• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Efficient Editing

T

TheMurph

Hi all, I have a question and I apologize if it's been answer before. I did a search but did not find what I was looking for.

When it comes to editing, what do you all consider the most efficient process? I've mainly edited simple things, like wedding vids and sports vids, and what I do is basically go in order, trim what I need and do mostly everything on one line and then export the whole thing.

Now, I'm helping a friend out on their short film, and it was suggested that it would be simpler to edit a scene, export and keep doing that till I have the whole film, then go back and add those in to a new project with titles and credits.

Thoughts, opinions?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I usually follow that suggestion and edit each scene, and then put those together. I usually add music, titles and credits, and anything else that's needed to help the flow in the last step. But it depends on the film length. If it's like a minute long you may as well edit everything in one project.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For me, what I have done and continue to do, is create sequences based off of scenes. So like your second option. Make sure to leave a little extra footage on the front and tail of each scene, for transitions and/or L and J cuts.

Then I render out a master copy of each sequence and place these in order on a new sequence. Add my titles etc and then render out the final master.

I used to add the sequences to a master timeline sequence, however I found if I made small tweaks to a scene then I had to re-render the entire thing and all the color correction/grading/vfx I added would make the whole render take longer. So by using a master for each scene, this cut down on my final full movie render time.

I am sure there are a 100 ways to do this, and you will find what way fits you best.

Good luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When I edit, I like to use bits and pieces of each take. For example I will say I like how this guy says his sentence on take 2, but he says the second part of the sentence better on take 3. So I will put those two parts together, and put a reaction shot of another character, in between. Or something like that. Other editors tell me that that takes too long though, and it's best to do all your editing from one take only, which you consider the whole take to be good. Cause it's faster and more efficient.

Whichever works best for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So little information supplied to give you a decent answer. There are a lot of different ways to do your workflow, some depend on your preferences, but most of them depend on what you're editing.

Editing a TVC will be different to editing a documentary. It's also different to editing a wedding and different from editing a scripted short, also different from editing a feature. There are also differing ways when you're working with multiple collaborators and the approval process etc. etc.

My personal preferences is usually based around organizing my assets, previewing those assets, breaking the project into manageable pieces, do bits of the work, get approved or modify, continue until the project is complete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Meh. I think we're overthinking the issue. Do whatever you want.

Some people prefer to have their entire movie in one timeline. These people tend to use lots of ripple edits.

I never use ripple edits. I dunno why, it's just not part of my workflow. Whatever, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I prefer to keep each scene in a separate sequence (timeline), then I have a master sequence into which all others are placed, and then I export everything just once.

I don't see how it would save time to export each sequence individually, and then re-export them as a whole. That kinda sounds like a time-waster to me. That's redundant exporting, and though the second export will be fairly quick, you're still doing the same thing twice. Also, there's the question of whether or not you're downgrading your footage every time you export it.

I think one master export is the way to go. It requires a lot of patience, cuz that export can take FOREVER, but it's still the most efficient.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with CF - it makes a lot of sense to break things into sequences by scene, etc, but skip the exporting in between. That just adds extra generations to your video, and reduces flexibility because to change a scene you have to go back and re-export it after any changes.

harmonica44 said:
Other editors tell me that that takes too long though, and it's best to do all your editing from one take only, which you consider the whole take to be good. Cause it's faster and more efficient.
Click to expand...

Mixing and matching takes is pretty standard editing practice. I'd be pretty wary of anyone claiming to be an 'editor' who advises you not to do it. I'll often rough cut from the single best take first for efficiency reasons, but then go back and look at the rest of the takes to see if there's parts I can swap for a better overall performance/scene.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wouldn't masturing every sequence at a time, cause problems later? Let's say you edit a sequence, then master it, then put it in a final edit time later, and do this with every sequence. Then a distributor says that s/he wants your movie in a different codec or format, but you cannot give her or him that because, every sequence has already been pre-rendered and you would have to recut them all over again, in order to avoid possible quality loss. Unless of course you use a codec that is of the highest quality and can be compatible with every system once converted to a different codec.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To explain why I master by scene. The first film we worked on..we ran into issues with time. THe guy doing the editing didn't render anything out until the last day..and then had issues...we ended up having to show the film from the time line. His render was running 20+ hours.

As I complete each sequence I need to render out a low rez version for audio to work with, so I go ahead and render out an uncompressed master that I can then use for the final export when everything is completed. Most of them take about an hour to render out with all grading/vfx and such so I just let it render out over night.

If a distributor wanted it in a different codec I just open the timeline up with all of the uncompressed sequences and render to what they want.

That being said, yes I am staying native even longer now as I have more faith in my process. I am just gun shy from watching what happened to someone else. If you can stay native then by all means cut out that sequence master render. For me, it made my final render times for multiple formats go faster.

edit:

Also I show my completed sequences in multiple formats. So a low rez one for audio, high rez one for testing where we are showing it, and perhaps a version for youtube for those who are remote. That's 3 renders and from my timing, it was faster to make a single master...and then use that to create the other 3 formats. Instead of each of the 3 taking an hour to render out... they might take 15 minutes each.

But again, it's probably truly not needed as everyone else said. I'll prob. remove that step in the future.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
I'll often rough cut from the single best take first for efficiency reasons, but then go back and look at the rest of the takes to see if there's parts I can swap for a better overall performance/scene.
Click to expand...

Truth to this. If you're lucky enough to have a log from the scripty, you can use your circled takes for your first cut. Sometimes you won't know why the director liked that particular take, so you can use your judgement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Definitely - for me personally though I rarely edit for other people anymore, so I'm generally the one making the call on the best takes in the first place. What I have found though is that things do frequently change from the shoot to the edit, and the take that I liked best during the shoot isn't always the one I go with once everything's in context.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm at a little bit of a loss as to why you would export anything to put back into a timeline. Obviously, if you are exporting for review or for final I do this, but I make small revisions on almost every pass until we lock. Especially towards the end when you can look at the project as a whole.

On features I use the old style film reel breaks, so every sequence is 20 minutes or less. Works out to about 5 sequences generally. Occasionally, we will do a film print so this is why I do this. I don't have a problem running 20 min sequences, but I guess YMMV depending on your rig.

If I don't have much time, I go by scripty notes. If I do have time, I won't even look at notes and take my own and then compare. I like the second way if possible as it removes director bias. Being on set is not the same as looking at it in the cutting room. I have also had many cases where the director didn't like an actor for whatever reason and it affected their view of the performance.

If you are lucky, there will be an "anchor" take as I call it. One solid take with little to no mistakes, right tone, good reads and timing. If not, I will puzzle piece it together.

I usually try to get a rough together as fast as I can so I can see the project as a whole (I try to do a loose 8 to 10 minutes a day) until I have a completed rough then I go back and try to improve the whole thing equally. I've seen a lot of people who focused on one part of a film to the point where the pace and attention to detail is unequal.

I do try to throw in temp music and sfx if it isn't too time consuming as it adds so much and does affect timing and overall perception.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top