http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/

I've seen this as well. Scott is right. You can continue to have a "bedroom edit suite" or reach and learn the craft.

Yup, run up against it myself. And I don't even consider myself a 'pro-level' editor.

(from linked article)

Many folks learned FCP and then began to call themselves and market themselves as an editor. But what I am consistently seeing [...] is a real lack of some basic post production knowledge.


No kidding. Knowing how to use software like FCP or Avid -- or even hardware like a Steinbeck -- does not make one an editor. There is much more to being an editor than being a technician, which I have found myself (one who is, in his early 30s, a young editor) having to explain to justify my existence... which feels odd.

(from linked article)

[...] there’s more to an online that high-rezing footage. There’s quality control with video levels, color correction and color grading [...]


I have to bite the inside of my cheek when I hear "isn't that what the plug-in is for?" during a discussion on NTSC legal limits. I guess the idea of actually looking at a waveform monitor is too "old school" nowadays.

(from linked article)

I’ve even been confronted with a project that needed to be rebuilt from a crashed, and very cheap, hard drive. It was unable to be recaptured as the editor used a cheap camera to capture the media and it didn’t capture the timecode.


Oh, oh, oh... how about a project that has footage on 9 tapes. It comes to you prepped for off-line with footage already captured on a harddrive... to discover that there are no tape/reel numbers associated with the tapes. Thanks.

(from linked article)

Why is this kind of thing so prevalent in a Final Cut Pro world?


It's not just the FCP world. I've seen it from young editors using Avid too. Even worse, IME, are young Premier editors. Don't get me started on them!
;-}D

Thanks for sharing the link... the others below it look great too. I'm off to learn me some lighting with the inverse square rule (http://www.microfilmmaker.com/tipstrick/Issue12/light1.html).

It's not confined to young editors either- I've seen this attitude in guys that have been making a living in video production for decades. Call it "bare minimum" syndrome or whatever. Just makes it that much easier to set yourself apart with your own professionalism, if you ask me.

I'll admit it... I don't know what an EDL is, I can't read a waveform monitor to save my life, and I certainly don't check to see that my projects are broadcast safe.

I guess now that I've been exposed, it's time to learn!

That's an awesome blog. He really hit the nail on the head.

However, I think one of the biggest differences is that when I started at a commercial editing house (in 1994 mid-way through the full industry transition to Avid Media Composer) I was a true assistant... booking sessions at "online" houses, coordinating with the agency or production house producers, performing the "grunt work" on the Avid (usually regional versions of price & item supers,) sometimes 2 or 3 days in a row without sleep, supervising select-scene telecine transfers, attending Paintbox/Henry/Harry sessions, or assembling work prints for a negative cutter on a Steenbeck (back when they wouldn't accept an Avid neg cut list.)
I've relied on my experience as an assistant editor almost every day of my career as an editor (and cinematographer for that matter.) I receive resumes all the time from "editors" who have taken some 3-day weekend course in either Avid or FCP and are actually applying for editing gigs.
I've almost always had at least one of my own assistant editors on-call since 1998, most of whom have become successful editors themselves. I now will only either use someone I personally trained, or someone who was trained by one of my circle of peers.
I've been screwed too many times by untrained assistant editors who think they can just stick the tape in, capture the whole 60 minutes, and then sub-clip it later. This is not only a waste of hard drive space, but a huge tax on an Avid or FCP system and causes tiny delays every time you click around in a long sequence. (Spinning beach ball anyone?)
I always stress the importance of well logged and described clips to my assistants. Spend the time logging the tapes properly, then relax and just swap tapes while you are batch capturing. If we can even shave a day off the post schedule it is worth it to be well organized.

I should stop ranting now before I get myself in trouble!

Its true that the shortcomings are not 'platform specific' - you can find Premire, Avid or Vegas editors that come up short. BUT - (and it's a big butt) Since Final Cut Pro can 'rightly' brag to have captured the indy/youth market and achieved maximum penetration - then you are more likely to find these faults in a 'young FCP editor'. (Or more likely to find a 'young FCP editor WITH these faults... take your pick)

Just a statistical fact.

There are people like this in every craft.

Take DJ's for example. You've got your "bedroom DJ's" that mix in their house and do the occasional wedding, dance club or small corporate gig. Then you have legends like Cameron Paul and the infamous Clivillés & Cole who were masters of their work.

In the video world, you have those who just edit, your "bedroom editors", and you have those who understand the ART of editing.

bitterness from the old folks to us youngins aside,
that article has a lot of good points.

let me explain some facts though.

FACT: schools don't teach EDL anymore
FACT: schools don't teach how to read waveform
FACT: schools don't teach what we need to know
FACT: schools teach the bare minimum b/c old timers are lazy when it comes to learning new equipment and software, and they're more worried about being tenured and not caring about actually teaching.

Those are the facts about schools in 2008 that have 'Film' programs, with the exceptions of the 5-10 MAJOR film schools.

The reason I ended up joining this forum was to learn what I wasn't learning in school, scary right?

But lets face the facts, clients, even mine in Buffalo, don't want to see an edl, they don't want to see a paper edit (which I'm probably like in the 2% that do). They want to see their project done. They have no patience, they want the 300 look, or the spielberg look for their corporate project or other media, not only do they want these looks, they want them now, b/c the technology exists NOW.

The reason why many young people consider themselves editors are because they have the associates and bachelors degrees that tell them so. I'm a realist, do I consider myself a true editor? not really. But am I above my game with several people who've been doing this 10+years and most of my fellow college students, I think so. And it's only by reading intensively, as well as posting/reading sites like this am I able to confidently say I'm a pretty good 'media' organizer.

I think the point of the article, and what the thread here addresses in a sideways fashion, is that the 'democratization' of the technology - the fact that ANYBODY can 'make movies' nowadays, with professional level effects or resolutions - does not translate to PROFESSIONALISM in workflow or job skillsets.

As the article points out, the process, the standard practices, the 'professional courtesies' that come about from working on the collaborative process at the higher levels, the professional interchange -is not found when working alone in one's bedroom. (or garage, or basement, wherever.)

Those sorts of practices come about because you've assisted someone, you've watched the 'pro' work. You've learned the procedures for integrating into a high-level team or market.

When you work alone, you've got only yourself to please. Your creativity is 'liberated'. But being unconventional and 'non-standard' in your practices are not necessarily condusive to making a sale, or getting hired.

And to a certain extent, that can be said where ever technology has 'democratized' the previously expensive creative process. Audio production, desktop publishing, desktop graphics, 'Film' makers who don't understand film, etc.

He's really preaching to the choir there, but I take issue with the idea that there is a "right way" or a "wrong way" to become an editor. If you do your job well and deliver value to your clients, it doesn't matter whether you do broadcast work for a big production company or local TV spots on iMovie (on your "bedroom edit suite"). It doesn't matter whether you have an actual waveform monitor or use the scopes in FCP.

If you want to work in an industry, you figure out the rules sooner or later. Final Cut Pro software is not going to put "professionals" like this guy out of a job, and he should realize also that the plethora of amateur editors out there actually increases his value as a knowledgeable video pro.

bitterness from the old folks to us youngins aside,
that article has a lot of good points.

let me explain some facts though.

FACT: schools don't teach EDL anymore
FACT: schools don't teach how to read waveform
FACT: schools don't teach what we need to know
FACT: schools teach the bare minimum b/c old timers are lazy when it comes to learning new equipment and software, and they're more worried about being tenured and not caring about actually teaching.

Those are the facts about schools in 2008 that have 'Film' programs, with the exceptions of the 5-10 MAJOR film schools.

The reason I ended up joining this forum was to learn what I wasn't learning in school, scary right?

But lets face the facts, clients, even mine in Buffalo, don't want to see an edl, they don't want to see a paper edit (which I'm probably like in the 2% that do). They want to see their project done. They have no patience, they want the 300 look, or the spielberg look for their corporate project or other media, not only do they want these looks, they want them now, b/c the technology exists NOW.

.

Nate,

It's not bitterness form us older guys. Technology forces us all to adapt sometimes. I'm an editor who had to make the (what seemed painful at the time) transition from linear editing to non-linear practically overnight in 1993. Now i've had to learn FCP. Much easier transition than going from Linear A/B roll black box GPI editing to non-linear everything in one computer with your footage on hard drives transition.

In the linear world, I had older editors and especially one engineer scream at me for having bad levels (audio and video) after making 25 spot dubs. They made me start all over. After that, i sat down with the engineer and he gave me a lesson on how to properly set ,setup to 7.5 IRE, how to line up the color bars on a vector scope, how to ensure proper timecode starting at 1 hour, and setting audio tone. The really important basics that I was willing to get yelled at over so I would understand their value in the broadcast and even non-broadcast world. I didn't call him a grumpy old man.

Those reference standards are still very much in play and what we're seeing is some resistance on some (but certainly not all) newer editors to learning that level of "pro" editing best practices.

And, I agree it is not just younger editors. But us older guys are far from bitter, we're frustrated with the attitude that "as long as you have this editing software all you have to do is move a few sliders then walla!! It's done."

There are tricks of the trade that can be learned if you have the right listening and learning attitude.

BTW, my Bachelor of Science degree was almost worthless in 1985 too. So far as # of quality production schools, nothing has really changed there. Can't let that stop you from success.

Cheers, David

It doesn't matter whether you have an actual waveform monitor or use the scopes in FCP.

.
$$##&*^&(*&*(&(*&)(*^^%&(^%()(*&***$$#@$$&&HHGGHUIHUIHUUIHIO)(U**))(U))U)U)U)U)U)U{UIHOHOH()((. +__+_+__44433@@@^&^||}{?><<JJBU&*(*((Y(BUTDF##&OLMJVDF^*G)HHH990055%%%%%Tghw223.

*%$# That's all I'm saying about that.

$$##&*^&(*&*(&(*&)(*^^%&(^%()(*&***$$#@$$&&HHGGHUIHUIHUUIHIO)(U**))(U))U)U)U)U)U)U{UIHOHOH()((. +__+_+__44433@@@^&^||}{?><<JJBU&*(*((Y(BUTDF##&OLMJVDF^*G)HHH990055%%%%%Tghw223.

*%$# That's all I'm saying about that.

Well-put!

But take that in context. In any given instance, you use the most professional tool you have access to. Even if it is just the zebras on your LCD. You do what it takes to get the best image you can.

Anyone who wants to work at the most professional levels of an industry will learn that there conventions and practices, including the tools of the trade, and there is no shortcut around that. For those who don't want to be a professional, there is all this great new technology and software. There's no substitute for experience and knowledge and the most fabulous software in the world can't replace it.

So basically what your saying David is that you were just like one of these younger editors when you entered the professional world? The younger generation will learn these techniques eventually, that is to say if they truly want to be professionals in a professional industry.

I can't agree with Nate enough! If schools aren't teaching these skills, which they aren't, where are the kids supposed to learn them besides just trial and error? What about the mentality of the teachers just not teaching these skills?

The industry is beginning to change faster than we can blink, with a new codec being introduced practically daily. New formats are being introduced almost as quickly. I don't think the older generation of Avid editors are alone in the frustration of the quickly advancing and very democratic world of video production. The younger generation is struggling just as much, even though they might be too naive to tell at the moment.

I think five years from now, there will probably be five more systems that will compete with FCP. Just watch out for that, then you will have 5 year olds cutting projects. LOL

I will confess I'm somewhat like these guys the blogger complains about. Here's the thing, though--this seems to have a lot to do with your post workflow. First, let me say, I am not REALLY an editor, but I do have the occasional client I edit for. If you are an editor (as I am) that edits something and hands a finished product to a client, then you may not need to know how to generate and check EDLs. The scopes thing is pretty inexcusable (luckily I know how to read a waveform and vectorscope from my years of doing master control/tape op work), but some of that other stuff, like lots of video tracks, stuff "muted" out but still in the timeline, and lots of random crap at the end of the timeline that is unused--yeah, I do all that. But no one else ever sees my timeline.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/video_levels_nattress.html

This is a good place to start. Graham knows how to explian this well. Read up on this, you'll be glad you did.

Benjamin, It's true, I don't have access to an ext. waveform/vectorscope everywhere i edit, but I do think it is extremely important to check your masters for broadcast, even if you have to go to an outside post house, tv station,or good dub house that has a quality well engineered setup.

Ryan, I was very much like these younger editors except I didn't have the Internet. But I learned a lot about editing (technincal stuff like how to set up a time base corrector with bars) from trade mags like Video Systems and Broadcast Engineer. But instead of engineers yelling, you have people willing to share their knowledge on this forum and all across the internet.

All I'm saying is don't wait for your instructors. I'm not saying college is a waste. But like Ryan said it all changes so fast. You have to work hard and sometimes look for the information. All Scott is saying is these best practices will make you a better editor. It can be tedious. So far as EDL's go, I make one about once a year. So Josh is right about it depends on your workflow.

Josh, But what if you have a client that wants to revise an edit a year or two from now? Will you understand what edits/versions graphics, audio mixes etc you did.. As long as you understand it then you're okay. It's sort of like reading your own handwriting. I have clients that revise projects all of the time so I have no choice but to clearly label all of my sequence versions and keep pretty organized. I'm not perfect at it, but I know that I could lose money if I go back to the wrong sequence.

It's been fun. There are lots of people out there willing to help out on this forum. I've learned a lot myself.

Cheers.

The scopes thing is pretty inexcusable (luckily I know how to read a waveform and vectorscope from my years of doing master control/tape op work), but some of that other stuff, like lots of video tracks, stuff "muted" out but still in the timeline, and lots of random crap at the end of the timeline that is unused--yeah, I do all that. But no one else ever sees my timeline.

Maybe I'm not reading this right. What's inexcusable about using the scopes in FCP, if you don't have access to a waveform monitor? If nothing else it shows you are serious about the quality of your image.

I completely appreciate the original post. BUT. I think there's a problem here.

It's pretty easy for any professional editor with years of experience under their belt to explain what's missing in a young editor's approach or thinking.

What is HARD is for the younger and inexperienced editor to articulate what it is about THEIR looser, less structured approach that the older pro might learn from.

It's true they don't have the mileage to have faced all the problems. And they don't see the workflow in the same way that the original writer (or even *I* might see things) - but might there be something in their fresh approach that bears examining as well?

Perhaps the fact the they ignored white balancing under the awful sodium vapor lights was a reality. But what if they figure out a title sequence design that turns the awful color into something that works in a new and interesting way?

This is the conundrum for all of us.

The past has value. The present has value. What's coming next will have value.

The ability to integrate not only what you KNOW to be true now - but what might CHANGE your perceptions of true in the future is a useful skill.

Said another way how do we hold onto the standards of the past - in an environment where those very standards are being supplanted so rapidly?

Who decided what are the VALUABLE standards to uphold? And which are ok to jettison?

ee cummings tossed out capitalization - and is revered for it.

Bill Gates punted on a traditional education - and it inarguably didn't mess his success path a bit.

So sorry, but I think it's more complex than just railing against the kids because they don't know enough to do it the "right" way.

(They don't. It's a given. So get over it. And look deeper to see if there is something they ARE doing that YOU can learn from - rather than just pointing out what they're doing "wrong."

My 2 cents, anyway.

I don't think the article is really about "old vs new" but about how having a "I have FCP and Mac so I can do it all by myself" attitude can deprive one of learning how to work in a collaborative, professional environment. Basic project organization and conforming to b'cast and/or cinema standards isn't "old guard/new guard" stuff. It applies if you are shooting on tape, CF cards, or HDDs.


-A

I completely appreciate the original post. BUT. I think there's a problem here.

It's pretty easy for any professional editor with years of experience under their belt to explain what's missing in a young editor's approach or thinking.

What is HARD is for the younger and inexperienced editor to articulate what it is about THEIR looser, less structured approach that the older pro might learn from.

It's true they don't have the mileage to have faced all the problems. And they don't see the workflow in the same way that the original writer (or even *I* might see things) - but might there be something in their fresh approach that bears examining as well?

Perhaps the fact the they ignored white balancing under the awful sodium vapor lights was a reality. But what if they figure out a title sequence design that turns the awful color into something that works in a new and interesting way?

This is the conundrum for all of us.

The past has value. The present has value. What's coming next will have value.

The ability to integrate not only what you KNOW to be true now - but what might CHANGE your perceptions of true in the future is a useful skill.

Said another way how do we hold onto the standards of the past - in an environment where those very standards are being supplanted so rapidly?

Who decided what are the VALUABLE standards to uphold? And which are ok to jettison?

ee cummings tossed out capitalization - and is revered for it.

Bill Gates punted on a traditional education - and it inarguably didn't mess his success path a bit.

So sorry, but I think it's more complex than just railing against the kids because they don't know enough to do it the "right" way.

(They don't. It's a given. So get over it. And look deeper to see if there is something they ARE doing that YOU can learn from - rather than just pointing out what they're doing "wrong."

My 2 cents, anyway.

Great post Bill

I
So sorry, but I think it's more complex than just railing against the kids because they don't know enough to do it the "right" way.

(They don't. It's a given. So get over it. And look deeper to see if there is something they ARE doing that YOU can learn from - rather than just pointing out what they're doing "wrong."

My 2 cents, anyway.

This isn't about stifiling one's creativity. It is however about professional broadcast post production. And sorry, those standards and references are established by SMPTE, ITU, and the FCC among others. Basically, the engineers that designed all of these tools. It is also about productivity, efficiency, and organization that keeps clients happy. After all, they pay the bills. I think there's plenty of creativity out there. But what good is your creative when the audio is over modulated and distorted, or the blacks are completely crushed or the white levels cranked so high that it buzzes the audio. (It happens!!) This isn't Jackson Pollack throwing paint on a canvas.

And if it is a paying gig, well you might not get paid or you might even get fired if you don't do these things correctly.

With all due respect, no one is railing against the "younger" editors. If we didn't care, we wouldn't say anything. After all, I'm fortunate to have the experience.

I'm an old guy and I can edit on 4 different platforms. Why??? Because I set up color bars the same way whether I'm on Premiere, FCP, Avid, or Edius. The same goes for audio as well. IAs well as importing graphics/animations. In the end it's up to these guys as to whether they can work hard and compete in the real world of post. They may never walk into a post house, but these best practices will help them much more than hurt them.

I'm all ears as to learning from other editors, young and old. Always have been. Like I said, i've learned a lot here.

By the way, Bill Gates had to learn programming in basic first before anything else. How else could he communicate with other programmers when starting Microsoft. He wasn't writing code alone in his bedroom.

I've relied on my experience as an assistant editor almost every day of my career as an editor (and cinematographer for that matter.)

That kind of experience is invaluable, and it is in that kind of atmosphere that one really gets to know what the score is. But what can these aspiring editors (to get away from the "young/old" paradigm) do to find that kind of opportunity? Surely, working for free on someone's short movie isn't going to give them the preparation they need...

I've never spent a day in a classroom learning any of this stuff (I went to Humber as a jazz musician), partly because i was never exposed to this kind of thing when I was younger, and when I discovered that I had an aptitude for it (and loved the whole editing process) I was in a place that going back to school just wasn't realistic.

So I dug in and started reading, reading, reading... and doing crappy craigslist gig after crappy craigslist gig (crappy = low/no pay... unlike the decent CL gigs that are far and few between). Eventually landed a job as a director/editor in a small TV studio just north of Philly where I worked for a guy that worked in network television as an editor for >30 years. It wasn't just a job, he became my mentor and through lesson after lesson at a me.

Then the US gov't tossed me out of the country... visa/work permit issues... so now I'm in Montreal... but that's another story for another place...

I've been screwed too many times by untrained assistant editors who think they can just stick the tape in, capture the whole 60 minutes, and then sub-clip it later.

I had a client insist that we do it that way. I tried to explain that it may seem like the quickest way to get it done, but yadda, yadda, yadda... I guess he thought I was just blowing smoke in an attempt to drag out the process (he was paying by the hour) longer than it needed to be. I knew it was wrong, but he's the one with the cash so I acquiesced.

When I left the room during the capture, I came back to find him on the computer (that was currently capturing) surfing the net and downloading files for his project -- after I told him we couldn't do that lest we cause issue with the capture. And what do you think happened? Eventually we had audio drifting out of sync... and on a clip that was ~55min in length. Guess what we had to do all over again! And did he take my advice to let me log and capture? No, of course not. He's the "director/producer" and he knows what's best.

The end result, though rough due to bad camera work on his part, did wind up all over the Net and appeared at the #1 spot two weeks in a row on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann... so I guess it wasn't too awful (yes it was)

[QUOTE=David Parks;848485]This isn't about stifiling one's creativity. It is however about professional broadcast post production. And sorry, those standards and references are established by SMPTE, ITU, and the FCC among others...

Well David, perhaps there it is in a nutshell.

You're clearly seeing the ENTIRE game from the perspective of "professional broadcast post production" - which is ONE very interesting professional avocation - but indisputably not the only one. Not anymore.

Just suppose that another practitioners goal is a successful internet viral video - or video to embed in a Blu-ray video game - or video to excite a 15 year old watching it on a cel phone - NONE of that would be "GOOD" under the terms of your argument - simply because NONE OF IT might meet your (and SMPTE's) arbitrary standards as defined above.

But it's precisely that kid - who sees "video" as something different - something fluid - perhaps something malleable who ratchets it to the next level.

You see the point?

Again, I'm not disputing the need for understanding the requirements of those traditions - heck I just retired my Videotek WFM and Vectorscope last month after not turning them on for more than a year since equivalent tools are built into my NLE - but I'm saying that YOU and I are susceptable to a trap every bit as limiting as the trap a kid falls into when they don''t understand why 0db digital audio is a catastrophic target.

You've stopped your thinking with ONE game. The traditional broadcast game. A game who's rules are useful, important, even necessary - but NOT the only rules that matter.

And I'll wager that this generation's kids are only EXACTLY as poorly equipped as you and I both were a few decades back when we TOO hadn't yet learned to understand the value of white balancing, or room tone, or any of the thousand things WE didn't understand until we had some years behind us.

What we had in abundance was enthusiasm. The urge to explore. And the ability to overlook our shortcomings and press on.

We did. We're here working at the level we are not because we folded and crept away when the senior engineer blasted us for not understanding the way to properly coil a triax cable - but because when called on it we sucked it up, learned, and kept going.

That's my hope for the kids being trashed in that original letter.

Give them time. The best of them will learn and be US in a decade or so.

The real sadness will come if those of us who already understand how to do it right, start to belittle the kids who don't. And instead of finding the patience to put up with their snot nosed arrogance (same as we had back in the day) and help them improve.

FWIW

Well said Bill. I thought one of the best things about this internet forum is that some of us old dogs can pass on our knowledge and experience to younger filmmakers. Reading this, I'm not so sure.

Indeed, I'm very surprised at some of the names on this thread who are having a rant and a rage at our youth. What's the matter guys, have you just discovered you're getting older now?

Back in the day when I started - when a computer was something the size of a house - there were tired old men who despised the young upstarts such as myself. They withheld knowledge and opportunity and grumbled when a I would try something new. I said to myself then that I would never be like one of them and 23 years later I hope I'm not.

Today, there is more rubbish written and talked about filmmaking and technology than ever, I think it's up to those of us who have been and continue to be at the sharp end of things to help the youngsters along and occasionally learn from them as well.

Liam.

Interersting points being made.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Working 'alone' is very liberating. No one to second guess you. It allows for unfettered creativity. This CAN be a good thing. - That's ONE point of view.

Working 'alone' is very constricting. You cannot learn to collaborate, and you must continually 're-invent' the wheel. - That's ANOTHER point of view.

Working in a collaborative environment - (IE The BIZNESS) - Is very stiffling. you must conform to standards and practices that are well estabilished in order to create maximum efficiency - rendering maximum profitability(time=Money)

Working in a collaborative environmen is very liberating - You are working at a level of professionalism that constanty challenges you, exchanging ideas with other professionals and learning everyday how and why the wheel was invented - and a million ways to use it.


Depending on what glasses one is wearing when reading the first article, I think people tend to see it a certain way. What I took away from the article, was NOT that bedroom editors are 'not creative' or 'less creative' in their visions, but that they have trouble INTEGRATING their visions with others, because they lack knowledge of standard practices. They have trouble 'playing well with others'... and don't understand that there are protocols and procedures - because what works for them - alone in a one man shop - has worked just fine so far.

Human nature hasn't changed. Snot nosed arrogant upstarts we ALL were - no on would argue that. But TECHNOLOGY has changed, which in turn has changed the learning ENVIRONMENT - I think that's the point he was trying to make. "Back in the day" you could be as snot nosed and arrogant as you wanted, cutting super 8 fiilm together. But in order to move 'up' - you had to move 'in' with the old guys and 'pay your dues'. Technology now allows everyone to essentially own a production studio - soup to nuts - this prevents, or at least inhibits that communication, that exchange of ideas, the 'polishing of the roughness through abrasive coopoeration' that was part of us 'old farts' education. I heard the article addressing THAT -These kids have more technology and LESS HUMAN INTERACTION than we did.

THATS what I took away from the article.

I hear the newbies saying "No one teaches us this". I hear the old farts saying "No one is learning this." I hear the question "How do we address this?"

This forum is one way. Frankly, 'virtual communities' and their values are the subject of another thread. But for now technology has taken away the human interaction on one level, and moved it to another.

Is it sufficient?

I hear the newbies saying "No one teaches us this". I hear the old farts saying "No one is learning this." I hear the question "How do we address this?"

This forum is one way. Frankly, 'virtual communities' and their values are the subject of another thread. But for now technology has taken away the human interaction on one level, and moved it to another.

Is it sufficient?

Once again Richard articulates much better, (and in a much better tone) than I. Bill, like I said before (They may never walk into a post house, but these best practices will help them much more than hurt them,) regardless of the delivery medium. But, that's all I'm going to say now. Like Tim Dashwood, I should just not say anything more. I've got work to do.

I agree with much that Richard has very eloquently written but you have to admit it's quite funny that on a forum that does so much to help amateurs, students and newbies there should be a thread condemning them for not knowing or understanding professional practices.

Yes, the changing technology has allowed a whole host of people to enter parts of the industry they could only dream about before and not just young people; the number of people who because they have camera 'x' or editing system 'y' believe that they have upgraded their ability and knowhow is endless. So what? If they don't know what they are doing, they wont be working on one of my productions, but I'll still offer my help and assistance when asked.

I just think there is far too much bashing of young people going on, certainly in the UK and it's probably not much different elsewhere. And bashing youth seemed to me to be the main objective of that article (maybe I need to change my glasses).

Liam.

Well, we can bash the "lone editor" for not knowing how to collaborate or we can take this chance to pass along our expertise. There are plenty of people who probably would like to be able to be more collaborative or at least learn best practices but might not be sure how to go about it. If any of them have got this far in the thread I'll share what I've learned.

I have always effectively been a lone editor. Not in my basement; I've had a series of jobs over the last ten years in-house at organizations shooting and editing educational materials. As it turns out I've always been a one man shop (as it were). I didn't plan my career path that way, it's just how it happened. I learned how to read a vectorscope and waveform monitor back in college (while I was learning how to edit audio with a grease pencil and razor blade), but when you work in an environment where what you do will never be broadcast try convincing your boss you need those tools. It's a relief to me that the NLEs include them now.

So how have I kept up with best practices, advancements in technology (because I can tell you I don't use razor blades any more and haven't been near a 3/4" deck since graduation), etc? Several ways.

1. read, read read. Trade journals, internet sites, forums like this one. Every time my NLE is working without me - capturing, rendering, whatever - I'm reading something.

2. Join local groups. I'm really lucky that there's a lot in my area. Become friendly with people who do what you do and learn from each other. Just last night I was at a Women in Film editor's round table discussion where the topic happened to be brainstorming a list of best practices for logging and capturing that we could then share around with our interns and E2s. (And I thought, wow, an intern, that would be nice.)

3. Find opportunities to collaborate whenever you can, personal projects if you have to, or work if you can swing it. I'm always happy when we end up with more work than I have time for and I get to hire an outside editor for a project. I love the chance to look at other people's time lines just to see how they've done it.

I would say to take classes, which you should for other reasons, but I don't think it solves this problem. I've taken every Apple certified FCP course and what you learn there is how to push buttons, not how to decide which button to push, if you know what I mean.

Most importantly, young or old, new or experienced, never stop feeling like there is more to learn.

Smile,
Kris

I hear the newbies saying "No one teaches us this". I hear the old farts saying "No one is learning this." I hear the question "How do we address this?"

I for one would love to know how to address this. As far as I may have come through my own work and personal studies as well as opportunities for OJT along the way, I know there is more for me to learn -- but that isn't going to happen sitting in my studio, alone at my station. I would love to be in a place where I'm going to get kicked in the pants daily, but those opportunities (to find work even as an assistant) are not readily available.

This made me think about how long ago I started editing.... 28 years! And I'm not that old. Reason, I quit college once I realized that I wasn't learning anything from the "production professors". I got a job in a production house and was editing within a year. Simple linear stuff, but I was editing. Now I'm on FCP and very happy to be here. Every improvement is very welcome.

However, there's much less editing work now. My city is filled with film school graduates and their $5000 - $8000 graduation present FCP set-ups all over the place. I've seen companies seeking editors offer $25 per hour for an editor with equipment! Fortunately there are enough people who realize that 4 hours with an experienced editor at a decent rate is better than 20 hours with a new editor at a cheap rate.

Many productions have a style rule book that all editors must adhere to. You can see this on MTV, Discovery Channel and many other cable networks. Flash here, zip wipe edit there, zoom in here, overexpose there. Whatever you think of these styles, it provides a foundation for new editors and keeps the shows within budget so the executives can keep their jobs and ridiculously high salaries.

The whole young versus old question here is good. One problem in video and film education that you don't see in in sciences, for example, a noted scientist frequently spends part of their time teaching and frequently uses their students in research projects. Here in production land, if you are a good editor/camera/audio you are almost never found in a teaching position. The only people who can benefit from your experience are those who chance to work under you. I hate to say it as I have taught a number of classes in editing, storyboard techniques and control room, if you are teaching production it's assumed you are probably not very good in production. How many noted editors regularly teach at universities? Perhaps I'm wrong.

Well, I thought it was for a different thread, but I'll go ahead and address it here.

Forums and virtual communities are wonderful! I mean, I used to WRITE LETTERS to people to ask them questions - and wait a week to get a response - 'back in my day'. (Yeah, and I hiked uphill both ways in the snow, too...)

I love forums, this is a great place to get tips, and network, find jobs (yes, I've gotten gainful employment off this very board).

But it's not a substitute for personal interaction - it's a supplement.

I'm kind of in a unique position... regarding 'real world' practices and school stuff. I started in RTV at the University of Houston back in '74 WHILE I was working full time at KHTV Ch39, the largest independent station in the nation. Full time school and full time work - something had to give. The young upstart arrogant me, quickly realized that I was learning more in a week on the job, than I was learning in a semester at school. So I dropped the schooling after two years.

Flash forward twenty some odd years of working professionally in Radio,Television and Film.

I'm living in NorCal, and have the time and money - TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL. So I do that. Getting my 'film degree' in 2001. What I enjoyed most about going back to school, was working with 20 year olds in film classes, showing them things I learned 'the hard way'. It was also a 're-entry' for me, learning NLE for the first time. (Premiere) and buying my first Avid system... pouring myself in the new 'digital age'. (Don't ask me about college algebra - I passed it didn't I?)

Now, aside from all the other free-lancing I do,(alone in my garage...) I work for a local Cable Company, directing and shooting everything from Council meetings, to College Football and Basketball, to Concerts and kiddie shows. Solo and five camera shoots - it's a real small company, and everyone wears three hats. One of the things I enjoy most, is working with some of the young folks who have just come out of school... and start their careers there.

So it's possible to go find a situation where you can intern, or volunteer - and work in a collaborative environment. It's good to rub elbows with other folks in the business. Aside from networking - its just plain fun socializing.

So beyond the forums - which are great resources - one must make an effort to reach out - young and old - to connect and share.

Are there any good books anyone can recommend? You can't learn everything from a classroom or a book, especially when it comes to the creative/artistic elements of editing. But as far as some of the more technical aspects go, I know I could stand to benefit from reading more about workflows and whatever else I am missing from my personal knowledge-base.

For example, I have never worked with an EDL and would love to learn what it's for and how to really use one properly.

If you were going to teach a university-level course in editing, what would you have as a reading list?

Just wanted to pop back in and address a response to my post in here:

I meant NOT using the scopes is pretty inexcusable, since they're right there in FCP (and Vegas, for that matter).

I've certainly done that before, too, though. Not check the levels with scopes and whatnot. Depends on who my client is. I have not, to this point, done anything for broadcast, so it's either for a very small group of people to watch, or for the web or something. Sometimes, it really just doesn't matter for the work I do. Other times, it does, and I take the time to check and tweak.

Are there any good books anyone can recommend? You can't learn everything from a classroom or a book, especially when it comes to the creative/artistic elements of editing. But as far as some of the more technical aspects go, I know I could stand to benefit from reading more about workflows and whatever else I am missing from my personal knowledge-base.

For example, I have never worked with an EDL and would love to learn what it's for and how to really use one properly.

If you were going to teach a university-level course in editing, what would you have as a reading list?

Tom Wolsky's Book...FCP Workshop

http://www.amazon.com/Final-Cut-Pro-Editing-Workshop/dp/1578200903

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/hofmann_jerry/fcp_edit_wrkshp_review.
php

Review of Tom's book...

I think it is a good book from the standpoint of introducing you to a more professional approach to editing. It helped me with my Avid background.

If you're on Avid..any book by Steve Bayes.

Anything by this guy...

http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/00december/editor.htm

There are podcasts, articles, from Tom Ohanion. He is essentially the developer of the Avid One in 1989. And he is an academy award winning editor. So matter what you edit on, listen to this guy. Tom basically translated his editing skills into the concept of nonlinear editing as we know it today.

He was and is a true pioneer.

Cheers.

I'm a fan of books that are compendiums of different voices. I just finished reading "Screenwriters on Screenwriting" for instance. A great book of interviews with a dozen screenwriters, each discussing how THEY approach the craft. It's interesting to compare and contrast individual approaches. Its also gratifying to hear someone say "I can't work that way, I have to work THIS way..." and it's exactly how I work.

As far as editing goes, I reccomend "TRANSITIONS" its a series of interviews with various editors about how THEY approach the craft. Some are doc editors, some are Music Video editors, some are feature editors - it's very illuminating to hear how they got started, what they like, what they have trouble with, who THEY admire.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1903450535/

It's also hard to read. Seriously. The book itself is presented in this catchy 'graphic' form, with colored text on colored graphic backgrounds that makes it hard to read... I HATE that. But the actual content is invaluable.

Check out the other recomendations in the "READ ABOUT IT" sub forum.

Hmmm....lots of interesting points. Tune in now for another point of view...

I used to work for TV stations....started when I was in TV school working for the PBS station, continued as a news photographer/editor, and producer/director. Finally got out of TV after growing sick of low pay/long hours that the local stations pay and started my own business. I live in a small isolated town in Alaska, so there are not many other video professionals to interact with and learn from. So I fit the 'FCP bedroom editors' almost to a T as I have a FCP edit suite in my house, and run a one man production company. Some markets just don't support any more than that....there are others who have tried, with more and better gear, and the accompanying higher overhead, and they have been unable to make a go of it as their prices have been higher than anyone has been willing to pay. But on the other hand, all this 'I can do it myself in my FCP suite' stuff irritates me too as many people ask me why I can't do a job fo $50 because their neighbor's son has a 'camcorder and computer and he'll do it for that!'
So I can see both viewpoints, and I am probably being kind of hypocritical thinking it's ok for me to do it but that because of my background I am a 'professional' and the other people who try it here are 'hobbyists'.....although it is true I do it as my full time job, and not 'on the side' like almost everyone else around here....and that helps me as I am looked at as 'a true professional' by local businesses as they can get me to work during regular business hours not just on weekends and nights.

Anyways, what I guess I am saying, is that we should all strive to be as professional as we can in all our endeavors. I only have a one man production company. I don't interact with broadcast houses, I deliver a complete DVD to my clients and need an entire 'end to end' solution in my home studio.....as long as it looks good they are happy. I have been in business for 7 years now and have had ZERO customer complaints....I get unsolicited compliments from about 85% of my customers....and when I ask I have always been told they are 'very happy' with my work. And that's what's important. But I do my best treat everything as if it is going to be broadcast (and my local TV spots ARE broadcast). I have never had anything sent back to me because of 'illegal' levels, but local TV stations being what they are (and eager for the ad revenue from airtime buys) I don't know if they WOULD send it back to me even if it was 'out of spec'. I mean the stuff their local production company for the station produces looks way 'overwhite' to me a lot of the time and they air it anyways. I try and have a good attitude and learn from every TV/video/film professional I come into contact with, and usually do learn things from any of them I get the chance to talk to....there are a lot o really skilled people out there. BUT that being said, there are some of us that don't really NEED to use EDL's and offline/online workflow and many other things, because we just aren't given the budget to do these things. I get budgets of $1000-$2000 for a project usually.....maybe a little more on the top end. So if that's what I have to work with, I strive to give them the best value they will get for that budget,....and it seems to work.

Such an interesting discussion! I think the kernel of the entire issue was touched on by Richard Alvarez earlier when he mentioned the INTEGRATION aspect of it.

I don't think anyone would or should care about scopes, EDLs, etc. for a person's workflow that doesn't ever cross someone else's work station. I think the central complaint (which, by the way has nothing at all to do with actual age) is a person who presents himself as an industry professional without the requisite skill and knowledge of how to interact within industry standards.

In my "day job" industry of graphic design, I used to run the prepress department for a small chain of print shops. I often received files from clients for print, and precious few of them were "print ready". I can tell you there's a world of difference between looking good on the screen and being ready to put ink to paper!

The same can be true of video editors. "It looks great on my screen" quite simply does not cut it when it has to enter a professional work stream. There's nothing wrong with not knowing the details, as long as there is a willingness to learn and implement them as you progress. What is wrong is to take an "I-don't-care" attitude about submitting sub-par work to others.

I believe the frustration with "young editors" is when they present their work to a post-house as a professional when it's clear that they don't have the professional knowledge. Now, if they're never going to have to "interface" their work with other people the issue becomes moot.

The best advice given in the blog is to find out how the people you're working with want to receive materials. When you submit the way they want, you get the best service!