-
Destructive edits
We’ve had some discussion in previous threads about whether an editorial operation should be called destructive or not. In part, I guess this discussion boils down to a matter of perspective. It’s true that the NLE is not modifying original media, but I don’t think that’s a complete definition for “destructive operation.”
I’d argue that irreversibly eliminating project data (ex. Undo) is a destructive operation in the same sense as we’d use the term in an imaging or audio application.
I’d consider this an example of a destructive editorial operation:
I did this in FCP X, in part to be cheeky, but also to prove a point.
I’ve got a simple edit in the primary storyline and a connected clip above. Once I perform an overwrite, that data cannot be brought back without stepping the entire state back via undo.
Overwriting the connected clip into the primary is destructive to the project data; lifting that clip back up out of the primary does not restore the original edit and connection point — and in fact adds a new gap and creates a new connection point.
Worth noting: “destructive” is not the same as “bad” and it’s not the same as “unintentional.”
Your thoughts?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
86 Replies
-
[Walter Soyka] “Your thoughts?”
An overwrite edit, is almost destructive even by the definition of the word.
At least FCPX gives you the opportunity to not be so destructive by adding the clip as an Audition, instead of overwriting to the primary. That way, you can store both decisions in the timeline simultaneously with near zero penalty.
This, of course, is because of the relational database that no other product available on the market is exploring today.
I’m just kidding about that last past, I just want to make Franz angry enough to start quoting conversations we had 2.5 years ago. ;-D
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “Overwriting the connected clip into the primary is destructive to the project data; lifting that clip back up out of the primary does not restore the original edit and connection point — and in fact adds a new gap and creates a new connection point.”
In the wider usage of the word, I agree that overwrite edits are destructive, although you under-estimate the importance of being able to “undo” the operation. However, in the particular world of media work, the adjective “destructive” has a more specific meaning – it refers to making changes to files, whether audio or visual, that cannot be reversed and become “baked”into the file. This word is used to distinguish how different operations of the same software effect the underlying media and comes from DAWs and Photoshop primarily. Such and such is a “destructive” effect, such and such is a “non-destructive” effect. It is a very useful distinction, and by throwing around the term “destructive timeline”, which does not really distinguish between anything, one is muddying a very useful descriptive phrase purely for sophistry.
The original conversation was in response to labeling something a “destructive timeline.” Since all timelines, by the necessities of editing, can destroy information, what did it meant to call a given timeline destructive? Creative destruction is one of the basic elements of editing but no experienced editor routinely overwrites edits he doesn’t wish to. If your having a bad day and screw something up you hit undo and there you are, right as rain.
[Walter Soyka] “Worth noting: “destructive” is not the same as “bad” and it’s not the same as “unintentional.””
While destructive doesn’t mean bad, it often has negative implications. In the case of the previous thread, the word “destructive” was being used to imply bad, but hiding under the cover of it’s more descriptive DAW usage.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
I agree Overwrite is by nature destructive within a work session, but unlike word processors or image editors, you are not limited only to the Undo or Step Backward remedies. In your example, a simple trim back to the original configuration makes it feel a lot less “destructive.”
Doug D
-
Sorry, wrong, thought I was looking at an overlap, not a complete clip overwrite. Yes, that’s always a pain which is why, even in track NLE like Legacy, tend to leave upper/connected or secondaries in place until picture lock (and maybe a Snapshot of edit) before cleaning up via overwrites.
Doug D
-
I’m probably going to regret posting to this thread because the last argument over what was destructive or not was really annoying (and off point to the topic). But since this IS the topic, here’s my thought on the matter.
First of all, I could easily return the clips in your example back to their original configuration without undo. Although, for the record, I consider the ability to undo an action as part of a way to determine when an action ISN’T destructive.
All you have to do is use the trim tool to roll the edges of the clips in the primary back underneath the connected clip and then reposition the connection point for the connected clip so it’s back over it’s original. Does it take several steps? Sure, but it’s still non-destructive in my mind. More importantly, you don’t lose the connection between clip and master at any point. Additionally, if you place a marker on either of the primary clips before overwriting with the connected clip, you’ll find they are still there when you roll the clip back with the trim tool. Completely non-destructive.
Now, contrast that with the Audio Mixdown in Avid. Here you set in/out and active tracks and then Avid makes brand new media with no relationship to the original clips, even combining multiple clips from different sources. The result is something that can’t be matched back to the original masters, has no relationship to anything other than itself and therefore is a truly destructive edit.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “An overwrite edit, is almost destructive even by the definition of the word.”
Overwrite is destructive on tape by necessity, but it’s destructive on computers by convention.
If editorial decisions were stored transactionally in “layers” (for lack of a better term), then lift could perfectly reverse overwrite.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Douglas K. Dempsey] “unlike word processors or image editors, you are not limited only to the Undo or Step Backward remedies. In your example, a simple trim back to the original configuration makes it feel a lot less “destructive.””
Actually, with Word’s Track Changes feature, word processing edits can be non-destructive, until you destructively commit them with “Accept Changes.”
The point is not that the original state cannot be recreated by the user — that means that any operation on Photoshop isn’t destructive if I copy my image file before I begin — it’s that NLEs don’t save data during overwrites, which makes some theoretically reversible operations irreversible.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “If editorial decisions were stored transactionally in “layers” (for lack of a better term), then lift could perfectly reverse overwrite.”
Surely. You can do this now in FCPX, it just doesn’t do it by default.
Plus, it would take a mess of coding to make that work reliably and accurately. Imagine if you had done 1000 overwrite edits over the course of a project, the database would have to call up the history of every edit made on that particular part of the sequence (which is probably now in a different time), and what if you didn’t want the “overwite undo” to happen when you moved the original overwriter?
I think simply having the layers in front of you is better, and if you need to clean it up, use an Audition or some other convention.
I think Bill’s overall point was that you can throw clips around in FCPX’s magnetic timeline without really losing the relationship to other clips more easily than you can in a tracked environment. This statement is fairly true.
-
[Walter Soyka] “then lift could perfectly reverse overwrite.”
But it could. It just hasn’t been programmed.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “it would take a mess of coding to make that work reliably and accurately”
It’s already stored as 99 undos on the wall, 99 undos, you take one down you restore the destructive edit…98 undos on the wall. 😉
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up