Sure. A de facto standard is just something that's so commonly used/done that it becomes an unofficial standard. For example, in video editing, graphic design, music production, etc., it's assumed that people will use Macs therefore Macs have become the de facto standard. When it comes to editing movies or TV shows in 'Hollywood' Avid is the de facto standard.
sure. aha.
I get the comparison. My point is that even Edit Droid (a very early NLE made by Lucasfilm targeting film editors) had separate source and record monitors and so did Lightworks (which even used a Steenbeck-inspired hardware controller) so maybe for an NLE it's the better way to go?
my comparison was to point out FCPX UI which got a lot of criticism as being something inspired from the real and a real tool once upon a time--a steinbeck editing table. the one with one monitor only.
sure some steinbecks had two monitors. but adding a second monitor to a steinbeck unless doing something i cannot think of right now, is akin to something like being useless or a diminishing return with that 2nd monitor.
if you've edited on film, you would have looked at your film on a viewer. cut your film. and have your film laid out ready to be taped. like a bunch of clips hanging out in bins. the viewer is something separate from the steinbeck. it reminds me of how FCP X has the scrubber/viewer now. anyway, the steinbeck is basically where you tape together your film. or splice.
so what i'm saying is even though there are 2 monitor steinbecks, they're redundant.
whereas, in the video world, you need to have 2 monitors as a defacto. see what i did there?
why? ummm... there would be no way to see what is on those tapes. is why.
Or is your point that it's just purely an aesthetic choice like the skeuomorphism found in previous versions of iOS?
it's not just that. FCP X UI to some people looks different. say those people coming from avid, premiere pro and even fcp7. while some people think it's a more expensive and "professional" software (those people coming from imovie). but, to me, it looks like film editing and how i edited on a steinbeck back in school. so it's totally natural, instinctive for me. it's not just aesthtic that FCP X looks like that. but to me, premiere pro and fcp 7 is aesthetics the way it looks now w/ a two-monitor window thingy.
How do you go from the beginning to the middle to the end of a reel of film? Pretty much the same way you go from the beginning to the middle to the end of a video tape. Say I want video tape D. I think of it, I grab it and I have video tape D. A 12min film reel isn't drastically different than a 12min video tape.
wow. OMG! i can't believe i have to explain this. in editing film or even video, you would do a preliminary screening of your "dailies." so film reel D are the restaurant shots, lets say. you know what is in film reel D or lets say videotape D. film is nonlinear b/c in editing, the clips or strips of film in film reel D would not stay in that reel. they would get spliced. cut. snipped into smaller strips of film.
you can't cut a videotape into little pieces.
Walter Murch on a draw back of non-linear editing vs linear editing on film:
He also talks about the pros and cons of non-linear editing on a computer vs linear editing on a KEM or Steenbeck in his book "In the Blink of an Eye".
Two asides, it's steenbeck (not steinbeck) and 2 feet of 35mm film is about 2 seconds in duration.
do you think i'll learn something if i read that link?