[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Joe Marler] “I just don’t think this organizational method is efficiently scalable to larger productions and higher shooting ratios, esp. docs.”

Joe,

Your post raises several interesting issues with which I am personally often concerned.

I’m not sure Wiseman uses GoPro (despite them being available to him). I haven’t seen anything from the past 15 years of his films (since the introduction of GoPros) but his sensibility seems to be one person, one camera. (Some might call that inefficient.) I’d be interested to know if I’m wrong, but from reading recent articles it does seem he operates all his own material from one camera which is unlikely to be a GoPro.

But, to you point, let me first say that the approach or organizational method works well on larger productions with higher shooting ratios.

I name the two methods as browser-based vs. timeline-based (or sequence-based). Personally, I’d say they both make use of meta-data (so I would not make the distinction between them on this basis).

I’m not sure why you label sequence-based organization as a “primitive method” – both are as old as film (at least). If you’ve seen film bins and reels then you have the basics of the two methods. Both have been adapted in digital NLEs and both have been developed well beyond what was possible in film or video. It seems absurd to me to call one method “primitive” and the other “advanced” – they’re both well developed and contemporary.

The primary strength of sequence-based editing is the immediacy with which relationships between clips are kept and presented. (Shooting chronology would be one obvious example of this.)

To the initial example of Vashi and your added example of Wiseman, I’ll add my own. I work primarily on non-fiction for theatrical and broadcast. Commonly this means beginning with 100 to 200 hours of footage, though I’ve worked with 300 hours or more on films. Edit schedules range from 12 or 16 weeks to a year or more.

If you’re not convinced that this method is valuable, productive, creative, and necessary given 3 examples of working editors using it, how many examples would it take? What would convince you? By what standard are you going to dismiss them?

The implication in your posting seems to be that Frederick Wiseman is “inefficient” is his filmmaking. My question would be this: how do you judge the efficiency of filmmaking? You will be quite able to find someone who can “finish” faster on any given project (including Wiseman’s films). Would that be “more efficient” in your mind? If not measured by simple schedule, what is your assessment of how efficient an editor or edit is?

It’s a sincere question.

I’d propose that a good measure would be making the best film possible with the time and resources available. How to judge “the best film possible”? How to judge what resources are available?

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/01/movies/frederick-wiseman-takes-his-camera-to-the-races.html

There’s a quote from Wiseman. “’I got the idea as I get all my ideas: I take a lot of showers.”

I’m not sure how that would rate on your efficiency scale. We can imagine the dialogue: the tired filmmaker has the plumber over, pleading his dilemma in platonic bereavement, “This shower isn’t very efficient. It’s not giving me enough ideas.”

The plumber can only offer a few words. “Take more showers.”

Here’s another quote from the article:

“More than any technological improvements that have come about in two decades, what’s changed is my deepened commitment to dealing with the complexities of a subject and resisting cultural generalizations.”

Is it question of efficient tools (“technology”) on one hand and thinking (“creativity”) on the other? Who can separate their tools from their thought process. Doesn’t a hammer and chisel suggest one way of doing something and a bit of sandpaper another? Or to put it another way (with a reference to a forum touchstone): language is analogies all the way down.

Here’s another few lines: “’Most of the year I sit in relative isolation editing alone in the dark, and then it’s on television, and it’s very hard for me to get a sense of what it means that a lot of people see my films … it’s like throwing a pebble in the water. And the only final conclusion is you go on to make your next movie.” Maybe there is a more efficient path to that conclusion. I’m not sure the NLE figures into that one, though. And if it doesn’t, does it matter which one you use?

Is this a forum for entrenchment or are you actually asking how other people work and why?

Wiseman talks more about process here (Jackson Heights, 2015):
https://www.puremovies.co.uk/interviews/frederick-wiseman/

“Jackson Heights was 170 hours [of raw material].  The film was just a bit more than three hours, I think.  Shooting ratio roughly of 60/1.  During the shooting, I just collect sequences.  I don’t have any theme or point of view toward the material; the only assumption that I make is that if I hang around long enough, I’ll collect enough material out of which I can cut a film.  I discover the themes in the editing process, when I come back from the shoot.  I look at all the rushes and that takes me six or eight weeks and at the end of looking at all the rushes, I put aside maybe forty or fifty percent of the material and I edit sequences from the material that’s left.  That work can take anywhere from six to eight months.”

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Scott Witthaus] “Point is…?”

This is a good question.

Were you referring to the post above or things in general?

Others focus on tangents. It’s difficult to make a case for either.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Scott Witthaus] ” However, if I don’t do it (buy their support) before the 31st of December, I am penalized and have to basically re-purchase the license.”

Scott,

You have options.

One of those is to continue using the version you purchased as long as you wish with no additional costs.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Craig Seeman] “Anything is possible but the numbers do point down, not up.”

Craig,

I think the numbers are up and down.

https://ycharts.com/companies/AVID/profit_margin

You can pretty clearly see bleak years there from 2005-2010 or so. The shroud of mystery has been lifted though on the past few years and 2011-2013 are profitable after much restructuring and layoffs and new board members.

There’s been real uncertainty about what’s been going on at Avid, what the financial irregularities really mean, and what the future might be – those who depend on Avid are probably relieved that the restatements paint a healthier picture than the one that many speculations pointed to.

I’m not particularly inspired by what I see in terms of software (and services) but there are those who rely on Avid and like the stuff. This has to be good news for them.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Brett Sherman] “Professional needs are also not monolithic.”

Brett,

This might be the key difference between professional and consumer needs, and it bears repeating.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Craig Seeman] “As Adobe picks up in some high end facilities Avid is again declining.”

Craig,

Maybe. They’re projecting a rise in profit for 2014.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Craig,

Reference on losses:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/21986

Loses 2008-2010
https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AVID&annual
Dec 31, 2010 (36,954)
Dec 31, 2009 (68,355)
Dec 31, 2008 (198,177)

Using the same line (“Net Income”) as you use to measure the losses above, profits are either:

2011 +192,398
2012 + 90,016
2013 + 57,160

or

2011 +162,460
2012 + 47,087
2013 + 21,153

… zeroes hidden.

Isn’t this the headline?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Craig Seeman] “These are all declines.”

Craig,

Yes. It’s also funny to see the new “bookings” terminology thrown in there. (And bookings are up!)

Nonetheless, these are profits and I think it shows 3 years of profits after years of losses. (Unless I’m reading this all wrong.)

That’s remarkable and I’m surprised there hasn’t been more made of it.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Craig Seeman] “Those revenue numbers look very low as well if there are no hidden zeros.”

Craig,

Follow my link … the zeros are hidden.

Between this and Reuters describing Adobe’s “web-based subscription for its Creative Suite 6” in Marcus’ link the other day, online business journalism continues its decline.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Rick Lang] “Apple’s success with their pursuit of consumers can also benefit their professional products in many ways.”

Rick,

This is true.

The more difficult question arises when professional needs differ from consumer needs.

Franz.