Hi @Robin_Lobel !
I have been thinking about this, for a while.
I find that many of the tools benefit from constant clicking, for a better smoothing of the effect, or working in large areas, etc. So for example, sometimes I find myself using the eraser with 3dB reduction and a fairly low sharpness, and to work an area I click A LOT. So in one “job” I quickly fill the whole 64 steps of undo history, and then if I need to go back even a little, there is no way.
So I was wondering if it would be possible to implement (maybe as an option) some kind of grouping of these kinds of repetitive actions, so they take only one entry in the undo history. I prefer to lose the entire “last tool job” then having no other undo possibilities outside of 64 “erase” actions.
That’s actually a good idea! Here’s where that could be problematic though, in the programming world the “undo” function is defined as one state, meaning it can either be 0 or 1 (it can’t be both). You can technically group each tool to the undo history and separately create a subset of undo functions (just like the concept of groups for layers) but then that would require for the undo function to be redefined.
I do agree that the undo history needs a complete overhaul, it’s lacking in areas such as “Meta Data”(for example when you apply a gain of 3db the undo history just refers to that function/action as gain rather than gain +3b which makes it difficult to follow along and recall historical events) and other areas such as total recall where when you save a project file (with a lot of history) and recall that project then all history is lost. One thing I could recommend to you @henrique_staino is to try the duplicate project files workflow. You can duplicate an entire project (before doing anything critical) and always revert back to the other project by selecting that tab. However beware there are some bugs when duplicating projects, so for precautions be sure to save regularly.
One thing I shoul clarify, though, is that I do work off of copies, always.
My problem is not beiong unable to reach the original states of the files, but being unable to reach intermediate stages of my work, because the undo history is quickly filled with clicks and selections, so often my only resort is losing all edits or living with my mistakes.
That is why I suggested the grouping of repetitive actions, so I can still click a thousand times with an eraser on a unmixed layer of an unmixed layer, listen to the result, and then go back to the second unmixing and keep working from there. As it is, if I’ve messed up with all this erasing, for example, there is no in between to go back to.
I’m working as non-destructively as possible.
Even working non-destructively, you can easily ruin the audio to a state which is impossible to untangle without starting over
I do like your suggestion and understand why you ask about it
Hey no, I’m not working destructively my dude. I don’t think you understand me. It is a matter of not having enough undos to go back to a given state of my work during a session. Not a matter of having changed the material without the means to go back to the original.
But I use it inside Nuendo via ARA, so maybe that is where this confusion is coming from.
In SL:
If you are using the ERASER, you are working destructively.
ERASER doesn’t transfer to another layer- it deletes data afaiaa
If you were working non-destructively, you would transfer/ copy/cut>paste to another layer
I’m not saying you are being destructive…it’s just semantics
The unmix modules also are non-destructive.
if you are using “cut” and don’t paste that cut somewhere, it is working destructively.
I totally understand what you are saying…millions of mouse clicks…I’m doing the same…but never use Eraser for this work I’m doing in standalone…I don’t think ARA mode has anything to do with any confusion…it’s possibly just my terminology
In SL:
If you are using the ERASER, you are working destructively.
ERASER doesn’t transfer to another layer- it deletes data afaiaa
If you were working non-destructively, you would transfer/ copy/cut>paste to another layer
I’m not saying you are being destructive…it’s just semantics
The unmix modules also are non-destructive.
if you are using “cut” and don’t paste that cut somewhere, it is working destructively.
I totally understand what you are saying…millions of mouse clicks…I’m doing the same…but never use Eraser for this work I’m currently doing in standalone…I don’t think ARA mode has anything to do with any confusion…it’s possibly just my terminology
Aaaaahhhh ok, you are right! It was I who wasn’t understanding, sorry.
Hummm insteresting, if I’m always sending stuff to some layer, I can always go back by summing the layers back, independant of history. That is true.
I’ll have to see how to do the kind of thing that I do with eraser/amplifier to adjust the spectrum but with transfer instead, though.
It seems a bit convoluted to send stuff to a layer and increase that layer volume, and then send stuff to another layer and then descrease its volume, every time I want to adjust the level of some detail in the spectrum… No?
How do you approach this kind of task? Or you simply don’t?
Oh I see!
Yeah, I have a need or use you don’t seem to share that is working the levels of the various elements that are present in a recording (most of my work is documentary, so a lot of the noises are welcome, but need to be balanced), so I frequently use the Eraser as a negative gain tool, just as Amplify is a positive gain tool. That is the way I thought would be cumbersome to be used in layers, as that would mean a LOT of layers, cause each little thing must have its presence tamed or brought up by a different amount.
But for general noise - dialogue balancing and other stuff I do work as you have described. But I also use Heal a lot, mainly in the noise layer, which is, again, destructive. =) I guess I have destructive tendencies hehehe
me too, mostly documentary…but right now working on a 90min doc that started as a 12 min short…so a lot of audio was originally not going to be used
and I see what you mean about using eraser at less than 100%
I made mistakes transferring yesterday…I thought I was transferring high end from the shotgun wanted noise layer back to the unmixed speech of the shotgun
but I had the Lav Speech selected and kept pointing transfer to that layer
thing is, that is the sound I want…so it’s an accident I will probably use for the future Ha!
I also have A LOT of live music from bands I was in years ago that is stereo recordings…I’m interested in NR and re-balancing those too
Henrique! Dude, bonjourno
The way I work is I cut/transfer my unwanted sounds to a layer of unwanted noise. If a client wants to know why my editing has taken so long, I can show the unwanted noise layer
Some unwanted sounds will leave the noise floor with sections of silence…sometimes it’s ok to leave…sometimes not
When its not, I use the clone tool That way we retain the sound of the recording ambience rather than out of the box preset noise
Ahh ok, I get what you are saying. I do the same thing, as we talked already. The only difference being clone vs heal for patching and refining that wanted noise layer, in this case.
But heal is not a preset noise, it is interpolation, either vertical, horizontal or bi-directional. It takes the signals around the selection and interpolate between them to fill the selection with that result. And I use it not only to cover holes but to smash peaks too.
Either way, isn’t cloning also destructive? Or do you mean you also clone to new layers??
Dude I don’t have what it takes to work with 27 layers like you said you do in another post hahah thats nuts for me. Please just help me get Robin work on the undo history so I can just undo my one thousand erase clicks and go on from there! =D
Ah, thanks, I didn’t understand that…I will try Heal again
Yes, clone is destructive; except, I save the unwanted part I removed to my unwanted layer, so can be back-tracked and shown to a “client”
I don’t normally have 27 layers…I’m (manually) unmixing a group of passers by right now in the current job and that along with unmix levels is leading to a lot of layers…also I have two mics in this job…which I wasn’t doing before
