Personally I find it very odd the way 'celebrity' editors endorsements shift so often. One year Walter Biscardi endorsed Smoke and Premiere in the space of 4 months - hardly enough time to work out how to use smoke past even the most basic level.
These endorsements and articles in magazines and the web are meaningless as they don't address the type of work being done. In a tvc/promo world of MTV style fast cuts there is no quicker, more precise way to cut than in an 'online' system such as flame in film strip reels mode. Gesturally grabbing 3-4 frames and dropping into the master timeline but I'd never say flame is my editor of choice, except for jobs needing that style of rapid cutting.
I have refused to take online jobs cut in premiere unless we charge half a day of avid to matchcut. I have found edls with speed changes utterly unreliable. The problem these days is no one shoots at a single frame rate and premiere does a two step process interpreting the clip admits edited in to the base frame rate then applying whatever speed change the editor adds. In the shuffle we get a 1990 style avid random number generated edl creating nightmares in online.
The choice of audio vs video tracks is tricky. I've cut a lot of big multi cam concerts with often 16-20 cameras. On these jobs I sync all the cameras and the watch each track deleting what's not useable and the see what's left before applying an editorial eye to attempt to impose style and flair to what's actually available. I couldn't cut these shows with a limited number of video tracks.
Audio on the other hand... I haven't personally hit the track limit in avid ever, even when cutting features. When I was running wave pictures making 24 hour party people we had the most efficient system I ever had. 2 picture editors and two audiovision editors tracking. What we came up with is how I've worked features ever since. When the picture editor moves on to another scene he passes the cut to protools. The protools guy takes a brief and builds it out with incidental effects, rough level balancing music, effects and dialogue. He then sends a stereo track to the assistant editor who drops it on the scene master timeline and the show master timeline. This means every presentation has a temp mix in place.
As further editing takes place it's made into the temp mix with extensions added from the original tracks. This then goes back and gets fixed in protools.
It sounds wasteful but removing the pressure of track laying and finding spot effects from the picture editor speeds up the process so much that you need one less editor and protools guys are less per day.
Not to mention generally things don't get longer that often, we are generally pruning to time rather than retelling the story by the time we commit to the first protools turnover.
For the record I also work the same way with vfx and Previz. I'm currently on a 10 part show in the uk with 400 fx shots in the first 7 eps. We've done all the vfx with 10 frame handles to none locked edits. There have been 8 shots that extended in length and 2 where the take changed. A small price to pay for getting a head start on 400 shots. This approach has allowed the show to be done by 4 compositors rather than a cast of thousands.
I'm surprised by the level of indignation about the track limit when clearly it's not been a deal breaker for everyone here - as we're still here. But in a world where davinci resolve is now a tab in an edit system making protools a tab in avid is a logical response. Premiere has the bridge nonsense between speed grade and audition so anything avid can do to speed the post process would be ideal. Having said that I wonder how many of us would want to learn protools as well as we know avid...
Mike
Posted by: "Mikeparsons.tv" <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (37) |
No comments:
Post a Comment