The scope of an "editor"

[driverrodeshotgun]

Hi everyone,

I've been making films for awhile and have always edited my own. But in regards to color grading/correction and sound editing, I always use someone who specializes in those areas, and the results have been great. I know there are editors out there that can do literally everything. I've just never taken the time to learn color and sound because there's so much detail and specialization involved and I feel it's good to focus on what you do best, which for me is figuring out how to best tell a story, when to cut smoothly and make sure continuity is correct, etc

Recently I've been editing some films and scenes for other filmmakers who have been happy with my work. These are filmmakers that were looking for an editor, and then have plans to take the locked picture and have a colorist and sound editor work through it. My question here is centered around what people expect from an "editor." I've seen countless ads looking for an editor who can edit, color correct, sound edit. Then I see ads who are just looking for an editor who does what I do, and then they have plans to get color and sound done.

With professional and semi-professional films...an "editor" are those that handle the narrative aspect correct? And then there's a post production team that handles color and sound. Or is the scope of an "editor" supposed to be someone who can do literally everything? I know one is more employable if they can do everything and are a one man army, but I'm just curious on people's opinions on that. When I edit I sync audio, I pay attention to sound, I pay attention to color and know how I want it to sound and look, so I'm aware of this stuff, it's just doing it myself...is something I don't do, but I convey it to those that do it. Am I less of an editor because of that? Does Walter Murch and Thelma Schoonmaker and Michael Kahn do everything?

Lately I feel like calling myself an editor is hypocritical when I see ads asking for someone who can do everything in the book, even including vfx.

 

[Sweetie]

I disagree entirely.

You are at the top of your game? No room for improvement?

If so, congratulations. If not, that's what Cracker is trying to say.

If you're earning a living from your filmmaking, you're doing better than most on this forum and that should make you proud. Well done!

I know that personally, I have a lot to learn. A long way to go. I'm only at the start of my journey.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

You are at the top of your game? No room for improvement?

Yes and no.

vfx? VFX is not really my thing, but I'm enough of a wiz to make what I needed done look like it was done by a professional. There are those that go hog wild here, but they often can't do the things list below very well.

Sound. Although I worked with sound tools (ie: pro tools and other Mac stuff) for over a decade, I didn't attempt to try to create things that is beyond my ability to make it sound professional. In my film I went with using mostly existing music instead of trying to create atmospheres because that is what I do best. Had I the time, I would have wanted to create my own stuff.

Video. Not to brag, I'm near the top of my game here. Any improvements would come from being able to do it quicker. This would only come from editing day in and day out.

Grading. This was a big learning curve -- getting 3,000 clips to match. I worked really hard here. I think most every film is a learning curve for graders, hence the reason they get big bucks.

----

Filmmakers that teach themselves to become good editors end up miles ahead of their peers.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

If you're earning a living from your filmmaking, you're doing better than most on this forum and that should make you proud. Well done!

I know that personally, I have a lot to learn. A long way to go. I'm only at the start of my journey.

No, not earning a living. Earning back the investment, yes. I also released a CD of the movie's music which was a nice PR gimmick to sell DVDs.

In the past I made how-to videos, but then I relied on book sales (related to the videos) to make ends meet.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I will never be at the top of my game. I don't just say that now, as an amateur, knocking on the door of a profession. The more I do this thing, the more confident I become that I will eventually trade my bartending job for something I'm actually passionate about. No matter my level of expertise, I will never be as good as I can be. I don't hold back from feeling proud of my accomplishments, but I will never stop striving to do better.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I will never be at the top of my game. I don't just say that now, as an amateur, knocking on the door of a profession. ... No matter my level of expertise, I will never be as good as I can be. I don't hold back from feeling proud of my accomplishments, but I will never stop striving to do better.

I totally agree with this statement!

Over 15 years ago, which was about 5 years after I'd worked my way up from semi-pro to pro, my work for a particular film was nominated for a BAFTA, which in my neck of the woods is as good as it gets (after the Oscars). I don't say this to brag, I say it to illustrate a point, which is: Did I feel at the "top of my game" 15 years ago? Nope, not even close, when my agent told me my work had been nominated for a BAFTA I thought it was a practical joke. A few months later when my agent called again and told me that it got through the nomination phase and was now in the final 4 (a BAFTA Finalist), I thought someone must have made a mistake! I can take that work, analyse it and absolutely tear it to shreds, and in fact I have done exactly that many times with students. Not only did I feel I was far from the top of my game at that time but I still feel that way even now (more than 15 years later), I still feel my best work is ahead of me. Almost everyone I know feels the same way but there are two exceptions, in my experience: 1. The occasional jaded old pro who has lost the passion and only continues in the industry to earn a living, and 2. Those relatively new to the industry or trying to break in, who are deluding themselves, thinking they are far better than they actually are. There maybe other types of people, I'm just saying that in my 20+ years of experience these are the only two types I've come across.

Although I worked with sound tools (ie: pro tools and other Mac stuff) for over a decade, I didn't attempt to try to create things that is beyond my ability to make it sound professional. In my film I went with using mostly existing music instead of trying to create atmospheres because that is what I do best.

Incidental music is by definition non-diagetic and abstract. While it can be a superb tool to generate an emotional response in an audience, it also makes the audience more aware that they are watching a film and it therefore always to some degree pulls the audience out of the scene/film. For this reason, incidental music instead of (rather than in addition to) a sound designed atmosphere is still a tool in the professional filmmaker's armoury but it's a very carefully considered and rarely used one! I haven't seen your film and maybe you manage to use this tool appropriately but to be honest I highly doubt it, especially as you appear to have used this tool to avoid creating atmospheres rather than because it was the most appropriate filmmaking tool.

With the exception of some low budget documentaries (and other very low budget programming, such as some children's TV), creating/manipulating atmospheres is an absolutely integral part of professional narrative filmmaking. On budgeted features there is always at least one member of the audio post team with specialist skills in creating atmospheres and frequently an entire sub-team dedicated to this specific task. In other words, without considerable skill in creating/manipulating atmospheres your film may still have some commercial value but it's not possible (in the vast majority of narrative films) to achieve sound which "sounds professional" or "spot-on" or to consider the film to be as good as it could have been.

It takes years of practise and expensive equipment/facilities to achieve professional film audio standards. Obviously the term "professional" is very subjective and I believe it is possible for an indie filmmaker with a relatively modest budget, a good ear and some hard work to equal and even surpass many recent graduates in the field and other semi-pros/aspiring pros. But without very considerable expenditure in equipment/facilities, dedicating oneself exclusively to audio post, plus a great deal of study and experience of working with existing knowledgeable audio post pros, one can't realistically expect to achieve the same standards as all the commercial audio post professionals who have had to take this route.

I suspect, in a few years time, you'll look back at some of what you've said in this thread and cringe.

G

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

I haven't seen your film and maybe you manage to use this tool appropriately but to be honest I highly doubt it, especially as you appear to have used this tool to avoid creating atmospheres rather than because it was the most appropriate filmmaking tool.

. . .


creating/manipulating atmospheres is an absolutely integral part of professional narrative filmmaking.

I agree, it's important. but perhaps the type of music I chose did the same trick.

It takes years of practise and expensive equipment/facilities to achieve professional film audio standards.

I agree, and I would not even try to look for work in that field. But I did not make Das Boot, and was able to pull it off without going that route. No one has (reviewer or audience) made one single complaint about the audio. I went into the project knowing I had to do everything possible avoid having the film ruined by bad audio.

I suspect, in a few years time, you'll look back at some of what you've said in this thread and cringe.

Uh, no. I wouldn't be much of a filmmaker if I didn't have a lot of confidence. I won't be cringing over the things I got wrong.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I agree, it's important. but perhaps the type of music I chose did the same trick.

That's virtually impossible, as I said, music can be a superb tool for generating feelings/emotions but is a very poor tool for creating atmospheres. It's concerning for someone professing professional levels of audio achievement that you seem unaware of this basic limitation.

But I did not make Das Boot, and was able to pull it off without going that route. No one has (reviewer or audience) made one single complaint about the audio. I went into the project knowing I had to do everything possible avoid having the film ruined by bad audio.

At the lo/no budget indie film level, getting to the point of basic acceptable sound quality (of not ruining the film with bad audio) is a considerable achievement. However great this achievement with limited, pro-sumer quality equipment/facilities, this is not however the final goal of professional sound, it's the starting point! There's a huge gulf between not ruining a film with bad audio and professional standards/expectations. If you don't have a professional monitoring environment how is it even possible to know if your audio is "spot on" or of "professional" standards?

Addressing the artistic rather than the technical sound quality side, sound design exists to manipulate, enhance and focus the audience's attention/emotional responses to the story. The majority of sound design is effectively subliminal and so there are usually very few (if any) members of an average audience able to imagine/recognise how much better (more engaging) a film should have been with good sound design. Audiences (and reviewers) therefore tend not to complain about the sound when the sound design is poor, instead, they just tend to feel far less involved/engaged in the film and therefore will describe the film as "poor", "OK" or if being polite, as a qualified/reserved "good" without ever mentioning sound design.

As I said, the resources available to lo/no budget filmmakers mean that "not ruining the film by bad audio" is a laudable aim and one which I assume from your assertions that you've achieved but that's a far cry from stating your audio is of professional standards and "spot on"!

Uh, no. I wouldn't be much of a filmmaker if I didn't have a lot of confidence. I won't be cringing over the things I got wrong.

Not having enough confidence will likely stop one taking the risk of achieving something exceptional. Having too much confidence leads to disasters and/or the belief that what one has created is far better than it actually is! Even though I believe I'm good at what I do, I personally find something to cringe about in every professional project I've ever done, even if it's achieved notable acclaim. It's the desire not to make myself cringe which spurs me on to continually improve and which enables me to remain competitive in a highly competitive professional field.

G

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

I believe we're starting to split hairs now, but at least we've had our say. Readers can decide on the track they want to take, but we both do agree that bad sound is a pretty big no-no.

Let me just add this: I went into the project with the CRINGE alarm on trigger setting. By gosh, I was NOT going to release anything that would cause me to cringe (or anybody else) when watching it. Nor was I going to bore anyone either.

 

[Will Vincent]

So when do we get to see it?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I believe we're starting to split hairs now...

Not really, I've used terms such as "huge gulf" and "a far cry", which are pretty much the opposite of splitting hairs!

I wonder if you've ever had chance to look at The Principles of Sound Design thread and the example I posted? If so, do you think you would be able to analyze the example clip, similarly though in slightly broader terms than I did? If not, then you would have something in common with the vast majority of lo/no budget filmmakers and even with many micro and low budget filmmakers. Experienced, repeatedly successful producers/directors always (in my experience) have an extremely good understanding of sound design. If one cannot accurately (and in some detail) analyze how and why sound design is used, not only can't one study and learn from how the great directors have used this filmmaking tool but obviously one cannot apply it to one's own filmmaking.

Good sound design is difficult, time consuming and requires planning and collaboration from the early stages of the filmmaking process. The vast majority of lo/no budget filmmakers simply don't have the knowledge, desire or resources and so partly or completely avoid sound design. This creates a great opportunity to stand out from the crowd for those few who manage to find a way to employ sound design as the successful professional filmmakers do!

So when do we get to see it?

What I've said in this thread is based on supposition and inference from what GA has stated, I'd like to know how his film actually turned out though.

G

 

[Will Vincent]

If it's as awesome as GA says, I'm excited.. and I don't even know what it's about!

 

[Cracker Funk]

You can at least see the trailer -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcnuPLqfadc

And the DVDs are for sale on amazon.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

I previously posted links to the Amazon site. $15,000 budget or thereabouts. Most production work was done in the mid 2000s. Post in latter 200s.

It's a great example of what you can do if you write your script to match the budget and locations you have, become an editing wiz and keep the gearheads at bay!

Right now we're throwing a free Music Soundtrack CD with every DVD purchase regardless or source (Amazon or Paypal)

For a looksee at the CD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332

DVD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You can at least see the trailer -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcnuPLqfadc

Mmmm, doesn't really tell me much. From the trailer it appears to be a silent film or a feature length music video? I'm not sure you can state you've achieved professional sound standards if there is no sound!

On a purely technical level with the audio you do have (the music): The vast majority of the energy in the music is in the low/very low frequency range. Laptop, smartphone or even average home speakers simply can't reproduce those frequencies. Systems which can reproduce those frequencies, say bass managed computer speakers or home cinema systems, will likely overload and/or distort because of this excessive low frequency energy. On systems which can reproduce that amount of low frequency energy accurately, the music will end up sounding heavy and muddy.

Listening carefully, I notice that you've got digital clicks at about 0:14, 0:40 and 0:55 and relatively severe overload distortion at about 0:20! Your particular monitors/monitoring environment must either be extremely insensitive to low frequency content (and the digital clicks/distortions) or maybe you just didn't listen very carefully. You also probably didn't account for what happens to audio in the youtube format conversion process and you obviously didn't spectrum analyse the music, which would have allowed you to visually identify the low frequency problem even if your particular audio system can't reproduce low frequency content. These errors/issues are all beginner/amateur level mistakes and could not be further from professional standards or "spot on"!

Compared to average no/lo budget Youtube standards, how you've mastered the music is OK/passable but leagues away from professional standards. Sorry to be so harsh in my criticism but if you're going to assert you've achieved professional standards and imply there's no room for improvement, then you've at least got to have some idea of what "professional standards" are in the first place!

G

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Mmmm, doesn't really tell me much. From the trailer it appears to be a silent film or a feature length music video? I'm not sure you can state you've achieved professional sound standards if there is no sound!

On a purely technical level with the audio you do have (the music): The vast majority of the energy in the music is in the low/very low frequency range. Laptop, smartphone or even average home speakers simply can't reproduce those frequencies. Systems which can reproduce those frequencies, say bass managed computer speakers or home cinema systems, will likely overload and/or distort because of this excessive low frequency energy. On systems which can reproduce that amount of low frequency energy accurately, the music will end up sounding heavy and muddy.

Listening carefully, I notice that you've got digital clicks at about 0:14, 0:40 and 0:55 and relatively severe overload distortion at about 0:20! Your particular monitors/monitoring environment must either be extremely insensitive to low frequency content (and the digital clicks/distortions) or maybe you just didn't listen very carefully. You also probably didn't account for what happens to audio in the youtube format conversion process and you obviously didn't spectrum analyse the music, which would have allowed you to visually identify the low frequency problem even if your particular audio system can't reproduce low frequency content. These errors/issues are all beginner/amateur level mistakes and could not be further from professional standards or "spot on"!

Compared to average no/lo budget Youtube standards, how you've mastered the music is OK/passable but leagues away from professional standards. Sorry to be so harsh in my criticism but if you're going to assert you've achieved professional standards and imply there's no room for improvement, then you've at least got to have some idea of what "professional standards" are in the first place!

G

Yabadabadoooo.

Give it up! Hiring you and spending an additional $200,000 on top of what I've done isn't going to result in one additional DVD sale (or one less sale).

Another thing, the trailer was done in advance of completion of post production and it is NOT the film.

I think you're a bit irked because it is possible for an editor to use home equipment and make movies that SELL without the use of an audio post expert.

Again, for the record, poor audio is an automatic disqualifier whether for festivals or sale. Equal attention needs to be given to both video and audio in all three stages of production. However one doesn't need expensive gear (video or audio) or involve "experts" to have success.

 

[Will Vincent]

No, he's "irked" because you're claiming your work is professional quality. Based on the trailer, .... well there's no nice way to say it, it's pretty sub par, sorry.

Congrats and kudos to finishing your project to a point you're happy with, and recouping your investment through sales.

But claiming that you're at or near the top of your game is either selling yourself short, or deluding yourself.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Hiring you and spending an additional $200,000 on top of what I've done isn't going to result in one additional DVD sale (or one less sale).

Agreed (!), good or great sound design is not going to turn an otherwise crappy film into a good or great film! Great sound design makes decent and good films better and is a required for a great film. Poor sound design can turn an otherwise decent film and indeed even an otherwise good film into a poor film.

BTW, I've never charged $200k for the audio post, although I have occasionally been a member of an audio post team on films which had a $200k or so audio post budget.

Another thing, the trailer was done in advance of completion of post production and it is NOT the film.

Nonetheless, you have held it up as a "great example" of what can be achieved by an "editing wiz"!

I think you're a bit irked because it is possible for an editor to use home equipment and make movies that SELL without the use of an audio post expert.

No, the fringes of both the TV and film industries have always included an amount of extremely poor quality content which sells. My brother has a large collection of (paid for) really crappy films which he loves precisely because they are so bad! There's also a lot of extremely crappy Youtube A/V content which makes money and is probably edited with iMovie and a lot less skill/knowledge than you have. None of this "irks" me, I just accept it as an area of the industry which doesn't require any particular skill/quality and an area which doesn't interest me personally.

What does "irk" me is exactly as Will has stated!

I agree with your basic premise, that some people (gear-heads) get obsessed with equipment and end up creating films which may have good production standards but are poor overall due to weak or non-existent aesthetic (storytelling) skills. However, the opposite end of the spectrum is just as bad; such poor quality equipment (and technical skills) that the filmmaker can't tell the difference between crappy and professional standards!

It's also worth noting that while technology has greatly reduced the cost of equipment capable of producing professional or near professional visuals, the same is NOT true for audio. Much of the technology we rely on in the audio world has barely changed in 30 years or more (speakers, mics, amplifiers, room acoustics, etc.) and due to the fact that professional standards have improved over the years, much of the equipment required to achieve professional standards is more expensive now than it's ever been.

However one doesn't need expensive gear (video or audio) or involve "experts" to have success.

That all depends on how you define success. If success is just earning back your investment or even just making a profit, all you need is a smartphone, an hour of free time and a decent idea for a vlog or a very cute/stupid pet. I assume that most indietalk members aspire to a different definition of filmmaking success and therefore require both more expensive equipment and more expertise.

G

 

[NickClapper]

I often feel like APE can go too far in stressing the need for professional sound but WOW do I agree with him on this thread.

GA: Your pride in your work is admirable but it's also alienating, because it goes beyond pride and becomes something closer to arrogance. I've watched the trailer to your film. It looks really interesting and I think it's great that it's a feature film which is signed and subtitled (rather than the other way round) but it looks like it was shot in the '80s, not the '00s. The lighting, colouring, aspect ratios...etc are all off in that trailer. It may not be the finished film but it's enough to tell that there's scope for improvement.

Your film way well be better than mine, or Cracker's, but, from seeing that trailer, I can tell you that me and CF have both produced better looking films. And yet I know that both of us have a good grasp on what we did wrong, what we can improve and how we want to progress as filmmakers. You seem to be too invested in this project to look at it objectively and, in the long term, that will be to your detriment.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Originally Posted by GuerrillaAngel View Post
Another thing, the trailer was done in advance of completion of post production and it is NOT the film.

Nonetheless, you have held it [trailer] up as a "great example" of what can be achieved by an "editing wiz"!

I never brought up the trailer, someone else did.

Judging a film by a trailer is pretty dumb, even for Hollywood films. Good God you guys! The other thing, an updated trailer on youtube isn't going to sell more DVDs than another one of my aggressive social media marketing campaigns.

Speaking of the trailer . . . I believe I slapped it together 6 years ago with iMovie because an in town festival wanted something upcoming from me to show. Actual first attempt at a trailer.

re: success

I measure success by the amount of money flowing into my pocket. I don't make movies to fill an ego -- I filled that up long time ago in another media.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

GA: Your pride in your work is admirable but it's also alienating, because it goes beyond pride and becomes something closer to arrogance.

that may be true, but ALL successful filmmakers have a bit arrogance in them because that is the only way you can survive in the business -- or at least to complete film projects.

You seem to be too invested in this project to look at it objectively and, in the long term, that will be to your detriment.

I understand this part quite well. I approached this from a marketing point of view. There are several key audiences that will develop an emotional attachment to the film and become buyers, hence the decisions concerning the look, subtitles. But it's no '80s film. The film's fast pacing, topic and vfx mostly could only have been done in the digital age. Anyway, the point was I planned this film specifically to get certain people to buy the DVD -- especially something they'd want to watch over and over.