Working With Your Editor

Probably one of the knottiest relationships you'll ever have is with your editor. Who did what? Who's idea was this cut? After a few cuts it's nearly impossible to tell. This is not a bad thing. It's like having a very close older sibling. He always knows what you're doing, where you've been, and what you're trying to hide.

I've edited (a little bit) for other people, and tried to edit my first film (with the predictable result that I had to hire an editor to get myself out of the hole I'd managed to dig). For Found In Time I didn't want to go through that again, and so began my journey with Dan Loewenthal.

Finding The Fit

I interviewed several editors, and all of them were quite good. I liked their reels, enjoyed their company (that's a biggie), and felt they all had good insights into the film. So what stood out? What was the deciding factor?

Well, there wasn't one single factor. But experience was part of it. Dan has edited features, docs, infomercials, music videos, shorts, television shows - pretty much everything. He's also worked in a lot of different genres, beginning with action and horror, but including drama, documentaries, comedies. I felt that Found In Time needed someone who had eclectic tastes and wouldn't be scared of challenging material (we often shot under very intense time pressures, resulting in less coverage).

Another factor, harder to define, was the sensibility. I prize working with people for whom the work comes before the ego. Don't get me wrong - a healthy ego is a very good thing. But it's also good to know when the story is right and your ego is wrong. That's a challenge for me (as I suspect it is for most writer/directors). My hope is that by working with people who are better at listening to the story rather than their idea of it, I'll rise to the occasion.

Trust

Trusting your editor is key. A lot of directors don't like to give up their precious moments, the ones that cost a lot of money or time or effort, even if they don't translate. Or you have a favorite line that just never came out right or didn't mean what you think it meant two years ago when you wrote it. The editor is in the room to lend a fresh perspective to your story. Let him or her do that.

Getting Ready For Editing

The best thing you can do is get organized. I've covered this in detail in the past (see (http://www.foundintimefilm.com/2010/11/art-of-slogging.html)), but here's a very brief overview: have the footage synched, logged, and labelled. Make sure the script supervisor notes, shooting script, camera and sound reports (if any of those were done on set) are in a binder, along with callsheets, production reports, and any inspirational/technical/writing notes you want to write up. Any wild sound, stills, miscellaneous/second unit footage, should also be included. Basically, your editor should be able to just edit, without wondering where the hell the footage is.

That First Cut

If you're the director and/or producer, the best thing you can do once the editor has all the material is go away for a few weeks. You're tired, you have no perspective on the footage, and you probably have obligations (your rent, family, friends, squeezes, pets, your next project) that you've been neglecting for far too long. Call or email if you must, but unless the editor wants you in the room, you're better off not being there.

After a few weeks (less if the editor was starting during the shoot), you'll have the most horrible experience related to the film (at least until you see it in a crappy theater with an out-of-focus projector and blown speakers), the rough cut screening. It's best NOT to have too many people in the room for this - no cast, crew or friends/family, the minimal number of producers, the editor, and the director. You'll see the difference between what you thought you shot and what you actually shot.

Here's how to survive and prosper in the rough cut screening:

• Watch and take notes. Interrupt as little as possible.


• Look for dead spots, where nothing is going on and there's no point in continuing the shot or scene.
• What's completely out of place? It could be that a scene has to be excised or moved because it interrupts the narrative flow rather than helps it along; or that a performance that seemed fine on set doesn't work as well as you'd hoped.
• What's surprising - in a good way? The footage can sometimes reveal something wonderful that you weren't expecting or didn't notice on set.


• What's the obvious next move? Sometimes, the best way to tackle the second cut is to start with the easy stuff.

I find it almost impossible (most of the time) to work out the "big picture" after seeing a screening. I have to go back to looking at the film atomically, one shot after another. Dan is a lot better than I am at keeping the larger narrative structure in his head. I think this combination is also key - if you and your editor can compliment each other's sense of scope.

Moving Past The First Cut

In the next entry I'll talk about how we moved past the rough cut and went through the rest of picture editing.

2010: The Year In Movies

I realize that it's nearly February 2011, and we should be looking forward. In fact, I'm working on another entry about the editing process. But in the meantime, I figured this would be my last chance to talk about movies I saw in 2010. Rather than do a "best of" article I figured I'd just talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly, and maybe even dig out some general themes.


(NOTE that I said MOVIES I SAW, not necessarily movies that CAME OUT in 2010. This gives me quite a bit of latitude. Hey, it's my blog.)

SHREDDING BODIES

It seems like 2009 was the year of the armored body. From Avatar to Surrogates to Terminator: Salvation to District 9, our heroes found themselves inside of various tougher, more agile bodies. By contrast, regular bodies began to look weaker, more fragile, like big bags of blood just waiting to be microwaved, ripped and riddled full of bullets. The year just past continues that trend: Repo Men Jude Law and Forest Whittaker hack, slash, and cut their way through flesh to repo the artificial organs that their clients have defaulted on payments for. In Daybreakers vampires are variously burnt, decapitated, exploded, and torn apart as they turn human. Centurion takes the sword-and-sandals genre to new heights of gore. Kick Ass features some very disturbing violence. And so on.

What is going on? I don't know, but I'll take a stab at it. Images of ourselves in media have always oscillated between all-powerful (see the cave paintings in Lescaux) to fragile (much of DaVinci's work). The current emphasis on the fragility of the body may reflect our own aging (at least in the U.S.), our anxiety over the fate of the species, and the feeling of helplessness many of us have in the face of political, economic and social disasters.

It's no coincidence that three of the movies I just cited are very political. In Repo Men, the dominant force is The Union, who are like an insurance company, hospital, bank, and drug co. rolled into one. Can't afford an organ transplant? No problem, just sign up for a payment plan - with 20 percent interest. Can't make the payments? Don't worry. One of our repo men will take it back. You might die in the process, but that's life, right? In Daybreakers (a really, really good film, by the way), vampires are the dominant species - except that in their greed, they've pretty much wiped out their food supply, and so are now tottering on the brink of starvation. Starve a vampire and he turns into a cannibal bat. Over-dependence on scarce resources coupled with short-term greed... sound familiar? Centurion (perhaps the oddest of the three) is set against the backdrop of a long, drawn-out war between the Picts and Romans in Britain, with backstabbing and extremism on both sides.

RESIST ADULTHOOD AT ALL COSTS

Many of the men I saw onscreen had opted out of growing up. Greenberg, Cyrus, Enter the Void, Due Date, Kick-Ass, Blue Valentine, Splice, Iron Man 2 feature men acting like petulant children or refusing to grow up. Even Inception and Shutter Island, it could be argued, are centered around adult men who are still, on some level, playing games rather than facing up to painful loss. I'm not sure what this means either. It's possible that Gen X men are finally growing up, or that we see that growing up doesn't mean the same thing it used to. It could be that maturity, as defined by our parents and grandparents, is a rather defeatist and ultimately fruitless way to look at life. Growing up often means giving up.

OVER-COOKED AND UNDERRATED

So here's a quick look at the most overrated and underrated films of the year (IMHO). This doesn't mean that the films were good or bad; in some cases, the overrated films were excellent. It's simply that they don't live up to their hype or aren't nearly as clever as they'd like to think they are.

OVERRATED

The King's Speech: I liked this film a LOT. I thought it was a humane, engaging portrait about someone who I normally could care less about (the royal family has problems? boo hoo). The performances were wonderful, the chemistry between Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush was great, and the struggle it represents is one we can all relate to. But in humanizing the King, it fails to politicize him. Apart from the obvious class differences between Rush and Firth (played for laughs, mostly), an opportunity to investigate the deeper complexities is left on the table.


Enter The Void: this is a case of brilliant technique married to a juvenile sensibility. Gaspard Noe is the kid in class who can draw amazing, life-like penises. The craft of the film is amazing - the overhead travelling shots, the mix of sophisticated effects and handheld camerawork, the removal of the subject from the screen altogether in the last third of the film. But it's empty of ideas, save for a rather junior and over-literal understanding of karma and reincarnation that, in turns, masks a very traditional, conservative mindset. It revels in its juvenile qualities - ooh, look, full-on sex! Drug use! Gore! A microscope-level view of a penis! It's also misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and, worst of all, boring. But the camerawork, editing, soundwork, and effects deserve some real study and appreciation - the mechanism of how the story is told is something that opens new doors.


Inception: This is a wonderful heist film, that just happens to take place in someone's head. It has a solid cast, some wonderful (and very organic) effects, it doesn't waste a second of time, and it builds the tension in a way that should be studied by filmmakers everywhere. But, it's not as complex as everyone's making it out to be. It's overly structured, with thin characterizations, and the dream world is in some ways exceptionally dull. Its conception of gender is rather old-fashioned (the dark heart of the main character is a woman). I really enjoyed this film and feel it deserves more attention at the Oscars than it will get, but in some ways it's a big-budget b-movie.


Shutter Island: I found this film gripping, and the performances, setting, and use of dream imagery really, really well done. But again, where is the ambiguity? Where is the breakdown of structure? In Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Kundun and even Bring Out the Dead, Scorcese made me care about distant, unsavory or otherwise normally unreachable characters. In Shutter Island, I failed to connect with DiCaprio's character, even after spending much of the film in his head.


Black Swan: As with Enter The Void, you have great technique married to a juvenile sensibility. If you want a meditation on the intersection between dance, identity, and madness, see the remastered The Red Shoes, which Swan cribs liberally from. If you want to see the disintegration of identity in the face of sexuality, see Fight Club. If you want to go beyond duality altogether, see Paprika. It was a fun film to watch, and had some great touches, a fantastic sound design, and featured a really good use of effects.

UNDERRATED

Daybreakers: A vampire film that manages to cram about three movies'-worth of ideas into a crisp, lean 90-minute ride. Good performances, some sly political commentary, and complex characterizations (no one in the film is completely good or bad). What's not to like?


Cyrus: I'm NOT a mumblecore fan. I applaud their DIY attitude, their willingness to experiment and just 'shoot their damn movie,' but I could never relate to the results of their efforts. But perhaps because of the cast, or the story, I rather liked Cyrus. It also has something to say about gender roles, and about men of all ages who are still negotiating the process of growing up.


Splice: A gene-splicing film that's really about the horrors of parenting, a monster movie where the monsters aren't the obvious ones, and a creepy movie where the creepiness is psychological rather than physical. An examination of gender roles, parental responsibility, and the commodification of the flesh are all on the table here, but not in any kind of boring, polemical way. It falls short in many ways (some of the characters are a little too stock) and it could have been longer, but it's definitely worth looking at.


Broken Embraces: At first glance, these film seems like a bit of a mess; part memoir, part mystery, part director-drag statement (the main character is a blind director). But on another level, it's about much more - the blind spots we all have in our hearts, the things we hide from each other, the small things we only notice later. The theme of watching, hiding, touch, and how what we don't see shapes our identity as much as what we do, make this a more interesting film on second viewing.


Kick-Ass: I'm not really sure why I like this film. Perhaps because it never does exactly what I expect it to do. I often found myself laughing and recoiling at the same time. It rather confronts us with superhero fantasy in a way that's refreshing, exciting, and somewhat revolting. And it features some winning performances and well-shot and well-edited action scenes.


It's a Wonderful Life: I saw this at its annual screening at the IFC Film Center, just a few days after seeing Enter the Void. Capra touches on many of the same themes - the imagined life, karma, the web of interconnection between people - but does so in a much more sophisticated and involving way. It doesn't flinch away from showing the cost of heroism, nor does it short-shrift the miracles that are possible in everyday life (something it shares with both Ikiru and The Bicycle Thief). It's a more adult, and less-square, work than it's generally thought of.

Old Films

In Understanding Comics, Scott Mcloud talks a lot about the process of making art. Often the 'new kid on the block' is just putting a new spin or glossy coat over deeper, older territories and structures that were explored by the previous 'masters.' I have to agree. Many of this past years' films were clearly built upon (and in good cases, expand) the territory mapped out by Hitchcock, Ozu, Kurosawa, Hawks, Capra, Carpenter, Sturges, Tarkovsky... the list goes on and on. If the old studio system had flaws (and it certainly did), it also had its virtues, and it established within a very short span of time most of the major genres, syntactic elements, and styles that we still work with today. So in 2011, go see some old films! Many can be streamed on Netflix, so now you have no excuse. :)

Musing on Filmmaking in 2011 And Beyond

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! In many ways, the first year of the 10s was a marked improvement on what I've earlier called the decade of the suck that preceded it. Really? How is that possible? The economic recovery everyone seems to be talking about is more of a mirage than a reality. My older friends - who would be happy to work - are being forced into early retirement. My younger friends are climbing deeper into debt to stay afloat. Friends my age are spending their hard-earned savings (if they have any) taking care of aging parents and grandparents, thanks to the hospitals, nursing homes, drug companies, and insurers whose sole mission seems to be to gouge the elderly and their families at every opportunity. The ripple effects of all this will be felt for the next twenty years, here and across the world.

There is hope, however. While the half-measures put in place by our government are just that, they're better than nothing. For every step backward, we seem to take 1.5 forward.

Similarly mixed news pervades the film industry. DVDs and box office revenues are not being replaced dollar-for-dollar with streaming/online (and probably won't be in the future). But the DSLR came into its own as a viable production camera this year. In fact, technologically we're at the point where you can pick up just about any piece of gear or software and create something worthwhile - provided you have good skills to begin with. The tools are our friends, not our obstacles.

On the other hand, I feel that 2010 will be seen as the beginning of the end for the studio system as we presently know it. Bad debt, an unsustainable business model, and top-heavy management are leading them all to the brink. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Taking the broad view, this is only the latest of a series of shakeups that have both threatened and energized the industry since its inception. Edison nearly choked the industry with his draconian demands for a piece of the pie (since he had the patent on most of the film equipment made up to that point). His attempt at monopolizing the industry backfired, with the best and brightest American producers relocating beyond his long arm - to Hollywood. Television and the breakup of the studio system in the 50s led to the "new" explosion of good filmmaking in the '60s and '70s.

The consolidation of the industry over the last twenty-odd years, and its takeover by companies not necessarily interested in media production at all, was responsible in part for the rise in independent filmmaking (since it's easier for them to buy a film than make it on an indie budget). But it's also led to the weakening of the labor guilds and unions, the near-disappearance of the "b-movie", and the development of an unfair business model - everyone's a freelancer, and profits rarely go back to the media creators. The pursuit of the "tentpole/high concept/four quadrant" Holy Grail has also meant the watering down or outright abandonment of intellectually stimulating films or filmmakers.

But that brings up an important question: will film as a medium survive the contraction of film as an industry? The short answer is yes. Consider it in light of other media:


Like jazz, film as a medium has adapted to new forms and paradigms, and embraced change as its modus operandi. Once films were only seen on really large screens; now they're seen on everything from IMAX theaters to iPhones. Filmmakers have incorporated sound, color, and new styles of editing, storytelling, acting, lighting; new technologies for production and post; new methods of distribution, promotion, advertising; new sources of funding, education, and training... this indicates a medium that's still growing and finding new ground to cover.

The upside of the low cost of production is that you don't have to go out and raise a fortune to make a movie. It's possible (though not easy) to make a film for not much more than it costs to put on a play or write a novel. You can take bigger creative risks. There's no guarantee that anyone will see your masterpiece, but then again, there's no guarantee anyone's going to read that novel on your hard drive either. If the profit margins for film fall in line with book and magazine publishing, the big economic powerhouses may sell off their film distribution companies or shut them down. They'll take their football and go find another industry to make them gobs of money. But the distributors that stay in the game will be doing so because they genuinely like making and promoting films.

Okay, so filmmaking will continue. And distribution will continue. But can we make any money at it? (Are we condemned to day jobs for the rest of our lives?) Will it become a fine art, essentially something done for its own sake? Will it become regionalized like theater (Broadway, off-Broadway, community, touring, etc.)? Or will it fold into television and webisodic forms - will a new medium emerge that combines film, tv and web formats? This last seems less likely in the short-term, given how the internet and television have staked out their domains. But written epics, poems, and bardic news/storytelling were once separate mediums. They have all contributed to the rise of the modern play and novel forms.

Perhaps in the future we'll have features that are short, webisodes that run long, episodic television that can be of varying/irregular lengths. Novels don't have a page-count limit; albums are no longer bound by LP limitations; fine art is contained by whatever canvas size the artist deems necessary. Removing some of the economic pressure and incentive for filmmakers may actually open up the medium for more interesting forms. If you can make it cheaply enough, and do it well, you can find an audience. Writers, fine artists, poets, playwrights, and sculptors are used to dealing with small audience numbers. These forms show no sign of dying out. Perhaps film is headed in the same direction.

Personally I find this both very hopeful and rather depressing. Hopeful because I feel that there are a lot of stories that deserve to be made into movies, and now maybe at least a few of them will get made. But one of the reasons I chose film over writing was because it seemed easier (relatively speaking) to make a living at it (no day job). The idea that I'm going to continue to have to work multiple jobs for the rest of my life so I can pursue my "work" is not a very heartening one. And what about the poor private equity investors and producers out there, the unsung heroes (and often close friends/family members) who've invested time/energy/money/love into these projects that will no longer have any hope of coming close to recouping? And do we really want to make $50K movies once every ten years for the rest of our lives? Is that a sustainable model?

I suppose what you're getting from this screed is that I have no idea what the hell is going to happen next in the world of film production and distribution. Well, you're right - I don't. But I'm hopeful. Which is more than I could say a year ago. So that's something, right?

What I Learned On My Summer Vacation

... or, some details on what went right and what went wrong during production. This will necessarily be a short blog entry; in the future I'll go into more details on some of these points.

What Went Right

The Small Crew Size: I've worked with crews of 30 people, each of whom were getting paid very little money, and consequently tended to be less experienced. This necessitated adding more shooting days to the schedule. I decided to go the opposite route, hire more experienced people, pay them a little better, and have a smaller group overall and fewer shooting days. It should be noted that I did hire a number of interns, all whom did excellent work. But because we had experienced keys, I didn't need the same level of infrastructure to manage them.


The Five Day Week: I think that shooting a sixth day is basically a waste of time, unless it's absolutely necessary. Since most people are getting paid a day rate, and you're probably not paying full retail for gear and locations anyway, why put yourself through a sixth day of shooting when you can use that time to organize the following week, or maybe, I don't know, get some sleep?


Starting With the Hard Stuff: During our first week, we shot about 36 pages. Nearly our entire cast worked the first week. We shot a number of long scenes with some very tricky stuff going on (five people talking and moving around). We had very little control over the environment, and had some bouts of inclement weather (though it wasn't as bad as it could have been). But by the end of the first week, we had a tightly knit cast and crew, and shot an incredible 36 pages in only five days. Also, by putting the crew through their paces, I also got a sense of how they worked and what the pattern of the day would be.


Scheduling Actresses Later: Whenever possible, we tried to schedule scenes with actresses for later in the day, so that we wouldn't be waiting on hair/makeup and wardrobe. This put a little less pressure on Ghislaine and Janis, and let us get our first shot off a little faster.


Block Shooting Some Scenes: There were several points where we decided to shoot out an angle for all the scenes, then turn around, rather than cover a single scene at a time. This works best, obviously, when you only have a few angles you can shoot a given set of scenes from, or where there's supposed to be a visual similarity between scenes. This saved us a lot of time relighting and repositioning.


Staying In One Place The First Week: Our first week's work was in one location - the vendor street, which happened to be (in real life) the corner of Davidson and Burnside Ave in the Bronx. We had a wonderful holding space, the Davidson Community Center. Being able to stay in one place and get organized, while also shooting a lot of challenging material, was crucial.


Starting Prep Early: Everyone says that production is determined by preproduction, but it's very true. We started location scouting in April and May; locking down locations, vendors, and crew in June; casting in July and August; analyzing and breaking down the script in March and April... the truth is that if you don't have a lot of money, you HAVE to take the time to figure out the shoot before you get on set.


Switching Caterers a Lot: We switched our caterer several times during the course of the shoot, which worked well because it meant not getting bored with one cuisine or another.

WHAT WENT WRONG:

Trying to Bite Off More Than I Could Chew on the Stunt Days:
We went into overtime on both days that we had stunts, and ended up owing some footage on one of the days that we didn't make up until the last day of the shoot. When tallied together, the OT overages (on the crew, cast, and locations), combined with the additional day that I had to hire one of the cast for, nearly equaled another day of shooting. Lesson learned!


No Key PA: This was a painful position to eliminate during the budgeting process, but I couldn't figure out how to squeeze it in, especially as other costs started to rack up. The problem is that without someone a little more experienced to kind of run the other PAs, a good chunk of the job fell on me. That's not a bad thing - sometimes I think directors could use to be a little more in touch with everyone in the crew - it was sometimes very distracting.

This is not to take anything away from the PAs; they worked their butts off and took a lot of initiative.


Not Enough Good Vegan Options: I should have worked out better vegan options with each of the caterers. Some delivered good options, others didn't get it. The vegans in the cast and crew were very easy-going but they didn't have to be. Next time I'll get it right, guys!


That's it for now. I will try to post one more piece before the end of the year. If I don't, then have a great new year and a happy holiday season!

The Art of (S)logging

I promise, there will be a blog entry - soon - on production. But I wanted to delve into more detail on something that's very important, and I think underreported: preparing your film for the editor.

In the previous entry I focused on the big post picture. Today I'm going to stick to the first three steps I outlined: transcoding, synching, and logging the footage. The goal is to get acquainted with the film you've shot (as opposed to the one in your head), save your editor unnecessary headaches (and you unnecessary time and money) hunting for footage, and get your brain thinking about sound, visual effects, titles, music, and other post elements.

Workflow: When To Do This

On a big enough film, your script supervisor would make the continuity book, the 2nd AC and the mixer would write reports, and your assistant editor would transcode, log, and synch, all while you're shooting. The advantages are fairly obvious: you'll find out about coverage or technical problems while you're shooting, and you'll get to a rough cut that much sooner. However, on micro-budget films, this is a comparative luxury.

On Found In Time, we had no script supervisor, the sound mixer was doing about three other jobs - though he did take very good notes - and we didn't have an editor in place during the shoot. I'm assuming that many of you are in a similar situation.

Transcoding

The Canon 5D records to an H.264 Quicktime-playable file. H.264 is a highly compressed format that somehow retains a lot of detail despite throwing out an enormous amount of picture information. Part of how it does this is by storing frame data in a long-GOP format. GOP = Group Of Pictures. Essentially, what the codec does is analyze a group of frames (in most cases, 6 or 15). It stores the first frame, then stores the DIFFERENCES ONLY between the first frame and all subsequent frames within the group.

There's a LOT more involved than this, but here's the main point: editing H.264 footage can be difficult. Your cuts are probably NOT going to be on the first frame in a group, which means the computer will have to analyze and rebuild frames every time you cut picture. The result can tax your system, leading to dropped playback frames and a lot of rendering time. It's also more difficult to do a final conform, render effects, etc. In other words, H.264 is a great origination and online distribution format, but you don't want to edit with it.

Transcoding the footage from the original H.264 files to an I-frame format (which compresses and stores each frame individually) is thus an easy decision. But there are several software programs to do the trick:

MPEG Streamclip is preferred by many, and with good reason: it's fast, user-friendly, free, and can batch-process clips very easily. But the quality of the resulting clips is not quite as good as we were hoping for. It also strips out the original timecode from the file, substituting its own.

Rarevision's 5DtoRGB on the other hand, is supposed to do the best overall job in terms of image quality, but lacks a batch feature (at this time; it's still under development). It also takes the longest to transcode.

We considered Compressor, but have had problems with batch transcodes in Compressor and haven't been super happy with the results. After going on Creative Cow and talking to a few folks, we decided on Canon's own Final Cut Pro plug-in, the EOS Plugin-E1. It produces decent results, processes batches of clips at a time without any hiccups, didn't take too long, and retained the original clip timecode.

The next decision: what to transcode TO. The obvious choice for editing in Final Cut was Apple ProRes, but ProRes comes in several flavors, ranging from Proxy (small file size/lower quality) to HQ (huge file size, better quality). After thinking about it, trolling the forums, and consulting with some experts, we decided on ProRes LT, which is somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum. The data rate is approximately 100Mpbs, roughly the same as DVCProHD, and nearly 3x the 5D files' 40Mbps. This means in practical terms that we were getting something very, very good - that we could put together into rough cut shape if we needed more investors or to assembly a festival screener out of - but we wouldn't kill our hard drive.

The long term plan, once the film has been picture-locked, is to note the selects (the clips that make it into the locked picture), and re-transcode the camera originals to QuickTime HQ using the 5DtoRGB utility.

Setting Up Final Cut For Transcoding

At this point, we set up a new Final Cut project with a sequence default of 1920x1080 23.976p, with 48KHz 16-bit stereo sound. During the shoot the DP created folders by day, running to lettered bins if he had to copy more than one card per day (so we have Day1, Day1b, Day2, etc. folders on the hard drive). We started out by creating camera reel bins to mirror the originals. Within each bin, I created three sub-bins: Scraps (for NG or goofing-off material), Video (for source video clips), and Audio (for source audio clips).

We also created a database in FileMaker (which is cross-platform, by the way), to capture information on each clip. Initially, we just dumped a directory listing of all the clips into a text file then imported that into FileMaker, so we'd have a list of the 840 video clips and 735 sound files (we had a good number of MOS takes).

During the transcoding process itself, we renamed each clip to "sceneshot-take" format, then also filled in the scene, shot/take, reel (camera reel), angle, and loggingNotes fields. We went in shoot (as opposed to scene order), and limited the batches to one-or-two scenes worth of material depending on the number of individual clips. The entire process took about four days, and was highly automated. A good tutorial on it is on Canon's own site. TWO THINGS TO NOTE:: when you name the clip (scene-shot-take), the utility actually renames the transcoded Quicktime file. So if you ever want to go back to your camera masters for retranscoding, make sure to keep a list of the original filename and the new one.

Also, the utility REQUIRES that all the clips be inside of a folder called DCIM off the root of the hard drive. That's because the plug-in is expecting to be reading from an SD card (which uses DCIM as the main folder to put all saved video and still files in). Note that you CAN nest folders inside of the DCIM folder.

Once each batch was done, I moved the transcoded clips into matching day folders on the edit drive. This way instead of having over 800 clips in one folder to sift through, I would only have to look through a few dozen at a time.

Synchronizing

This was probably the most boring part. Anthony, our sound mixer, had wisely named nearly every sound file in the scene-shot-take format. So figuring out which sound take went with which video file was relatively trivial.

This is where Pluraleyes, from Singular Software, saved my butt. It's a standalone program which works with Final Cut sequences and synchs video-to-video (in the case of multi-camera shoots) and video-to-audio footage. It creates a new sequence for each synched clip. So instead of going clip-by-clip, I was able to drag a dozen or so clips at a time to a sequence in my Final Cut file, line them up very roughly to their matching audio sequences, and click "Sync" in Pluraleyes. A few minutes later I had a dozen sequences with synched sound. Since we used a slate and had the original camera audio as a reference, Pluraleyes rarely had difficulty finding the right sync point. (BTW: the software is free to try for 30 days).

NOW, there was one surprise. For whatever reason, the audio in the original camera file was exactly one or two frames AHEAD from the video - you could tell because the slate was ahead. However, there was no drift. So I had to manually check the sync on each new sequence and adjust by one/two frames - but again, because we had the slates, this was a no-brainer. Other people on Creative Cow have complained of the same problem. There doesn't seem to be a clear-cut solution, nor does it seem to be universal.

After moving the sound one/two frames, I muted the original camera audio, clipped the trailing and leading audio so the sequence would start on the first frame of video, and changed the sequence timecode to match the video timecode (so instead of starting at 01:00:00:00 the TC would start at 18:31:15:00, for example).

Last (but not least), we took the synched clips, along with the source video and audio files, and the scrap clips, and put them into scene bins. The scene bins ultimately replaced the day bins we had established, and had the same structure (Audio, Video, and Scrap sub-bins). Synched sequences went into a new sub-bin called Sync.

This process was also fairly mechanical, and took about two weeks (working part time).

Logging

Now I was ready to log the footage. This consisted of two parts: makes notes about each clip in my database, and lining the script. Lining the script is a BIG topic, and I'm no script supervisor, but the gist of it is that you want to visually indicate where each individual camera setup begins and ends within each scene, what lines and blocking have changed from script to shoot, what scenes have been omitted or added, and what gaps in coverage you might have. As you can imagine, this is a fairly time-consuming process.

In my database I had the following information already:
* individual clip name
* the scene, shot and take number
* the timing (media start, end, and duration)
* The angle (Master, CU John, OTS Jane on Jack, ECU pill bottle, etc.)
* Logging Note
* The original (camera source) filename
* The sound take file name

Most of this information I was able to get by exporting a file list from Final Cut, importing it into the database, then going through it quickly to make sure I didn't miss anything.

To this laundry list of information I added:
* the first frame of action (usually after the DP calls "frame" or set but before you've called "action")
* A description of the shot
* Some kind of evaluation of the shot
* A list of visual problems in the shot (boom dips in at 23:04:10)
* Sound problems

On Found in Time, we shot 840 individual clips. Of these, about 75 or so were complete mistakes, goofing around shots, slates for MOS series, and otherwise unusable bits. These didn't take long to log.

I later figured out that I was able to log between 10 and 20 clips per hour, depending on how complex each clip was. I managed to log everything in just over two weeks.

Why Do This To Yourself

You can get interns to transcode and synch, and maybe even do some of the logging, so why do this yourself? In my case, it was a way of getting familiar with the film that we shot (as opposed to the one in my head). This way, I don't have to waste time having this discussion with the editor: "don't we have a shot of..." No, we don't.

It also got me thinking about how to solve certain coverage problems, what effects shots I will need, and what kind of sound design/music choices would work. The big thing is that the editor didn't have to do this work - he was able to just look at the footage and start cutting. That is a huge time and money saver on any shoot.

Okay, so this post has probably been about as fascinating as watching paint dry. I promise, more fun posts to come!

Post Production Workflow

The shoot is over. I'm still figuring out all the things I learned, and at some point I'll integrate it and write a short blog entry on the topic. But at the moment my energy is going towards getting ready for the next step: cutting the film. What follows is a synopsis of the post workflow for Found In Time It's based on things I've learned while making this film, my experience as post supervisor on previous features, and a lot of consultation with other folks. Many thanks to Josh Apter, head of Manhattan Edit Workshop, Creative Cow Magazine, and as always Ben Wolf.

Don't Just Start Cutting
The temptation is probably just to dig in and start cutting scenes together, using the camera master footage. This is almost always a mistake. First off, if you're the director, you have no perspective on the footage. I know I don't. Secondly, you need to organize both the "physical" files on the drive, giving them a proper reel name and folder to live in; and the names of the clips in your NLE. Thirdly, you need to set up a schedule - what you want, when you want it, and what the end goal is. Hopefully you've done this before you shot anything, and now you're just revising it to match your remaining money/schedule/expectations. But if not, now's a good time to set it up.

The Schedule
Take a BIG step back. Forget about the footage burning a hole on your hard drive. Think carefully: when can I realistically finish this film? What are the steps I need to take to get there? Who's going to do those steps?
At this point, post breaks down into nine BIG steps, that generally (though not always) follow the order below:

1. Backup, Transcoding, Logging. In an ideal world, this is happening on a daily basis. Every night the Assistant Editor takes the day's work (either on cards or drives), backs it up to another drive, then transcodes the footage to the editing format, usually while also logging it into the NLE.

2. Picture Cutting. The film is put together, reel by reel, by the editor.

3. Reshoots/Inserts/Additional Photography. You need it, you didn't get it. Now go get it.

4. F/X and Titles. As the film nears completion, visual effects artists go to work on the more complex material. In an ideal world, sequences are finalized in time for the online. In many cases, the online has to be pushed back until after the sound mix is done, to give the effects artists more time. Titles are usually done at this point (end credit crawls are often finalized only at the final output phase).

5. Online. The film selects (from the final cut) are retranscoded at the highest possible resolution/setting. The footage is color corrected, basic transitions (dissolves, fades) and effects work (taking out booms, minor tweaks, etc.) are done. F/X and titles are married to the locked picture.

6. Sound Editing. The dialog levels are evened out, and the "sound world" of the film created - effects, foley, music, voice-over, are inserted and brought together.

7. Music. The composer scores the final cut of the film (sometimes this happens during the editing process). Existing music is licensed (don't do this at home, kids! You don't have the budget. Trust me.). The music is premixed (ideally).

8. Mix. The various sound elements (dialog, effects, foley, music, ambiance) are brought together and leveled, to conform to both artistic and broadcast standards. The mixer creates final "bounce files."

9. Final Output. The conformed film is married to the bounce tracks, and the whole thing (all the reels) are output to the "final" master medium (tape or film).

So with this outline in hand, you have to figure out: who's going to be doing what (personnel)? With what tools (gear)? For how long (timeframe)? And what are the things each step requires (inputs) and what are the results (outputs)?

After doing some research, and thinking about what's worked best on previous low-budget films, I came up with the following chart [NOTE: I know Blogger doesn't want to format this correctly. I'm working on it]:

Num.	Step	Inputs	Personnel	Gear	Outputs
1	Transcoding Organizing bins Logging clips with scene/shot/take/other info	H.264 Clips on drive Sound WAV files on drive	Myself	Final Cut Canon5D FCP Plugin	Final Cut Project File w/bins Named ProRes LT clips in folders on drive Logging notes of some kind (database, spreadsheet, something)
2	Syncing	ProRes LT clips Audio files Final Cut Project	Me	Final Cut PluralEyes	Final Cut Project File w/bins
3	Script Notes	Final Cut Project Script	Me	Final Cut Pro	Lined script books with notes Binder with notes, sound reports, production reports, etc.
4	Picture Edit	Final Cut Project Binder Hard Drive	Editor	Final Cut Pro	Sequences in reels
5	Feedback Screenings	Rough or 2nd Cut on DVD	Editor, Me, Trusted friends	DVD projector	Notes for next cut
6	Reshoots/Inserts	Wish list of shots	Skeleton crew and cast	Basic camera/sound unit Props, set dressing	Video/audio footage
7	F/X and Titles	Final Cut Project F/X footage (shot on location) Add'l computer-generated footage	Ben Wolf Me Visual F/X Artist Editor (possibly)	Final Cut Pro Photoshop Motion After Effects(?)	Locked VFX sequences and titles
8	Transcode for Online	FCP sequences (reels) Camera master files	Me	Final Cut Pro 5DtoRGB tool	ProRes HQ (422) or ProRes 444 versions of selects only (clips that made the final cut) Notes
9	Conform	ProRes HQ clips Offline Final Cut Pro sequences (reels) VFX and title sequences	Me	Final Cut Pro	Final Cut Pro sequences, linked to ProRes HQ clips
10	Color Correction/Basic Compositing	Final Cut Pro sequences (reels) Notes	Colorist Ben (DP) Myself	Final Cut Pro Color Motion After Effects	Color corrected reels with all titles and effects in place
11	Prep for Sound Edit	Audio files Final Cut Reels (preferably color corrected, but at least the final conforms	Me	Final Cut Pro	Quicktimes for each reel per the sound designer/composer specs Sound tracks grouped per spec OMF files per reel Sound Design Notes in binder
12	Sound Design	OMF files, etc. as above	Sound Designer Foley Artist? Dialog Editor?	ProTools or other sound software Final Cut Pro	Stereo LTRT session files Possibly 5.1 session files
13	Music	Quicktimes and sound notes	Composer	Instruments Music mixing software	Soundtrack, broken into reels, premixed
14	Mix	Session files Quicktimes Soundtrack files (if not already part of session files)	Sound Designer Mixer(?)	ProTools Mixing hardware	Bounce tracks
15	Final Output	Blank HDCAM and Digibeta stock Final Cut reels Bounce tracks	Me Post House Editor Mixer?	Online suite	Projection master SD tape master DVD master (Quicktimes)

Some specifics:
1. We picked ProRes LT because it offers the best compromise between file size and quality. H.264 can be difficult to edit with natively - it's a long-GOP format, which means that Final Cut has to do a lot of math to reconstruct the frames at your edit points. This can cause machines to chug and drop frames during playback, which is not good. The whole long-GOP vs. i-frame discussion is beyond the scope of this article; but I'll dig up some good resources for you or talk about it more in-depth at some point.

ProRes LT is an i-frame format (individual frames are stored instead of groups of frames), but the file size is manageable.

2. Pluraleyes is a stand-alone program that can take clips in a Final Cut Pro sequence and line them up. Assuming you have camera audio, Pluraleyes can line up your separate-source audio files with your video (with camera sound) files.

3. I'm glossing over a lot of the sound post process (which could have its own diagram); I'll save that for another blog entry.

So now you've got a basic idea of what we'll be doing over the next few months. Future blogs will focus on the individual steps, with more specifics and how-tos. I'd go into more detail but this entry is getting pretty long as it is. Until next time then!

The Film Is On The Hard Drive!

After thirteen wonderful, challenging, action-packed days, Found In Time now sits on several hard drives. I've spent the past week dealing with equipment returns, catching up on expense receipts, and following up on the inevitable hangnails (missing batteries, damaged props, etc.)

It's hard to describe how I feel. Witnessing the cast and crew work incredibly hard to put the world of the story together, listening to the actors creating depth and texture, feeling part of a big electric circuit... it's an exhilarating experience, and one very good reason to go into production. The long hours, erratic sleep, physical hardship, mishaps, upset, and chaos are just checkpoints along the way.

By the end of the coming week, the production will be wrapped - all the paperwork filed away, receipts counted, everyone paid - and post will officially begin with the logging and organizing of the footage. By then, I'll have more perspective and a cooler head, and I'll be able to talk more about the production experience, including lessons learned for next time.

Simeon Moore, our gaffer, has posted some wonderful production stills on the Found In Time Fan Page. We'll be posting some behind-the-scenes clips at some point in the future as well. Stay tuned.