-
Woah. This time it’s not me. It’s the filmmaking team from Focus…
-
[Oliver Peters] “There’s a similar theme at Camp Fincher. The more that can be kept in-house, as a sort of filmmaking “collective”, the more interactive and creative the process can be. It’s just a matter of getting the right talent in. Not only is it more collaborative, but key departments, like sound, can contribute earlier in the process.”
JJ Abrams’s Bad Robot espouses this same “one-roof” philosophy.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Bill Davis] “It’s posts exactly like this that’s always made me such a big fan of Walter. (Even if he does cut on Premier too much!)”
Ha, thanks! I’m not cutting all that much anymore, but you’d surely say there’s hope for me yet: I’ve pushed FCPX onto a few projects for the FCPX/M5 integration, and I really like the magnetic timeline for cutting VOs. (But yes, for most of my work, I do prefer the well-rounded Adobe workflow.)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Why would anyone’s earnings triple? I guess if all your work is flat rated, but don’t most get paid hourly,daily or salary? A faster tool just means more work gets done.
-
[TImothy Auld] “Because the film was released at a time of year that is generally regarded as a dumping ground does not have a whit to do with the efficiency of the workflow.”
Woosh…
-
[Walter Soyka] ” still think big numbers deserve skepticism. I have no trouble believing that many editorial tasks are 2x-3x faster (or more), but it’s not clear what exactly is said to be so much faster — the whole process?”
I don’t think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic. And no doubt is exaggerated. The way you might read it, is it “feels 2-3X faster”. Which in itself is not insignificant, meaning anything that feels faster helps maintain focus and reduce burnout.
As you well know, time gets sucked up regardless of how efficient your software is. Remember when we moved from linear editing to non-linear? There were studies done that showed the time on editing did not decrease. However, the quality of the edit increased. There could be a similar effect here. There could also be the effect of reducing staff required for editing a video. Which also is not insignificant. Brooks Law suggests that fewer staff leads to more efficient outcomes. Something I’ve found matches my experience.
-
[Bret Williams] “Why would anyone’s earnings triple? I guess if all your work is flat rated, but don’t most get paid hourly,daily or salary? A faster tool just means more work gets done.”
If you can get three times as much work done in any given unit of time as your competition can — in other words, deliver three times as much value — why wouldn’t you charge more?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Brett Sherman] “I don’t think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic.”
For me, it’s not just the working faster part. I tend to believe the old “Good, Fast or Cheap: Pick Two” adage.
Edits seem to take the same amount of time. But it’s how many different versions or ideas that can be produced in that time period that has increased. Personally, I have not reduced my rate at all in the NLE world. If anything, adding a $300 software to a MacBook Pro allows me to add more value. We still take about the same time to cut a series of spots. But the amount we get done in that time is far greater (plus the fact I don’t have to be in a facility somewhere to do it).
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Brett Sherman] “I don’t think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic. And no doubt is exaggerated. The way you might read it, is it “feels 2-3X faster”.”
This is exactly my point. If the claim that something is 2-3X faster is not demonstrably true, who can blame the skeptic for questioning the claim?
Incredible claims like this naturally invite skeptics to also question the totally credible claims. Haters gonna hate, but why give them a good argument to use? If the purpose is to help sell the real-world benefits of FCPX, it’s a miss. And worst case, you’re setting expectations that no one can reach.
[Brett Sherman] “There were studies done that showed the time on editing did not decrease. However, the quality of the edit increased.”
In computer graphics, we call it Blinn’s Law: “As processing power increases over time, render times remain constant.” (Of course, I’m still peddling Soyka’s Law, too: “Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities.”)
As I mentioned above, speed is a creative tool. I absolutely agree that you can capture some time savings and use them to drive quality — this is one of the main working principles at my own little studio. But if you’re spending your speed on quality, you’re burying the lead; this isn’t a speed story anymore, it’s a quality story.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
New tech enables one to do things cheaper and faster and rates effectively go down as competition sets in.
We can now do immensely more in the same time than 25 years ago. Say for example 25 years ago the going rate was $300/hr just for a nice A/B roll Sony BetaSP with DVE linear suite. We don’t get $900/hr just because we can work faster now. More like $100/hr for something that is ten fold faster and better.
BUT in the short run, I can see it happening on flat rate projects of course. If the going rate for a commercial is $9000, and you can now do three of them in the same amount of time, then yeah, you could triple your income.
Over the long run, competition will win out and commercials will lower to $3000 and those that can’t
compete become dinosaurs. Like the million dollar suites charging $300/hr. -
Here’s an old response I had (when I was teaching) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/57130
X is faster, especially if you don’t have to “unlearn.”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up