[Andrew Kimery]

Thank you for the post, Tangier. Unfortunately I already tried just doing one person’s A/V at a time and didn’t have much luck with it.

[Andrew Kimery]

[greg janza] “And yes, it’s helpful to know from the director what he or she thought was the essence of what was captured but in the end the only thing that really matters is what comes through in the footage.”

And if the essence didn’t come through in the footage then the director, since he/she was there, can (hopefully) help the editor recreate it in post.

[Andrew Kimery]

Now I don’t feel bad for losing a Moviola gift certificate I won in a raffle a few years back. ????

[Andrew Kimery]

[Brett Sherman] “And there is also a significant time savings because no one needs to “learn” the footage. “

I’m with you now. Yes, especially in situations where it’s not practical for the editor to watch down all the footage, it’s very helpful to have someone from production (the director, producer, etc.,) be in post to help answer questions about the footage.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Brett Sherman] “Editors never have any spatial information as to where this happened in relationship to where that happened.”

Neither does the audience, and I think that goes to the point of a ‘disconnected’ editor being advantageous. If the director looks at the footage and mentally fills in gaps with his/her prior knowledge from being on set/location then that can be problematic because the audience won’t be privy to that same information. I think a primary role of the editor is to be a surrogate for the audience and being disconnected from production makes that task easier because all you know is what the footage tells you.

I’ve actually gotten a fair amount of doc work, in part, by playing up the advantages of being ‘ignorant’ coming into a project because our audience will also be ‘ignorant’ when sitting down to watch it. Many times there is an energy/magic/excitement that can happen in production that colors people’s memories, but that same energy/magic/excitement doesn’t necessarily translate into the recorded footage. And ultimately what’s recorded in the footage is the only thing that matters.

There is certainly a collaboration that needs to happen between the director and the editor to rectify the differences between “this is what I wanted to capture” vs “this is what you actually captured” and I think that process generally makes for a better end product.

[Andrew Kimery]

I like getting field notes because it gives me a place to start. Sure, it might change once the producer/director/client steps into the room, but I’ve gotten my first cut done faster because I built everything off the circle takes instead of having to watch each take and decided for myself. Eve if I watch each take and choose which one I think is best that doesn’t meant that the producer/director/client won’t want a different one.

I’m all about getting that rough cut done as soon as possible because you never really know what’s working and what’s not until you see it all in context and, at least for me, having good field notes helps get me there faster. I’d rather have information and not need it than need information and not have it.

I worked on a docu-series a while back that had horrible communication from the field and it slowed down post by weeks. We almost never got field notes which meant that the story producers had to watch all the footage before being able to decide on story beats, pull selects, and pass it off to the editors. Good field notes wouldn’t spend up the process immensely. Sure, if they felt something was missing they would need to go back into the raw and hunt for it, but their initial pass would happen much quicker.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Walter Soyka] “Wait a second… are you talking smack about the 2013 Mac Pro here? ????”

Or MacBook Pro’s made in 2011, 2012, or 2013. Or any number of iMacs that are designed to slow down once they reach a full load for a few seconds because the case design can’t dissipate the heat fast enough. Aside from the old towers, battling thermal problems seems to be an ongoing issue with Apple (over course even with the older towers Apple had to resort to water cooling for a time).

[Andrew Kimery]

I can’t find the thread about it, but didn’t Light Iron come out with a custom solution a few years ago to help streamline the process of creating and organizing on set metadata and getting it to post? Individual preferences aside, I assume they saw a niche that needed to be filled and created a new product/service accordingly.

I know Bill’s example was for the scripted world, but in unscripted quality field notes are worth their weight in gold once post rolls around.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Oliver Peters] “FCPX is ideal in that world and so that might be Codex’s target user.”

Resolve is pretty established in this on-set/DIT role is it not? What advantages do you see w/using X instead?

[Andrew Kimery]

[Michael Gissing] “Resolve Studio and it’s smaller proprietary panel are the same price. “

The Micro Panel ($999) and Resolve Studio ($299) is much cheaper than FCP X ($299), the Codex plugin ($299) and Codex panel ($1500).

Resolve is also a well established and widely used which I think makes buying proprietary hardware for it an easier pill to swallow. I don’t imagine many colorists are going to take projects edited in PPro or Avid and bring them into FCP X so they can grade using the Codex plugin and panel. For projects that originate in X you can already use panels with Color Finale and X’s revamp first-party tools.

I think Codex really needs to blow the doors off what’s currently available, and hope there is a lot of untapped demand for mind blowing, high end color tools in X, if they want people to fork over $1800.