Now in Beta: Ripple Trim Adds Edits to Keep Both Sides of Trim in Sync

[Ben Insler]

The trim preferences in Premiere Pro Beta now offer a new option called "Ripple trim adds edits to keep both sides of trim in sync". With this option enabled, Premiere Pro will now add edits on tracks as necessary when ripple trimming, regardless of the direction of the trim operation, and will automatically ripple trim these added edits as part of the user's trim operation to keep both sides of the trim edit in complete sync.

During a ripple trim, Premiere Pro will add edits to any clip that overlaps the trim selection, on any track that does not have an edit selected as part of the trim operation. The edits are added at the position of the first (leftmost) edit in a group of selected edits to trim. These added edits will automatically ripple trim along with any selected edits as the user proceeds with the trim. In places where the edit being trimmed is overlapped by a gap, the size of the gap is adjusted to accommodate the trimmed frames, and clips beyond the gap will stay in sync as expected with other surrounding clips in the sequence. If the size of the gap is reduced to the point where a clip beyond the gap begins to overlap the trim edit selection, this clip will then begin to automatically trim as its overlap is introduced so that it does not create an overlap past the point of the edit being trimmed.

Prior to this new preference, Premiere Pro would add edits to overlapping clips during a trim operation only if the trim operation was expanding clips within the sequence, and thus create a gap. If the trim operation was contracting clips within the sequence, overlapping clips would either remain stationary or shift position in order to keep one side of the trim edit in sync, but the other side of the edit was always at risk of falling out of sync with its surrounding clips. This behavior is still achievable if preferred by disabling "Ripple trim adds edits to keep both sides of trim in sync."

[Jarle Leirpoll]

I would probably be very confused if the software started adding edits I did not ask for. I do see the logic here, but I think I would often forget to clean up the edits after the trim, and that would quickly get very messy. It would be great to see an example from a real project where this behavior would be beneficial. 

It's a good thing it can be turned off 🙂 

[davidarbor]

I'm with Jarle. This is a really interesting idea, and I can see where it came from. I can't count the number of times I've tried to ripple clips but was blocked by a track above. I've trained myself to either use Sync Lock or temporarily move the clip causing problems, but I also can't think of a reason why I'd want to affect clips that I wasn't explicitly touching. 
In this GIF it's also hard to tell what's happening on the clip in V2—is the out point rolling back? If so, that seems to be the most desireable outcome, but if that's the case, why would an edit need to be made in the first place? It would be cool if the same operation could intelligently be performed without the edit. 

On the other hand, if the edit is being made so the clip on V2 can also ripple in from the left edit point, then I can't see why I would want that. That would create jump cuts all over the place.

[Ben Insler]

I agree, using this feature without maintaing scope of what is being trimmed and where edits are being added could cause a lot of confusion by creating jump cuts.  As @Jarle Leirpoll said, there's definitely a reason we designed this as a feature that can be enabled/disabled. 😁  I'd also propose that these added edits would create a lot of confusion if you don't expect them, and by enabling the feature, one would come to expect them rather than be surprised by them since it is the feature's design to add these edits.  The placement of edits is also controlled by the trim selection (more on that at the end).

The benefit is that this feature allows you to edit without worring about overlapping clips shifting or blocking trim operations.  You've both noted that there may be cleanup to do after the trim is performed as edits are created. However that would also be true if you move the blocking clip out of the way that's causing trim restrictions, since that clip would need to go back into place after your trim is done, but now that the underlying edit has changed, the moved clip likely also needs cleanup to drop back into place.  This new feature provides a different avenue to the same goal.

The example GIF provided above is a simplified illustration of the functionality of the feature, and the individual ways each editor may use it are much more nuanced. Using the gif as an example, if the clip on V2 were a static title, then this new feature is very helpful as it keeps the start and end of the title in sync with both sides of the underlying edit as it is trimmed, and there is no consequence of adding an edit in the middle of the static title.  This would also be true if the overlapping clip were a letterbox matte covering your entire sequence - any edit could be trimmed without ever creating gaps in the matte that needed to be cleaned up/filled.  Another example would be if the audio on A2 were music or a sound effects bed - you need to adjust the scene, but you know you ended the audio at exactly the right spot to align with a dramatic moment.  So as you trim, edits are added to the audio on A2 to keep the ending alingment in sync.  You then go back and fix the added edits to the music/sfx while having maintaned the precise in-sync reference for where you previously ended the audio... you don't have to find that perfect spot again.

Really, though, the true power of this feature doesn't necessarly apply to clips that overlap on higher Video/Audio tracks, but rather clips that intermingle on lower Video/Audio tracks below.  Let's take an example of a much more complex timeline than the one in the above GIF, one with many stacked video layers and many layers of audio for sound design.  Instead of trimming on V1 and A1, you select edits to trim on V3, V4, A1 and A6.  What happens on V1 and V2 doesn't really matter too much since they're covered by footage on V3 and V4, but you want V1/V2 there as alt takes to reference back to, and having them block trim edits is tedious to deal with.  Similarly, A1 has dialog synced to one of the video tracks, and A6 has an off camera radio broadcast that needs to sync with on camera character reactions that you are trimming.  A2, A3, A4 and A5 are room tone and sound beds that extend well off the screen given your current zoomed in view of the timeline, and these tracks can seamlessly be patched by dropping cross-fades on resulting added edits.  In this example, this feature allows you to trim what you need to without having to explicitly select every single edit point that needs to be driven to allow an unblocked trim, and without zooming/scrolling the timeline to find edits off the timeline that need to be selected.

On the flip side of all of this, and going back to the GIF, if the intent was not to add edits to the clip on V2, but instead roll the out point back as @davidarbor suggested, you'd achieve this by adding the tail edit point of the V2 clip to the trim selection, so that it trimeed along with the selected V1 and A1 edits.  You could select the A side to trim the tail of the V2 clip, or the B side to maintain the clip's length and trim the gap after it.  Once a track has an edit selected for trimming, it is a part of the trim operation itself and no new edits are added to any clips on that track, and so in this case no new edit would be added to the clip on V2.

[davidarbor]

Wow, thanks for the wonderfully thorough response, Ben!

This provides great context, especially with your example of the larger timeline.

I will say to the statement of 

there is no consequence of adding an edit in the middle of the static title. 

that the consequence is my neurosis will get the better of me and not allow me to leave an edit that has no consequence. Aside from enjoying a tidy timeline, I do find that edits that don't do anything cause me to frequently look at them to figure out why they're there. "Is this intentional?" "Do I have the same clip, but maybe one of the parts has an effect or slightly different parameters than the other?" 

This is why I always have "Show Through Edits" enabled—so I can identify when extraneous edits can be closed up.

[Ben Insler]

...the consequence is my neurosis will get the better of me and not allow me to leave an edit that has no consequence. Aside from enjoying a tidy timeline, I do find that edits that don't do anything cause me to frequently look at them to figure out why they're there. "Is this intentional?"

Haha - Agreed.  I probably should have said "will not appear as a jump cut when played back."  Everything has consequence.

[alexs19751423]

I agree Jarle (as we usually seem to do). If this was in Media Composer, I would deal with this with an asymmetrical edit which once understood is a fantastic way of working. In reality, when with complex edits like this, I see many editors pulling apart the edit to see what is going on rather than trying to do it all at once. Especially when your brain is full of content/performance related detail, it is often easier to perform a few more steps rather than confusing yourself trying to be too clever.

Having said that I would love to see  more robust version of asymmetrical editing in Premiere Pro.  

[Trevor_Asq]

This is actually the same behaviour as Media Composer (adding edits to keep other tracks in sync) *if* tracks are sync locked (Tracks default to sync locks OFF in AMC, and ON in PP). 

AMC shows where the edits are going to be added with a grey version of the yellow trim icon.  Also extents of underlying clips. Which are both useful.