ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Depends entirely on the project. Some will be fast, some slow, depends on the money and quality of the production. 3-4 months seems short, but if you don't need pickups, and have a team in place, you can get a picture lock straight after the edit, then work on the colouring and soundtrack in parallel. There is no single rule for all.

11 years, 11 months ago - Tim iloobia

Hi there John,
Agree with Paddy - it really depends on the project.
There is no one timeframe that suits all projects. But what I wanted to add is that setting up your project and organising it well can make all the difference between hemorrhaging time or saving it.
Organisation in the edit suite with bins set up tidily and self contained, footage organised properly in the backend and not scattered all over the place, a clear paper edit on a wall away from the monitor, and assertive decision making with a low tolerance to procrastination have helped me through many potential timeholes in edits. Taking up brainspace remembering where footage is feels wasteful, I like my bins to be idiot proof so I learn my way around the footage as quickly as I can and don't have to think about where anything is. Hunting for footage is my biggest timehole.
I did a feature edit in just under 12 weeks with a very assertive director who I had worked with in the past and we planned our days very carefully to always have goals which we needed to reach at the end of each one. And despite many people around us telling us it was crazy to attempt it in such little time, it worked and actually made me realise that long drawn out edits are often just a waste of time. That said I, I have also spent a year on a feature edit but it was a completely different type of film. Hope my ramble is of some use.

11 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Good lord, Tim. I think I'll have to move to the U.K. 12 weeks has become standard here. The DGA gives, by contract, the director 10 weeks to finish his cut. That's not to say that he'll get more time, and usually does. I wish post times were longer. Like you, my longest cut on a feature went just short of a year (just picture cutting, not the entire post schedule), and that's when we cut on film, but those days are long gone.

I agree with Paddy--as usual!

I've got a 20 minute short now, sitting on the shelf until I can come up with the cash for timing and a proper mix: both on real stages, not in my living room. But the shelf schedule has been really beneficial. It's given the composer and sound designer plenty of time, and the film is better for it. Most of the time in shorts, people are working out of the kindness of their hearts. So I'm the last person to say "Hey, I know I'm not paying you, but why is it taking so long?" People have to make a living while doing your thing for free.

If you're paying people, on a feature, I'd imagine that 18 months isn't normal. But what's normal? Each film is its own beast. And what do you mean by post? The entire post schedule or just picture editing? Where are you now? Did you cut the thing, then realize you were missing huge chunks that the director didn't get, so are there re-shoots involved? Did the editor get to do a first cut without interference, or was the director in the room? An inexperienced director will want to try things that any decent editor knows won't work, but we still have to do it. That will eat a schedule up like you wouldn't believe. If re-shoots, were the actor's schedules workable, or did you have to wait for availability? Is there a lot of green screen work that can take a lot of time for compositing, especially if the screen wasn't lit properly during the shoot? Was the crew not very experienced? That will add to any post schedule: you have to deal with other's mistakes. Are you making the editor also be the assistant editor? Doubling up on any job will add to your schedule. Is there a lot of scoring involved? I tend to think giving the composer 6 months a nice thing to do--but that's rare as well. But the shorter time a composer has, the more he will go to the shelf of shit he was tinkering with in his spare time. Not something specifically for YOUR film. If you're doing it properly, scoring can take time. How long was principle photography? The shorter the shooting schedule, the longer the post, for this reason: you've probably killed your crew. Tired people make mistakes. Mistakes the post people have to fix. Or you didn't have enough time or equipment to light it well, so all that has to be fixed in color grading, which takes more time. A bad producer or Production Manager will always add to post time--especially a bad Producer.

i work uncredited fixing films for a living. In those cases, post times are unusually long. I have to shoot scenes to make the film work. Pick up shots that should have been gotten in the first place. Then re-edit the entire picture. Is that the case on your thing? If so, 18 months is short.

There's that old adage that is very true. Picture a triangle with these words at each corner; FAST, CHEAP, GOOD. You can have 2, but not all 3. You can have it fast and cheap, but it won't be good. You can have it good and cheap, but it won't be fast. You can have it fast and good, but it won't be cheap. Where do you fall?

In the end, if you're trying to do a feature on a shoe-string budget, all bets are off. It takes as long as it takes. Especially if the people doing the budget didn't know what they were doing. And believe me, I seen some budgets by people that are really experienced in production, but didn't know shit about post--where somebody just pulled numbers out of their ass. That budget from 2 years earlier will bite post in the ass, and really add to the schedule.