[Jeff Markgraf]

Jeremy
He hasn’t brought it back into x yet. I think the immediate goal is to hand off lighter files than the original 5k footage. I would just import it into X and make proxies and copy the proxies to give to the client. The hope was to use the significantly faster rendering of the pc to save time.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hey Bill –

Sorry for the thread hijack. Is there an informal COW meet & greet this year? Last time I remember was a few years ago…you and Walter and a couple of others. Or is everyone just planning to see and be seen at the FCPWorks events?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Fortunately, not in net promo. Yet. But the rate has flatlined since the Great Recession of 2008. Even before that, starting with the last writers strike. But woe be to the junior marketing and “digital” guys. It’s like 1995 out there.

And while “you get what you pay for” is still true, an experienced editor or preditor now has to take what he can get. Or enjoy “early retirement” (aka unemployment”).

[Jeff Markgraf]

These kids of ads have been around for years. Before this, they were always for FCP (Legacy) editors or Adobe Premiere editors. “We want experience and skills and oh yeah, heavy motion graphics, and be a rockstar and do web services…” and blah blah blah. They were ridiculous in 2005 and they’re ridiculous now.

Nothing new to see here. Carry on.

[Jeff Markgraf]

LOL. No. Of course not.

What an absolute delight.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Gotta love Avid!

[Jeff Markgraf]

I think Bill’s defensive posture stems more from the by now de rigeur tongue lashing from Herb than from anything else.

Nothing wrong with trying to broaden the discussion. Special in this forum.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Lowering of directorial standards. Yes.
Lowering of editorial standards. Yes
Lowering of cinematography standards. Yes.

To be fair, as Jeremy has pointed out, quite a few truly awful movies were made in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood. So this isn’t really a new thing.

Regarding TV:

I don’t think TV is responsible for the lowering of standards. Instead, by virtue of it’s sheer volume, it reflects and magnifies trends. TV has time and budget pressures far in excess of most movies. So any way to cut time/cost becomes the norm. And with several generations being raised on TV, they naturally bring their background with them onto the set and into the edit bay.

Another thing to keep in mind with TV is the extent to which producers run the show. TV directors really can’t be compared to film directors, even those working on non-network shows. Case study: Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin’s show for HBO. Even with a name creator/writer/producer, the network suits manage to exert their influence. Examples: “not enough cuts – add more” was an actual note. The show even added “shaky cam” effects in post production to the material already shot on a tripod or with a Steadicam. Can’t blame the directors or the editors. Blame some nameless MBA executive who thinks he’s qualified to tell the creatives what to do.

This, in a nutshell, is American television. That anything interesting gets on the air is amazing.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Easy there, tiger. Just an easy opportunity to poke a little fun at Aindreas. Having a little fun is all.

[TImothy Auld] “You seem to want me to break down and admit…”

No, I don’t “want” you to do anything in particular.

[TImothy Auld] “A philosophical difference.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. As I’ve said a couple of times now, my initial question stemmed from the way you phrased your initial point, which seemed to me to set up an either/or view of editing. “I don’t fix, rather I enhance,” to paraphrase. I suggested my experiences were different, and that perhaps they were actually same thing. Then the dialogue turned into a discussion of “luck,” which is a completely different topic and got no one anywhere.

I think not so much a philosophical difference here – more of a semantic difference. But certainly relevant to Simon’s point/argument.

All seem to agree (at least in discussing cinema) that well-staged scenes require less cutting and tend to yield more satisfying artistic results. Save the cuts for when they mean something, etc. While Bill’s counterpoint had more to do with non-cinematic projects, he at least indirectly raised the question of how to handle material that was not as well conceived and shot, or might need to be changed or refocused for any number of reasons.

I certainly consider cutting a traditional master/closeup/closeup scene in such a way as to either remove pauses to tighten or add pauses to loosen performances to be fixing a scene. Choosing a cutaway can be either an artistic choice or a practical choice (such as covering a distracting continuity error). It’s not necessarily a negative thing, just something that editors often have to do in order to “tell the story in the best way possible.” Sometimes it is a case of fixing something that someone else screwed up. Sometimes it’s enhancing a scene. Sometimes it’s just a matter of personal taste. That said, I would think I’d be less likely to need or want to mess with a performance by a great actor or second guess an A-level director. But let’s be honest – most movies have neither. That goes double for TV.

So perhaps we mostly agree, after all.

[Jeff Markgraf]

I guess he’s taken his ball and gone to play with Aindreas.

Anyone else feel like weighing in on “fixing” vs “enhancing” and whether they’re one and the same?