-
Destructive edits
-
[Walter Soyka] “I think that’s an incredibly restrictive definition that fails to capture the critical differences between tools that reversibly and irreversibly alter data — but I assume you think my definition is incredibly broad and fails to capture the seriousness of rewriting assets on disk.”
I get where you’re coming from but the term “destructive” has a very specific technical meaning that has been understood and agreed upon since the invention of digital media tools.
Bill’s argument still boils down to redefining a technical term around operator error. Sorry, that’s just ridiculous.
Words matter. Especially in a highly technical art form. It would be much more useful to coin a new term to describe an irreversible sequence of operations that alters a project. What else might you call it?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “Once I perform an overwrite, that data cannot be brought back without stepping the entire state back via undo.”
[Walter Soyka] “Here, I am showing an editorial operation that irreversibly alters its source (the timeline, not the media files), cannot be reversed and becomes baked into the file: the project file that is, not the media files. David Lawrence has very reasonably declared the project file as the true digital master; I think that along these lines, the use of the word destructive to apply to media changes only is overly narrow, is inconsistent with its use in other media applications, and undervalues the data in the project file.”
Walter,
I follow your reasoning here, but for reasons well explained by Herb I think the word “destructive” is misleading. I’d suggest something more like “committed” vs. “uncommitted” decisions which suggest more of a sense of whether it can be reverted or changed later (ie. whether some initial state is preserved and can be returned to).
[Walter Soyka] “By your definition [David], there is literally no operation in Photoshop, other than save, that is destructive, because anything else has immediate undo. That makes the word destructive practically meaningless in many of these contexts, because a history stack is now so common.”
I don’t see the problem here. Photoshop makes “uncommitted” changes until you save and lose the ability to undo them. Why can we not call this non-destructive?
Franz.
-
[David Lawrence] “It would be much more useful to coin a new term to describe an irreversible sequence of operations that alters a project. What else might you call it?”
David,
I can only think of “committed” vs. “uncommitted” decisions, or something along those lines.
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I just want to make Franz angry enough to start quoting conversations we had 2.5 years ago.”
Jeremy,
I assure you that my chronic habit is never based on anger.
Franz.
Edit:
[Jeremy Garchow] “Well, I’m a weird one.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/25198
(2.5 years ago) -
[Bill Davis] “When I started learning Legacy back in 1999”
When I started driving when I was 17 I didn’t look carefully when I was backing up and hit my father’s car. Was the Chevy I was driving a destructive automobile, or was I an inexperienced driver misusing a powerful machine?
When a friend of mine first used a computer back in the 80’s to work on a script he was writing, he turned the machine off at the end of the day without saving his work, because he didn’t understand the concept of saving. I assure you he never did that again. Was Wordstar a destructive word processor, or was he an inexperienced user.
And my guess is that in the last 10 years of your using Legacy it was a rare day, if ever, that you mistakenly deleted your clips the way you did in your anecdote. Does that mean that FCP became less destructive, or simply that you learned how to use it properly.
[Bill Davis] “This is the context that I was employing when I used the term “destructive” That there was an extremely common functioning mode where the program was being used EXACTLY as indented by the designers where the proper operating of the program could OBLIDERATE – permanently and without recourse – editing decisions that I had not wished to lose.”
Of course there are functioning modes where FCP could allow you to overwrite clips – doing so intentionally is called editing. How better to replace old audio with new audio, or old video with new video, or both, than to overwrite one with the other. Both FCP and FCPX allow you to do overwrites when you want to, both allow you to avoid overwrites when you want to.
Does X make it faster and easier to avoid overwrites while moving clips on a timeline – yes, absolutely. Does Legacy make it possible to do any kind of clip movement you want without overwriting – yes absolutely.
So the difference is in speed, not in destructiveness. Call X the “easy to learn” timeline, call Legacy the Tetris timeline – no argument from me. But labeling something by how it behaves when the operator screws up – that’s ridiculous.
[Bill Davis] ” because a reasonable user – operating the software exactly as it’s designed – could expect in common circumstances for their prior editing decisions become completely and irretrievably permanent. “
I don’t know about you Bill, but I can’t remember the last time I did an unintentional overwrite. Seriously now, what experienced editor does that kind of thing?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[David Lawrence] “I get where you’re coming from but the term “destructive” has a very specific technical meaning that has been understood and agreed upon since the invention of digital media tools.”
I’m all for precise terminology, but Photoshop’s differentiation between so-called destructive and non-destructive workflows, and the differences between that and your use suggest that the term is not as globally agreed upon as you are saying.
How exactly would you define the term destructive? Why should it apply to media only and not the representation of your project?
What term besides “destructive” might you suggest for an operation that “bakes in” or overwrites information?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “[David Lawrence] “It would be much more useful to coin a new term to describe an irreversible sequence of operations that alters a project. What else might you call it?”
David,
I can only think of “committed” vs. “uncommitted” decisions, or something along those lines.
Franz.”
How about a nice acronym, something that rings true as PIOPs does (pronounced pie-ops). ECTS (pronouces “ex”) for editor committed too soon.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Does that mean that FCP became less destructive, or simply that you learned how to use it properly. “
What I spent those 10years learning was how to work around the limitations of Legacy’s program’s design.
And that’s precisely what YOU did to become an experienced editor in Legacy. And I presume what you’re going to do to become an experienced editor in Premier or Avid or whatever.
You’re likely NOT going to do that with X, because you’re constantly conditioning and reinforcing yourself to see it as the thing that presents barriers to the way you expect editing to happen. To the point where you go semi-postal over something as minor as proper descriptive word usage.
I mean it’s fun to bitch and debate, but at the end of the day, we all simply have to adapt. With X I had to learn that they used Storyline for some instances of the array of clips – and then turn around and use Timeline in other uses. (Draw a box around a Primary Storyline, a secondary storyline, and the result of an open in Timeline command in X, and at first blush, you’ve got very, very similar things. What’s up with that?)
I can get frustrated all I like about why, how and what’s the difference. Or I can just use the program enough to figure out whether it’s a difference with a distinction or not.
Clip collision avoidance might not mean anything to you.
But it does to me. It means I no longer have to go on any more imaginary mental treks “down track” in order to assure that I don’t screw things up.
CAN I do that? Sure. I did for 10 years.
But now I can jettison that thinking and use the mental time and energy for other things.
My having to remember the Legacy persnickedlyness is over. Now I can concentrate on the FCP X persnickedlyness.
And since X will be VERY likely still be relevant to me in 2025 and Legacy will not – I can comfortably feel like I’m making progress.
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.
-
[Richard Herd] “How about a nice acronym, something that rings true as PIOPs does (pronounced pie-ops)”
IAD (eye add) for irreversibly altered data?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “How exactly would you define the term destructive? Why should it apply to media only and not the representation of your project?”
Simple. Destructive = no undo at the moment the operation is performed.
This is why you typically see an “Are you sure?” dialogue box before any destructive operation.
If you can undo it, it’s not destructive in the specific technical meaning of the word.
Franz’s suggestion – “commit changes” – is actually a much more accurate and useful term for what we’re talking about here.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up