[Douglas K. dempsey]

Ha ha, well we know from his sketchbooks he was the Artist all the way along; like many painters the sketches often read as more expressive and spontaneous, but then again “painting” requires by definition the finishing of a “colorist”!

That’s why the Inkers and Colorists for Marvel Comics negotiated up-front credits and eventual respect. The sketch may have mapped out intent, but until that calligraphy-like inking and color choice was added, you didn’t have a final product.

I have never heard any New York filmmaker treat any name-brand mixer or colorist (like Sound One’s Lee Dichter or Tape House/Goldcrest’s John Dowdell in my era) as anything other than an artistic collaborator. And what those guys wanted from you in return, as an Editor OR a Director/Producer, was guidance, intent, anything but “on the nose” instructions. The same treatment as a DP or an actor wants, really. An agreement on approach or shared aesthetics, followed by those specialists turned loose on the material.

I guess that is the context of my original (admittedly failed) analogy: the first job of an editor is not necessarily finishing, but trying to find the rhythm, “voice” and intent of the piece among an avalanche of material.

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

I like that Bret. MY own wife started out in journalism (for the original LIFE magazine in early-mid 70s) and the paper edit has been her stock-in-trade ever since. IF a transcript is in the budget, that’s what happens first, exactly as you described.

If there is no transcript, it’s pulling takes in FCP. So keywording a range works beautifully.

Of course in that workflow, the shots are not even looked at, because you’re going to assemble the track first. Then decide what you’re going to cut to.

And yes, as Gary says, somewhere along the line, the “radio play” you’ve been making is turned over to the craft of audio/visual filmmaking — with all the specialists you can afford, finessing all the cuts, transitions, audio and visual treatments and effects you can come up with to correctly reflect, reinforce and enhance the audio/interview content, keeping your eyes on the screen but your mind on the “story” or topic.

By the end, everyone who works on it feels they have contributed both Art and Craft, hopefully!

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Agreed, Walter.

My “just sayin’” post was a polite way of saying what Steve has reiterated: a highly-technical, comparing-shot color and density-along the way workflow is not a given. And following a “story-edit first, technical finish later” workflow doesn’t inherently indicate incompetence or inattention to craft.

This forum started as the “FCPX or Not “discussion, and much talk has been about “easy to use” or even “fun to use” features vs pro workflows like traditional organization and export of audio to ProTools, etc.

Bill’s comment, I think, fits neatly into that discussion. FCPX’s easy-to-access-and-use scopes means they are nearby … but if you find them intrusive, you don’t need to see them. Part of FCPX’s appeal is a boldly graphic, neat and easy to see/read interface – meaning you can choose an almost iMovie level of simplicity to your workflow, dragging, dropping and trimming shots … or complexify things as you turn toward technical & other “craft” issues.

We’ve said that part of the magic of FCPX is the $300 price for a basic NLE, and leaving the “build out” of more complex features to third-party apps.

The original post about seeing several types of scopes onscreen at the same time, optionally on a second screen, brings to the fore that discussion.

If you want to monitor several scopes as you cut, comparing shots, matching shots and creating your “look” along the way … this sounds like a nifty app/workflow. A kind of middle ground between FCPX’s very simple, one-at-a-time scopes, and Resolve’s dedicated, full-featured workspace.

But sometimes in documentary, if you start fussing with and eliminating shots as you go because they won’t correct or “cut” well – you’re dead. Your first task is often to look for “storytelling pieces” … and often those selects are made on a content basis alone. You almost don’t want to acknowledge what might be “wrong” with a shot at that stage, because it may turn out that you HAVE to use it, quality be damned. THEN the craft of matching, altering, filtering and other techniques to make the poor quality an asset rather than a liability, begins. No less an “art” but pursued only after the “content” edit/workflow is complete.

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

In Bill’s defense, there are numerous great film directors who either started out as editors and/or edit their own films, from David Lean and Robert Wise up to Roderick Jaynes (aka Joel & Ethan Coen). I doubt they made the leap to handling the great actors and great stories by being good on the vector scope. Just sayin’

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Thanks, Tim. They’re not paying your enough (they’re not paying you at all!). Happy Holidays.

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Thanks Charlie.

As for those of us using CCs for things they were not designed for …

To quote Spinal Tap, “It’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.”

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Yikes! Thanks Oliver & Charlie, I am forewarned.

Oliver, are you going to write a book, Phil Hodgetts-style, on your NLE comparisons and/or FCPX experiences?

Too time consuming, no doubt. We’ll just have to keep reading the blog!

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Charlie:

I ask because when I versioned using duplicate projects, my folders grew geometrically. Perhaps I have a faulty setting in Preferences.

—

In Legacy, I just Duplicated a Sequence, and of course it was easy to have multiple sequences opened as tabs in the Timeline, and cut & paste between them.

Unsure if there is a logical way to do a similar process in X.

—

I did learn that you could create CC’s and version them, “Reference New Parent Clip” and begin working on the new one.

In this workflow, I will have a Project called something like “PeaceJam Conference Workbench” and when I decide to save a version, I make the cut a compound clip, then Reference New Parent which creates a copy, number that v2. I delete v1 CC from the Timeline or “workbench” and drop in v2, begin my revisions.

Thus I have dated, numbered CCs in the Event Library, but only the current version will be sitting on the Project timeline, or “workbench” in mid-edit.

I have no idea if this process is vulnerable to disaster, as I haven’t had one yet! 🙂

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Thanks Shane, that’s the kind of reference that gives me some context. My wife did some History Channel shows out of Stamford & NYC years ago, also Avid shows.

You’re probably right, you end up getting someone in trouble if you get too specific, everything is an NDA now! 🙂

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Ha ha, sounds like Google Docs!

Doug D