[Lumiera] meaning of the term "Asset"

Roland wildhostile at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 22:53:52 CEST 2010

Le 10/10/2010 20:25, Ichthyostega a écrit :
>> Le 10/10/2010 00:49, Ichthyostega a écrit :
>>> the assets are sort-of "the bookkeeping view" at the things contained in a
>>>   session (=project). The most prominent example is the media loaded into
>>> the session. When it comes to effects, the effect asset is rather like the
>>>   effect processor, (...) There are further kinds of assets which are mostly
>>>   of internal interest only (Sequences, busses, processing patterns, tracks)
> Roland schrieb:
>> I see the asset as the project file. If it is a project file, the asset is a
>> text file (xml?). Thus the asset can be showed to the user into three ways:
>> - as it is (a text file). Not user friendly but useful.
>> - as a timeline.
>> - as the folder-bin asset view. (still needed to be defined)
> Hi Roland,
> first of all, let me clarify the terminology a bit. Well... I'm not a native
> speaker, so let's quote from a dictionary (Webster)
>> (1) [usually plural] something such as money or property that a person or
>> company owns The business has assets totalling £5.1 million.
>> (2) a major benefit Youth is a tremendous asset in this job. "asset to": He
>> is a definite asset to the team.
>> *Synonyms or related words* General words for possessions: appurtenance,
>> property, stuff, things, goods, possession, asset, belongings, valuables,
>> fixed asset...
> Roland, you're certainly right that, according to this definition, a session
> of a video editing application is a valuable asset. Usually, building up such
> a session is the result of months of work...
> But that's not the meaning of the term "asset" we use here. For Lumiera, we
> stick to a common habit in media production, and esp. video editing when it
> comes to the use of the term "asset". Actually, we just borrowed this usage
> from Cinelerra, which uses this term (at least in the source code) in the
> same way.
> For background information, you might want to look into the Wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset
> This brings me to an interesting observation. Actually, the term "asset"
> and especially "digital asset" seems to bear a tight link to business,
> and *commercial value*.
> My understanding is, that this is due to the fact, that "business" and
> "commercial" became some sort of a replacement-religion for many people,
> up to the degree that it's inconceivable that there might be anything
> *of significance* beyond marketing and commercial organisation.
> Of course, everyone concedes that there are "other areas" -- but bottom
> line, effectively anything non-commercial would equate to "hobbyist" or
> "not really serious". Doing things seriously became almost synonymous
> for doing things for sale.
I'm reaching the same conclusion too ... but I'm not an artist.
> As a special twist, the population which seems to have "bought into"
> that ideology most strongly are the artists. Now "becoming an artist
> seriously" seems to equate to renting an atelier somewhere and trying
> to sell your pictures or sculptures or designs to make a living from it.
> And when the sales don't work out as expected and don't produce enough
> income for a living, this might cause an endless treadmill of
> self-reflections, doubts and bad conscience, which can be both
> heart-wrenching and detestable when you're witnessing that with
> friends or other people you care about.
> Anyway (lets rather hope this is just a specially coloured snapshot
> I got from my personal experience here in that over-organised, saturated
> and self-ignorant part of the world I'm living in) -- maybe the open source,
> open media movement can help to get things into balance again, by reducing
> commercialism again to being one enterprise among many, not good and not
> bad per se.
> In this sense, for Lumiera we denote with "asset" all the relevant and
> valuable elements you collect and import in order to build up your editing
> session. That is
> - your footage
> - other media you'll intend to use
> - plug-ins and effects you might rely on
> - plus a lot of further data, meta data and definitions
>    you use or build up in the course of the work (labels, automation data,
>    edited sequences, busses with configuration, processing patterns...)
Can we discuss on them. Make a list or sort of organisation?
> Thus we subsume all these individual elements with the term (or concept)
> of an "asset". All these together are part of the "session" (or project),
> which is stored as a text file (or binary file). To be more precise,
> within the session all the objects are organised into a so called
> "data model", which is a tree-like structure. The assets are thus
> certainly an important part of this session data model.
> Roland, don't get me wrong; my intention was just to clarify the terms
> a bit. Besides that, you wrote the basic idea down quite clear (and
> correctly):
>> If I'm right, switching from the timeline to the folder-bin representation
>> and from the folder-bin to the timeline view should be done quite easily by
>> the software (and transparently to the user) because the text file is the
>> basis. Thus the GUI could give the ability to switch from one to the other
>> style on a simple click ... unless you want Lumiera to be exclusively a
>> folder-bin asset view editor.
> Exactly. The data model contained in the session is the basis. It can be
> stored persistently on disk and re-loaded again, thus recreating the previous
> state. Part of this model can then be presented in the GUI in a folder-like
> view, with the individual elements in those folders being the assets. At the
> same time, the same and other parts of the session data model can be presented
> as a timeline with playback and the usual edit operations.
> Cheers,
> Hermann V.
Thanks for clarifying the debate.

More information about the Lumiera mailing list