Is hiring an editor necessary?

[RealJasonBourne]

- Is hiring an editor really necessary? I've edited a ton of videos (not professional short films or anything), what do they do specifically other than gathering the clips and cutting them together?

- For sound is a music composer all I would need? Would they be able to do all the audio adjustments or is there another audio person that should do that, is it necessary?

- A professional DOP told me that I should hire a guy to do the color correcting because it's very important to have someone with a ton of experience in it to give you a nice professional look.

Thanks!

 

[harmonica44]

I don't think it's necessarily true for everyone, since a lot of people edit their own movies on here and talk about it. Robert Rodriguez edited El Mariachi himself. Of course if you choose to go down this road, it's best to ask as people for their opinions on the takes, other than friends if possible.

But a lot of directors are doing it themselves, some successfully from their shorts.

 

[Alcove Audio]

There are always the one-in-a-million who can edit as well as direct. But they are a breed apart; the vast majority of directors do not.

The best way to learn anything is to observe a professional in action. When I freelanced at other studios - and I wish that work was still available - I learned more from sitting in a corner for an hour than in months of doing it myself. The next best way to learn is to have an established rip your work to shreds; it's absolutely brutal on your ego, but brilliant in so many other ways.

 

[Will Vincent]

Of course if you choose to go down this road, it's best to ask as people for their opinions on the takes, other than friends if possible.

Wrong. Editing by committee is not productive.. not to mention uncreative and soul-crushing.

Have the balls to either fail on your own, or accept that you aren't comfortable/don't have the skill and get someone else to cut it.

 

[Will Vincent]

Could someone listen to his orchestral demo reel and tell me if he should "probably" be able to do what I want?

Don't have any idea what you're looking for, so can't really answer that, no.

What I can say, is that while overall the music in that demo is not bad -- it sounds like a synthesizer. Of course it's midi.. that's how everybody (well ok, not Alan Silvestri or John Williams, maybe) works.. but it's performed in a manner that everything just has that artificial keyboard sound to it. There's not dynamism to the instrument sounds, everything is very on or off.. many instruments simply cannot be played that way, so it sounds artificial.

This kind of demonstrates what I'm talking about, and how to fix it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce989ZsUWuA

 

[directorik]

Could someone listen to his orchestral demo reel and tell me if he should "probably" be able to do what I want?

I listened. Yes, he should "probably" be able to do what you want. But
then most composers should "probably" be able to do what you want.
He might even bring something you didn't expect to the project.

There are always the one-in-a-million who can edit as well as direct. But they are a breed apart; the vast majority of directors do not.

I'm going to say there are far more than one in a million. I'm going
to say it's one in ten. Most directors I know are good editors.

In the studio world most directors do not edit. In the low/mid range
budget independent movies a lot do. That said; I'm a good cutter, I
get paid well to cut. I'm a good director. But I prefer working with an
editor when I'm directing. I love what another skilled, creative person
bring to my movie. It's an exciting, challenging creative relationship.

 

[harmonica44]

Wrong. Editing by committee is not productive.. not to mention uncreative and soul-crushing.

Have the balls to either fail on your own, or accept that you aren't comfortable/don't have the skill and get someone else to cut it.

I'm not saying it's ideal but if you are on a budget you have do some things yourself. My friend edited his short for the first time, showed to people, and he got hired as an editor as his regular job now. So it seems like it does work sometimes.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'm pretty sure you could teach a chimpanzee to edit. The technical skills are minimal. But that doesn't mean you should trust your project to someone who is merely capable of learning the technical skills required for completing a task.

Anyone can take a picture. Anyone can make you breakfast. Anyone can sing a song. But some people happen to be more passionate about these things than others, and the passion they bring will likely be accompanied not just by greater skill, but a greater attention to detail.

Anyone can edit. But some people put a lot more focus into it, and more importantly, some people pour all of their creativity into this task. Would you hire an actor who is technically capable of acting, but not really passionate about it? Would you hire a sound mixer who is technically capable of mixing sound, but not really passionate about it? Then why would you leave your editing up to someone who isn't really passionate about it?

 

[WalterB]

What CF says: technically speaking editing is simple, but a good editor understands the language and grammar of movies. A good editor understands how a cut creates thoughts in the mind of the viewer, how 4 frames difference can sometimes alter the meaning of a shot or a scene.
It's about creating a great story.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

If you find a composer who is also an audio engineer then they can
compose the music and do all the audio adjustments. Those are two very different jobs. And not all composers are good audio mixers.

It's worth adding (for the benefit of others): "Audio Engineer" covers a multitude of jobs, most of which do not suggest or imply any experience or ability to mix audio for film. Even if we are talking specifically an "Audio Mixer", that still doesn't imply any experience or ability to mix audio for film! A Mix Engineer for example is a job role/title usually applied to the music business and has very little in common with a "Re-recording Mixer" (also called a "Dubbing Mixer"), who is an audio mixer specifically for film/TV.

This might seem like merely semantics to many here but it really isn't, it's a very common trap that many inexperienced low budget filmmakers fall into! I personally have been employed on many occasions to fix a mix made by a music mixer/producer, employed originally as a cost saving measure by a film producer/director who did not appreciate the difference. Ultimately of course it cost them far more than if they had just employed a re-recording mixer in the first place and, in some of the cases we're not talking about an amateur music mixer/producer but very experienced, commercially successful mixers/producers! Speaking with other audio post professionals over the years, they too have commonly encountered this same issue.

he redid the audio to this diablo 3 trailer, he said everything is done from scratch including the dialogue: http://vimeo.com/81843926

To be honest, that was surprisingly good (the whole mix, not just the music), considering he's applying for a presumably lo/no budget position. However, there are some red flags, for example he states: "5.1 Surround mixed using AVID ICON D-Control Dual-Operator system for PT HD.". This is NOT home studio equipment, you wouldn't expect to find a dual-operator D-Control in anything less than a $500k+ facility, which raises a few questions: 1. How did he get access to such a facility to make a demo? 2. Who was the other operator and how much guidance/help did they provide? The most likely explanation is that he is/was an intern at a commercial facility who was given some out of hours time to make the demo, which leads to 3. Will he have access to those facilities (and the other operator!) for your project? If not, how likely is it he would be able to achieve a comparable quality on his own with his own equipment?

He seems like he's professional and should be able to create a good score...
Could someone listen to his orchestral demo reel and tell me if he should "probably" be able to do what I want?

OK, that doesn't sound very professional to me, much more of an amateur, no budget standard. To be honest I've heard much better orchestral style compositions/mixes from complete amateurs. Can he do what you want? Probably, as far as the music is concerned, depending of course of exactly what you want and to what standard. I wouldn't let him near the audio post side of things though!

Anyone can take a picture. Anyone can make you breakfast. Anyone can sing a song. But some people happen to be more passionate about these things than others, and the passion they bring will likely be accompanied not just by greater skill, but a greater attention to detail.

This is patently NOT the case! Not everyone can sing a song and by sing a song I mean at least get the right notes in the right place. Have you ever seen "X Factor"? Tons of people full of passion with so little skill or talent it's actually comical, as well as rather sad to see people deluding themselves so thoroughly!

Would you hire a sound mixer who is technically capable of mixing sound, but not really passionate about it?

Absolutely! I would take a technically competent re-recording engineer (with some professional pride) over someone with just real passion EVERY SINGLE TIME! Real passion is a two edged sword; on the one hand it can lead someone to "go the extra mile" on the other hand it usually leads to a loss of objectivity and without technical ability is an "extra mile" of crap really what you want?

I consider myself quite passionate about audio post but that's largely irrelevant as I try to maintain a professional, dispassionate approach to individual projects! Do you honestly think a beginner who was extremely passionate about your project would make a better mix than a dispassionate, highly experienced, professional re-recording mixer?

G

 

[camopaint0707]

If I could afford it I would.

 

[Will Vincent]

If I could afford it I would.

It doesn't have to cost you anything.