Comments on "Off the Grid, part 2"

This was a great, detailed yet practical account. Re FCPX not attracting high end editors since many of its core advantages are designed for assistant editors -- this was perceptive. I have noted this before but never heard anyone actually say it.

However this is not unique to Hollywood -- I have experienced this many times from Indy directors and editors and on modest productions. They have typically long been using Avid or Premiere and have a well-established workflow. Often they have been slaving away at some project for months or even years in the case of documentaries. I usually ask do they use CatDV or some other asset manager. The answer is typically "we just use bins".

When I then ask how do they keep track of the content using bins, the answer is usually "You've got to have a really good Scripty (Script Supervisor)". IOW a person with a notebook who is present for the entire production and captures metadata to enable the Asst Editor to function as a human query engine.

As mentioned in the "Off the Grid" article, from the director and producer's standpoint, the job still gets done. The interactions and logistical struggles are usually between the Asst. Editor, Scripty and Data Wrangler, so the layers above them may not be aware of this.

There are several problems with this approach:

(1) On small productions the budget may not permit having a full-time Script Supervisor or AE. Even if present, the Scripty typically uses paper notes, a spreadsheet or maybe a FileMaker Pro template.

(2) With documentaries, major elements of the story are often discovered during the editorial process. This places more emphasis on exploratory methods in post, "fishing around" and trying things out. Unlike narratives, there may be no rigid, detailed script to act as an organizational backbone.

(3) New camera technology, esp things like GoPros enable huge shooting ratios. Even the most clever Scripty/AE using a notebook or spreadsheet may struggle to efficiently index and retrieve content from the ocean of material.

(4) Risk of getting bogged down in post due to asset management burden, running out of time/money or having to settle for lower quality as deadlines loom and the product must be finished.

This is increasingly a risk for "New Media" ambitious volunteer or crowd-funded projects which are enabled by new camera technology. An early example of this was the 2008 fan-made Nine Inch Nails video "This One Is On Us". The final product was superb and equal or better than any commercial equivalent: toiou.org/ . It got finished but was in post for about 1 year, despite using a volunteer team of 20 professionals led by a Stanford Film Studies graduate. Similar projects have withered and died in post, partially due to the asset management burden.

That 2008 NiN video drew from 400GB shot over an extended period. Today my small doc crew can easily shoot 400GB per *day* -- and that's just H264 4k, not ProRes, much less raw. Technology has enabled a democratization of video production and high shooting ratios, but the content will be increasingly difficult to manage in post without organizational tools. Fortunately FCPX has that built in. Over time I think more productions will perceive the magnitude (even urgency) of this and evaluate FCPX or pressure their preferred software vendors to incorporate similar features. However FCPX has that today. As shown by Lumaforge this can also scale to large multi-editor workflows.

interesting insights and thoughts, thanks for sharing Joe …

some quotes come to mind…
Philip Hodgetts describes the benefits of Lumberjack with:
"on-set meta-data-recording means more sleep for the edit crew …"
<add that wonderful Philip laughter>

Or Mike Matzdorff
"… just tell the people in charge how many weeks of $$ working time you save using FCPX…"

yep, modern production techniques make old habits looking … old

Alone, just watch how fight-scenes are done nowadays - 5,6,7 cams in Elysium or the Bourne movies. Or 30-40 cams for those Ken Block Gymkhana extravaganzas …
Bins/'drawers' are probably … overcharged.

A local TV show, about restoration and modification of classic cars, that I'm involved with (for better or worse) uses 4 Osmo cameras, 4 GoPro cams, a several iPhones. Not to mention pick-up shots I've had to personally do with a BMD Pocket camera. Small budget, small crew, small production, local broadcast, and I can find anything shot at any time by the day it was shot, or by the make/model/year of the car featured, shop mechanic name, camera name/number, episode number, monologue script content, etc. We have 1TB of media for a single season (30x10). I'm the only editor. I have to turn this show around super fast, too. I also had to come up with a unique set of graphics incorporating the logo and such (lower thirds, bumpers, titles, credits, etc).

I have changes to episodes all time time. Replace this section of that week's story with this or that, last minute, cause clients change their minds about what to do with their cars, technical problems pop up at the shop when restoring a car, wrong parts come in, etc. Daily changes to things I have to turn out to the producer daily. It's not so much a reality TV show, but sure feels like one in post.

If I were using FCP7 (have used FCP since version 1, taught since version 4) which I used to be very fast with, I would have taken much longer to turn each episode out. That is FCP7 with a real FCP7 wizard at the helm.

FCPX allows for such fast, effortless media management, nothing on the market today can touch it. I have this, two other local TV shows, and a huge, big scale reality TV show that Discovery want to purchase, all as proof nothing can touch FCPX today, in a variety of environment, production types, mono or collaborative post, you name it.

For us, time is money, and the more time a show takes, the less money is made, the lower our chances of a second or third season. One show just sold it's second season, and the sponsor is willing to pay MORE for it. One is being shopped around to some national and international buyers and several bidding on it at the moment. Two are at NAPTE in Miami this week with three whole days of meeting scheduled for each with potential buyers.

Any high end editor who refuses to see FCPX for what it honestly is, is blind, and I have no time for such childish nonsense. My time is way too valuable. Let them waste their own time and money. My producers and sponsors are thrilled with what my production department churns out, and it is 90% FCPX and Motion and Compressor.