<p>Adobe Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro and Da Vinci are all non-destructive video editors, although it hasn't been tested in these programs whether the sequence in which effects are applied are independent.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:17:29.707Z
2022-10-17T17:17:29.707Z
user610620
<p>Image editors are classified either as <strong>destructive</strong> (<strong>Photoshop</strong> and <strong>Gimp</strong>) or <strong>non-destructive</strong> (<strong>Darktable</strong>) editors. The former irreversibly hard-codes effects and edits into the image based on the sequence they are applied, whereas for the latter, <em>all changes to the image are reversible and agnostic to the sequence in which the other effects and changes are applied</em>.</p>
<p>Adobe Premiere Pro, being the video counterpart to Photoshop, must therefore be a destructive video editor, right? Are there any video editors that are non-destructive instead?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-03T07:37:13.867Z
I've never used Premier, but FCP & DaVinci, whilst saving a 'hard copy' final version, can be re-edited at any time. The original clips are preserved & cuts/cross-fades/titles/colour grading etc are simply overlays in the timeline. The final output does not overwrite the input files, which would imo, make it non-destructive.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T18:45:42.213Z
i think you've mis-interpreted the meaning of non-destructive editing. Destructive editors also treats all effects as overlays on the timeline or side panel, but the idea of non-destructive editing is that each effect is independent of all other effects. This is not the case with Destructive editors, which applies each effect in the sequence they are applied: Effect 1 before Effect 2, will look different than Effect 2 before Effect 1.
user610620
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-06T06:01:16.223Z
Not really. Though I'm from an audio background rather than video, Ive been doing this 40 years, since before you could do it on a computer. If you record a clean guitar; then put it through a reverb & a guitar amp, the order matters, but the original signal remains untouched. That's considered non-destructive. I've never heard of video having a different definition to audio.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-06T16:33:21.803Z
Yes, now you understand the meaning. Like non-destructive audio, **non-destructive** image editing is widely known *outside* of Photoshop. But when it comes to video editing, *is every video editor on the market only destructive then?* ... These 2 terms are independent of whether or not the **original signal** remains. Because of course, when you're in-program, the original signal can always be returned to by pressing undo or hiding layers. Don't worry about that.
user610620
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-06T17:11:33.650Z
"now you understand the meaning" ...well, I do, but I'm not sure you do. It seems we disagree fundamentally on what the definition is. "is every video editor on the market only destructive" - no, not by my definition & you have yet to clearly explain what *your* definition is.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-07T06:27:13.117Z
In my very first comment.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:04:37.717Z
like Final Cut Pro and Da Vinci as you say, pretty sure Adobe Premiere also preserves cuts/cross-fades/titles/colour grading etc as overlays in the timeline. That doesn't make it non-destructive though.
user610620
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:06:28.597Z
Then you're going to have to accurately define your specific interpretation of "non-destructive", as it seems to be different to everyone else's.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:08:30.730Z
you're the only one here. there is no one else.
user610620
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:09:28.663Z
There were 3 upvotes on my very first comment. I can only assume everyone else lost interest after that. You still need to actually provide a definition, rather than arguing for argument's sake.
Tetsujin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:13:47.803Z
read my 20 comments above. i defined not only in the original post, but repeatedly in the comments. which means you refute the definition which can even be googled: *"Traditional photo editing is ‘destructive’. every adjustment you make permanently changes the pixels in the photo and there’s no way back unless you’ve saved a copy of the original and you’re willing to start again. ‘Non-destructive’ editing is fully reversible. You can go back and undo or redo all of your editing work at any point in the future. "* I apply the same to video editing, but stress **sequentiality**
user610620
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-17T17:16:59.257Z
OK… sequentially. Apply a cut between 2 scenes, apply a  simple cross-fade, then a LUT. Move the cut, the crossfade moves too & the LUT is reapplied to the new edit. How sequentially would you like?
Tetsujin
<video-editor><editing><software-recommendation><software>
Non-destructive video editors
user610620
# Non-destructive video editors

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-02)

Image editors are classified either as **destructive** (**Photoshop** and **Gimp**) or **non-destructive** (**Darktable**) editors. The former irreversibly hard-codes effects and edits into the image based on the sequence they are applied, whereas for the latter, *all changes to the image are reversible and agnostic to the sequence in which the other effects and changes are applied*.

Adobe Premiere Pro, being the video counterpart to Photoshop, must therefore be a destructive video editor, right? Are there any video editors that are non-destructive instead?

**Tags:** video-editor, editing, software-recommendation, software

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I've never used Premier, but FCP & DaVinci, whilst saving a 'hard copy' final version, can be re-edited at any time. The original clips are preserved & cuts/cross-fades/titles/colour grading etc are simply overlays in the timeline. The final output does not overwrite the input files, which would imo, make it non-destructive.  
> **username_0**: i think you've mis-interpreted the meaning of non-destructive editing. Destructive editors also treats all effects as overlays on the timeline or side panel, but the idea of non-destructive editing is that each effect is independent of all other effects. This is not the case with Destructive editors, which applies each effect in the sequence they are applied: Effect 1 before Effect 2, will look different than Effect 2 before Effect 1.  
> **username_1**: Not really. Though I'm from an audio background rather than video, Ive been doing this 40 years, since before you could do it on a computer. If you record a clean guitar; then put it through a reverb & a guitar amp, the order matters, but the original signal remains untouched. That's considered non-destructive. I've never heard of video having a different definition to audio.  
> **username_0**: Yes, now you understand the meaning. Like non-destructive audio, **non-destructive** image editing is widely known *outside* of Photoshop. But when it comes to video editing, *is every video editor on the market only destructive then?* ... These 2 terms are independent of whether or not the **original signal** remains. Because of course, when you're in-program, the original signal can always be returned to by pressing undo or hiding layers. Don't worry about that.  
> **username_1**: "now you understand the meaning" ...well, I do, but I'm not sure you do. It seems we disagree fundamentally on what the definition is. "is every video editor on the market only destructive" - no, not by my definition & you have yet to clearly explain what *your* definition is.  
> **username_1**: In my very first comment.  
> **username_0**: like Final Cut Pro and Da Vinci as you say, pretty sure Adobe Premiere also preserves cuts/cross-fades/titles/colour grading etc as overlays in the timeline. That doesn't make it non-destructive though.  
> **username_1**: Then you're going to have to accurately define your specific interpretation of "non-destructive", as it seems to be different to everyone else's.  
> **username_0**: you're the only one here. there is no one else.  
> **username_1**: There were 3 upvotes on my very first comment. I can only assume everyone else lost interest after that. You still need to actually provide a definition, rather than arguing for argument's sake.  
> **username_0**: read my 20 comments above. i defined not only in the original post, but repeatedly in the comments. which means you refute the definition which can even be googled: *"Traditional photo editing is ‘destructive’. every adjustment you make permanently changes the pixels in the photo and there’s no way back unless you’ve saved a copy of the original and you’re willing to start again. ‘Non-destructive’ editing is fully reversible. You can go back and undo or redo all of your editing work at any point in the future. "* I apply the same to video editing, but stress **sequentiality**  
> **username_1**: OK… sequentially. Apply a cut between 2 scenes, apply a  simple cross-fade, then a LUT. Move the cut, the crossfade moves too & the LUT is reapplied to the new edit. How sequentially would you like?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-10-17. Score: -1 | Accepted answer

Adobe Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro and Da Vinci are all non-destructive video editors, although it hasn't been tested in these programs whether the sequence in which effects are applied are independent.


---

