1 person found this helpful
There isn't a right answer, only what works for you.
Trimming video clips, the more experience I gained, the more I trimmed in the source window until eventuality, edit that way almost exclusively.
I help a lot of people who are getting started editing. The novices left on their own seem to naturally gravitate towards throwing multiple clips on the timeline, then trimming on the timeline, moving clips around here and there.
I think that the more experience one gain, the more one starts editing with purpose and speed. Trimming in the source panel facilitates this.
With experience, one starts to employ more keyboard shortcuts, grasps audio controls, and starts to learn the various tools will save them time and effort.
That said, it still boils down to what works for you. I come across proficient editors whose workflows are different then mine, but it is hard to argue with goods results. I also know others who seem to have only edited with NLEs out of necessity because their beloved linear workflow has disappeared. They learned only the bare essentials of a NLE software and that's about it. They use the software without curiosity or exploration. As I think about it, these guys often trim mostly on the timeline.
When I teach Premiere or FCP 7, I show them editing using the source panel first.
I agre with using what works for me, though I'm just wondering what a pro might think if they saw someone going from the Source Panel directly into the Timeline? Is this generally frowned upon by the pros? Although it may work, would someone never get hired if this was their workflow?
I was taught to use the Source Monitor myself. I'd venture most who have any kind of professional training were as well. So it's not improbable for a post house to see someone doing that work directly on the timeline and think "no training".
Having said that, I would hope that the end result would have more weight than how you got there (assuming how you got there doesn't add significant time, as speed of editing often counts for a lot).