No, Dave is right on. In the beginning, we had film editing, and film editing was great. You
could put anything anywhere. Then, we had videotape, and although you could kind of razor-blade quad tape, most videotape editing was done by dubbing scenes one at a time from one video machine to another. It was horrible, horrible torture and required extensive planning and preparation. If you have not encountered videotape editing, there are a couple youtube videos which begin to show what an excruciating process it was. It was "linear editing" because the tape was one long sequence that could not be interrupted... you could assemble a shot to the end of the tape or you could insert a shot over an existing section of tape, but the scene that was at 1:30 on the tape was always going to be at 1:30 unless you wiped it and dubbed from the original over someplace else. Video editing was SO BAD that there were productions that were shot on video, kinescoped for editing, and then transferred back to video with all of the conequent loss and annoying artifacts... just to avoid videotape editing. When video people began to be able to do nonlinear editing, it was a total revolution for them. Most of them were people who had never experienced film editing (because videotape editing was so repulsive that nobody EVER moved from film to videotape work), and so it was a total revelation to them that they could just cut the sequence and add a scene in here or take the last three frames of a scene out there. It was utterly amazing what a revolution it was for the video people. For film people, online editing was kind of nice and cut down the costs of workprints and made it easy to do multiple cuts for comparison purposes. But for video people it was a total, total change to finally be able to edit the way film people could. --scott _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
