logic and reason.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs.”
This is true, but the first distinction is that clip collisions are entirely avoidable, it is the editor’s choice to make them happen or not. It does take more steps to avoid unwanted collisions (not all collisions, maybe not even most collisions, are unwanted) which is why the claim is made that X is faster, because indeed in the instance of avoiding unwanted clip collisions it is much faster. But this does not make fixed track timelines destructive, it simply makes them slower.
Of course as David Lawrence has pointed out, the inability to cause wanted clip collisions makes X slower when dealing with audio inserts. As so often with X, what it gives with one hand it takes away with the other.
On an historical note EMC, almost 20 years ago, handled clip collisions differently by keeping both audio and video clips available as an “under-layer” when new material was added. You could highlight a new clip, hit a key, and the layers would reverse, bringing the bottom layer to the top. This was non-destructive and could be reversed as often as you wished. There were problems with working this way, I don’t believe it could handle more than 2 layers, and it could get very confusing as there was little to help you identify which layer you were looking at, but it worked. You could at any point flatten the timeline, a destructive act, much like flattening layers in Photoshop.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not familiar with the term “destructive” in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term “destructive editing?””
[Walter Soyka] “I see your point, too, David, but I’m not sure that the term “destructive editing” was ever a thing. I think Bill’s definition actually matches the use in Photoshop pretty closely.”
The term is meaningless in the context of editorial. It’s a technical term that only applies in the sense of media engineering and software design.
This is why Bill’s definition is wrong. He’s misapplying a technical term and and it makes it look like he doesn’t understand its real meaning. It’s not helpful to readers.
The notion that an open, tracked timeline is somehow “destructive” as opposed to the magnetic timeline is simply bogus.
Period.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Herb Sevush] “And I’m pissed off because you are actively corrupting the language of media workers. “Destructive” has a specific, non pejorative meaning when dealing with DAW’s and imgage editors, and your use of it in this context confuses that useful term.
I first brought this poor choice of wording to your attention assuming you hadn’t thought it through, but now you stand on your right to be wrong. Well you certainly have that right, you can call black white all you wish, but I will jump in here whenever you do to try and argue for logic and reason.”
Your plea to freeze the language into your preferred context is understandable, but in my opinion, seriously weak.
It instantly brings to mind my experience some years ago when I gave some advice to a poster somewhere who had asked for advice about editing a “commercial.” I gave him the advice that length was critical and that he should aim for precisely 29.5 seconds for a 30 – or 59.5 seconds for a 60.
His quick response was “why? It’s a commercial for the web.”
I realized that he was right and I was wrong. For me, the term was frozen in it’s very specific meaning by the boundaries of the media world that existed when I learned it. But that world had changed. And yes, a web commercial could be :35 or :83 the way things had changed.
In introducing the magnetic timeline with clip collision avoidance, Apple has demonstrated that there IS a new pragmatic difference in “destructiveness” in the two approaches to timeline operations.
You may wish to freeze the term at it’s traditional meaning all you like. But as with “commercial” I choose not to.
Language is a living thing.
Deal with that.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “Language is a living thing. “
I see, language is a living thing. And you’re trying to differentiate between an NLE that allows you, although it doesn’t force you, to do clip overwrites when moving clips around a timeline, with another that doesn’t allow you to do it, even if you want to.
Well then I might call one a “free timeline NLE” and the other ” a restricted timeline NLE.” or maybe one NLE is “free choice” and the other is “no choice”. But since language is a living thing maybe I’ll call one a bicycle timeline and the other a tricycle timeline. Or maybe we should use some current consumer electronics terminology and call one a pro timeline and the other an enthusiast’s timeline, because, you know … language is a living thing.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not familiar with the term “destructive” in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term “destructive editing?””
Walter,
I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.
https://classes.berklee.edu/mbierylo/mtec111_Pages/audio_edit.htm#destructive
https://www.audiorecording.me/editing-audio-files-non-destructive-vs-destructive-editing.htmlFranz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.
Thank you, Franz.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.”
I did think that, so imagine my surprise.
I’m not in front of a computer at the moment, but I will come back to you with an example of what I’d consider a destructive editorial operation and show what it would look like if it were non-destructive.
I’ll note now, though, that I think characterizing an open timeline as destructive and a magnetic timeline as non-destructive is inaccurate, as both models are capable of destructive operations.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Ok Bill, have to disagree. I can have students doing basic rough cuts with about a one minute explanation. When they are ready, another 60 seconds to learn to adjust audio levels. Another for titles. Etc. It’s way easier than iMovie. And after I have showed one student I can have them teach each other. Now $300 may be a bit much for non-pros. For the most part the advanced stuff stays out of your way unless you know how to use it or unless you go looking. Now students that knew FCP 7 do have some trouble with the connected clips and other replacements for tracks. But they all like the magnetic features of the primary. And for the most part not too many used more than two visual tracks and maybe three tracks of audio – dialog, music, sound effects. It’s a great program for beginners. With lots of room to grow.
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up