[Richard Herd]

There are many ways to proceed. Try asking in the Art of the Edit forum too.

[Paul Stretton] “I can’t really use I/O points either as the same clips are to be used multiple times in the same timeline. If I change them, it will reflect in all instances of the clip in the timeline.”

When you double click a clip, ANGLE A,in the project window, and it opens in the source window. You set the in and out and place the clip in the sequence.

When you double click ANGLE A in the project window again, it will open a new instance of the footage, so that when you set in and out, it will be a different clip reference than the other time.

If you’re going to trim or fiddle with the clip sitting in the timeline, then double click it from the timeline and it will open in the source, where you can adjust in and out — and have it reflected in the timeline.

Now that that is straight, the way to proceed in editing a scene together is the art of editing. If you ask 10 editors how to do it, you will get 10 answers. You want the audience to feel the emotions and you do not want the audience to see the editing. So the first step, for me, is to review the footage and use markers to find the best emotional content from the actors. Then i lay those into a sequence that I call “Assemble Edit.” From there, I will build around the emotional content stuff, so the scene doesn’t lope or have too much pace. This is done by stacking layers and getting the audio to sound natural as if being said. The assemble edit is very loose and rough. When it’s done, duplicate the sequence and rename it to Rough Edit. You will probably have Rough Edit Version 1 and Rough Edit Version 2 and so on. Until the director is happy. The difference between version 1 and version 2 could be really big, like different shot selections, or it can be very slight difference, like how long you hold a reaction shot. Whether you start character B’s dialogue while A is on camera for one sentence or two — if at all!!

If the microphone characterisitcs are awkward between shots, then that is not the editor’s fault. You can present solutions like post-synch audio (aka ADR), but those are slow and are based off the final picture lock. You can try to fix the audio with other applications but it is never perfect.

When all is said and done, remember this: Editing is not the most important part of the movie. It IS the movie.

[Richard Herd]

Thanks for taking the time to answer an off topic question 🙂

[Richard Herd]

Thanks for the taking a moment to respond. I am/was genuinely curious!

[Richard Herd]

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense, vis a vis “a shared language.”

[Richard Herd]

I don’t imply that. My question is not rhetorical.

[Richard Herd]

Here’s the quote: [David Roth Weiss] “So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it’s not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films.”

Imagine a scenario where a post supervisor is figuring out the details of a particular feature. They may investigate many software packages. While there may be some reasons to avoid X, one of those reasons is not “the project is long form.”

Now to repeat myself: The line of reasoning raised in the DRW quote is the last bit of an older argument: X is not for professional work.

On small projects, there is no need for keywording because there is nothing to keep track of. The larger the project gets the better X is at doing what it does best. Strike that, what it is designed to do. I see the confusion is that “best” can be construed as “better than PP” or “better than Avid.” But I’m talking about the best feature of X is its keywording.

To be fair, Adobe needed Prelude for a similar task. If/when I move to LA or NY, then I will re-learn Avid–haven’t used it since 2003 and I opened up the trial versions in 2010, but I was under dead line and because I needed AE/AI/PS in the work, I just moved over to Premiere.

[Richard Herd]

[Chris Harlan] “And, of course, I work exclusively within that Los Angeles environment you are talking about, so MC skills are pretty much required whether you like it or not”

Which brings up a slightly off topic question, if you don’t mind.

How is the deliverable working between editor and post house? Are they putting clauses in the contract that say: here is the footage. Deliver an Avid project file. I guess I don’t understand if the place says deliver a thing why they also require a route to get there.(I get it if you’re working in a studio/workflow that has their media on their network on their systems. They want you to sit down and work, in their office and in their way.)

This is also relevant in another capacity mentioned here https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/17/880228 If someone is saying “cut on my machine, my way, on my dime, during these hourse” then is the editor really a freelancer/contractor or an employee?

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Richard Herd] “The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage.”

Richard,

It’s generally true that NLEs are designed with this in mind.

[Richard Herd] I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.”

The inverse question is at least as interesting – why do you think other systems would not be faster?

Franz.”

It’s impolite to answer a question with a question 🙂

What I said has nothing to do with any other NLE: The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does. The argument that “X is for small projects and therefore large post projects should avoid it” is the last bit of the older argument that X is not for pro work. My bit of negation here is the more footage you throw at X the better X is and therefore it can be used on large projects.

[Richard Herd]

[David Roth Weiss] “So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it’s not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films.”

The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage. The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does.

In no way does this entail anyone has to use it for their work or that anyone must like the design.

I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.

[Richard Herd]

[Mustafa Uzun] “have a nice day”

Thanks! You too 🙂