FORUMS: list search recent posts

film or video editor???

COW Forums : Art of the Edit

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
rap
film or video editor???
by
on May 12, 2006 at 6:57:33 pm

Hello everybody

i have a question and its kind of silly but im gonna try anyway
so if we are editors, work on non linear systems, avid , fcp .. and dont really know much about the film (35mm...) editing meaning manually cutting
do we call ourselves video editors or film editors
silly ha? But just wanna make sure for once coz we keep trying to figure that out . Can i put in my business card


Return to posts index

btveditor
Re: film or video editor???
on May 12, 2006 at 9:26:51 pm

Good day Rap,

I think there is still a difference between the two, eventhough with todays technology that line is blurring. I have been a video editor for 17 years and I consider myself a video editor or just editor. I have worked on everything from :30 commercials to hour long documentaries, the final output for all of them have been video tape. If you work strictly on docs then you would be a doc editor. So, if you work with film for much of what you do, you would be a film editor.

Also, don't forget that between the two, you're dealing with frame rates, resolution quality and a whole host of other differences. But, like I said at the beginning it's all starting to blur together.

So, long story short, if you cut commercials, then you would be a spot editor, if docs then a doc editor, news then a news editor.

John


Return to posts index

Chaz Shukat
Re: film or video editor???
on May 13, 2006 at 3:33:00 am

I have been a video editor for over 25 years. I worked in linear video and then non-linear video. Film was film. But now, "films" are being shot and edited on video, even if they sometimes finish on film. If you edit a feature "film" like this, are you a "film" editor? Film meaning a feature? Or are you a feature editor, but still not a film editor?

Chaz S.


Return to posts index


rap
Re: film or video editor???
by
on May 13, 2006 at 6:47:21 am

great thanks a lot guys for answering my silly question :)


Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 14, 2006 at 1:16:12 am

film editors are feature editors in my eyes. there are a ton of do it yourself 'features' being done these days, so it is a tough subject. many of these i would call a hobbyist editor (though i don't think they consider this their title), but there are those who know what they are doing (maybe they went to film school for starters). it's obvious that hollywood type films are cut by film editors, it's tough after that.

nearly everything i cut is on film, but i call myself a spot editor.

this would be a good question to the A.C.E.


Return to posts index

Eric Susch
Re: film or video editor???
on May 15, 2006 at 6:57:13 pm

This is not a difficult question and I'm surprised that the answers are so vague. There shouldn't be any confusion. A "Film Editor" cuts film. Someone who cuts a movie on an NLE, even if it was shot on film and ends up on film in a theatre, is not a Film Editor.

I wouldn't put Film Editor on your business card unless it something that you do.


Return to posts index


person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 16, 2006 at 2:56:41 am

this is crazy talk. many films are cut on NLE by many great film editors. if i'm a photographer, and start using a digital camera, does this mean i am no longer a photographer?


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcow
Pixel Monkey
Re: film or video editor???
on May 16, 2006 at 5:12:26 pm


Interesting thread.

I tend to look at all forms of editing as relatively the same gigantic process throughout, and in conversation often build an analogy to driving a car. The difference between film and video is the medium it's shot/delivered on, and is analogus to the road the car is driven on. Although most of us can drive a car, we can't claim ourselves as "racecar drivers" or "tracter-trailer drivers".

The "film industry" has changed monumentally since the turn of the century, and now (with mixed emotions) includes a great deal more novices than when it first started. Personally, I enjoy the fact that the industry once described by Eisenstein as "the highest form of art and expression" has opened up to the general public. When Lemmy from Motorhead was asked if he minded when bands copy his work. He said he didn't care - that it just means there's more bands out there for him to copy off of as well.

During the progression of the industry, the term "a film" has become clouded... not corrupted, just a little more all-inclusive. Students say they shoot "films" on DV, much like they say a small Toyota with an enlarged exhaust pipe and a neon green flamejob is a racecar. In the mindset of that whole heavily-marketed culture, I guess they feel it's justified. I still try to look at it from a more basic point of view: if you get a paycheck for your skills and your execution as a racecar driver, you can claim the title of one.

In one breath I say nothing beats the Avid interface. The next day, you'll find me with a hot splicer, three armslengths of 16 draped around my neck, and the grin of a 7-year-old at the carnival. The processes are different, and the titles may base themselves more on the skills in these processes, but I prefer "Editor" as the title in any case. When it's all done, it's not a Mac, a PC or a Steenbeck, but an audience and a screen. If they can't tell, then the job was done right.

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index

Eric Susch
Re: film or video editor???
on May 17, 2006 at 2:51:14 am

[person] "many films are cut on NLE by many great film editors."

But they're not cutting film. You're confusing the definition of film as a technology and the more vague definition of film as in movie. You don't want to do that on your business card. You should be specific because if someone assumes you know how to cut film and you don't it could become an awkward first impression situation.

If all you're interested in is using the term "Film Editor" because you think it makes you sound more prestigious, then I don't know what to say other than, it doesn't. It only impresses people who don't know what they are talking about. If you want to impress people show them your reel.




Return to posts index


Pixel Monkey
Re: film or video editor???
on May 17, 2006 at 4:34:46 pm

[Eric Susch] "using the term "Film Editor" because you think it makes you sound more prestigious"

Actually, that's probably where a lot of the confusion comes from. The term is often used to by producers of video-based movies to beef-up sales pitches to potential funders. Recently, I've been hearing more video editors say "I edit movies" or "I edit shorts" than "I edit films". Hopefully, it's an industry-wide trend.

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 18, 2006 at 1:21:31 pm

"You should be specific because if someone assumes you know how to cut film and you don't it could become an awkward first impression situation."

this is just weird to me. i wouldn't give my card out to people that don't understand the difference between a film editor, spot editor, negative cutter, etc. what we are talking about is a title, not the specific duties involved (i.e. editing with the actual film print). if i'm a lead guitar player in a band, does the title shift when i change over from an electric to an acoustic? the physical aspects of the artisan's tools involved are irrelevant. film editor = movie editor. you don't have to actually switch the 'film' to 'movie' to end the confusion. it's okay.

the nature of everyone's job in the world is quickly changing, and you're saying the titles should change with it as well. smiley face here.


Return to posts index

Pixel Monkey
Re: film or video editor???
on May 19, 2006 at 12:40:27 pm


I've been re-reading select chapters from Behind the Seen this week. No question in those pages about what the workload is associated with film cutting vs the nonlinear realm. It refers to film as destructive editing (splicing and losing trims in the bin), and nonlinear as nondestructive. Man, I need to break out my old Rivas and go to town!

(Highly HIGHLY recommend if you haven't yet, to read it - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735714266/002-0996252-5927228?v=glance&n=...


______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index


Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 6:52:14 am

"...if i'm a lead guitar player in a band, does the title shift when i change over from an electric to an acoustic?..."

I'm not sure I agree with this analogy. Your still playing the same instrument. It would be more like comparing using a drum machine to actually playing the drums. It takes real talent to program a drum machine to make it sound real. And, just because you may do it well will not make you a good drummer, and vice-versa, I do my share of editing but if you asked me to touch film, well, I think that you would be very disappointed.

--
Personally my take is that you are an editor. What kind isn't less important, but secondary to the title. What are most job postings or RFP's asking for? A film editor or a spot editor? Or do they ask for an editor for (whatever.) I'm not saying definitively here because I haven't seen an RFP lately. What do they say?

Really its all semantics though isn't it? Your reel and knowing what you can do is what its all about. The personal title you give yourself is just that. What would Walter Murch say if you asked him his occupation?


Return to posts index

JNeo25
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 7:32:01 am

UM. Maybe it's just me but, I'm not interested in interviewing a film editor who wants to debate the semantics of his self-proclaimed title when I realize he doesn't know the first thing about working with film. It's misleading and will do more damage to your goal of getting hired than good.

Sounds high maintinance and most editors aren't hired for their debate skills. Film editors work with elements those of us in video don't. Dailies, 24p, Film-to-tape transfer, 2kfiles, working in tandem with lead compositors, fx designers, maya teams, outputting and reference film reels for a final print - anyone hiring a film editor is looking for an expert with serious experience in dealing with these topics.

If you put film editor down, somebody looking to make a video film (which you say you're experienced at) might think you're a film editor with the experience above, and assume you're too expensive. My advice, be honest about who you are and let your reel speak for itself. Sure, you might get an interview at a film house, but it'll be painfully obvious that you don't understand film concepts fairly quickly and the interviewer could actually blackball you for wasting their time.

Producers aren't looking for a master debator. The only people impressed with that title will be people that don't know anything about it.



Return to posts index

Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 11:38:24 am

[person]... many films are cut on NLE by many great film editors. if i'm a photographer, and start using a digital camera, does this mean i am no longer a photographer?

I do see what you are saying here person, but if we take this scenario all the way it sheds a bit of light on this too.
Is the subject of an editor here compared to the photographer or is the editor more compared to a darkroom technician. I have spent many hours in the darkroom, but when I use digital i may be able to use the theory behind darkroom development but I need to learn Photoshop. On the flip side, I know plenty of photographers who shoot competely digital and couldn't even roll film onto a canister reel to develop it.

An editor using NLE that is going to be outpout to film has to understand film. He needs to know what type of film he is coming from and what type of film will be output to as well. Attention to focus is highly critical when editing for film output, getting NTSC color is nothing like getting the color correct for output to film, on and on and on.. The talent of laying out a scene is only part of the equation. A film editor has many, many more things to consider...

Of course, I have never edited for film, all of my information is only coming from what I have read. So what I say is only second hand, I realize this..! But, in the past I have spent enough time in the darkroom to understand that digital output is nothing like negative or print film.



Return to posts index


person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 2:12:18 pm

use the titles you wish. it really doesn't matter in the end. i was just trying to make the point that a 'film editor' should not have to physically cut the film to have this title. in my opinion the 'film' in film editor means 'movie or feature'. that's it.


Return to posts index

Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 5:18:34 pm

[person] use the titles you wish. it really doesn't matter in the end. i was just trying to make the point that a 'film editor' should not have to physically cut the film to have this title. in my opinion the 'film' in film editor means 'movie or feature'. that's it.


Good Point person. Do "film" editors even touch film anymore? Except for maybe in a small production that doesn't have the resources, the editor may take care of this, but as things have changed I would venture to say that at this point he is really wearing another hat.. Even in the feature film market, isn't the Director of Photography taking care of most of the DI?


Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 5:28:28 pm

not sure what DI means? is it Digital Interface? the DP title is another subject by the way. is a digital video camera person a DP in you opinion?


Return to posts index


Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on May 24, 2006 at 7:54:58 pm

DI = Digital Intermediate.

Many Cinematographers are using the digital process to manipulate the color space of the film. For instance by using a certain film stock and development process you can create a desired look by using color in different ways, i.e. high contrast vs low contrast, vibrant colors, or even vibrance on specific channels, etc.

For instance if you wanted to have the three-srip Technicolor high saturated look, instead of using film and development to achieve this, you can get more control (kind of) by using a Digital Intermediate (DI).

In this way, a cinematographer may choose to use differnt stock for different situations, for intance, to give more control and then create the look with the DI.

A good article on this is from American Cinematographer January 2005 Issue on Color Space. Great Article.


Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 25, 2006 at 1:49:18 am

ahh yes. i've been in a lustre session before. pretty powerful stuff. basically it all has to do with the LUT's. being able to translate the digital color correction into film. basically it's a telecine for film.


Return to posts index

joefeng
Re: film or video editor???
on Jun 30, 2006 at 6:16:35 pm

Of course the DI is taken care of by the DP...It is the DP's responsibility to set the look of the images, not the editor's.

As for the film vs. video editor question, I think it entirely depends on which definition of the word "film" you believe in. I believe that it refers to the art form, not the medium. So, you can be editing "video" and be a film editor, or, inversely, editing "film" and still be a video editor. :)


Return to posts index

Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on Jun 30, 2006 at 6:42:37 pm

Quote: joefeng Of course the DI is taken care of by the DP...It is the DP's responsibility to set the look of the images, not the editor's.

Just to clear up... I don't believe we said that DI was the editor's responsibility. (This was the point. That it wasn't)

It's interesting how on a film edit with NLE, the editor does not really take the lead in color decisions. When editing video, (NTSC for instance,) color corection is usually the editor's responsibility.

As for the film vs. video editor question, I think it entirely depends on which definition of the word "film" you believe in. I believe that it refers to the art form, not the medium. So, you can be editing "video" and be a film editor, or, inversely, editing "film" and still be a video editor. :)

True, to a point, but if you are editor for a feature film you better know what you are doing. For instance, color isn't an issue for the editor when working on a film, but focus is. It is usually the editors job to make sure that shots are in focus. If he gets it wrong.. Uhh Ohh ..!

---

IMO - Here is where it is important. Your business card is just for contact purposes- Use what ever title you are most comfortable with on your business card.. Your resume is where you explain what you do. And this is the information that is important.


Return to posts index

joefeng
Re: film or video editor???
on Jun 30, 2006 at 6:51:13 pm

Yeah, it is interesting how color correction responsibilities shift from the DP to the editor in video...

I'm not too sure what you mean by the film editor being responsible for shots being in focus...On a film, the First AC is the one in charge of keeping shots in focus. If, in post, there's a lot of soft shots, the AC's never gonna work in town again! Or did you mean that the editor has to make sure that he does not use those soft shots caused by the bad AC?


Return to posts index

Chip Johns
Re: film or video editor???
on Jun 30, 2006 at 10:22:21 pm

Yea. What I have read anyway, is since many are using dvd to view dailies instead of film- making sure focus is pulled correctly puts more of this responsibility on the editor.

If this isn't correct, let me know ... ?????


Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on Jul 1, 2006 at 1:33:02 am

yes the editor should pick shots that are in focus, but if there isn't any, or the best performance is soft, then the dp/director better watch out. as far as color correction, i have a say in the telecine on commercial work, though what i say isn't the end of the decision. but the others do view my opinion important. some art directors/creative directors insist i be in on the xfer. for features, this is probably different as previously discussed.


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcow
paul77
Re: film or video editor???
on May 25, 2006 at 5:54:36 pm

Just say "editor" sheesh.



Return to posts index

person
Re: film or video editor???
on May 28, 2006 at 1:20:58 am

okay. but video editors are video editors. not editors.


Return to posts index

Chaz Shukat
Re: film or video editor???
on May 29, 2006 at 3:30:07 am

If you just say you are an editor, most people will think you are a "print" editor, like for newspapers, magazines, books, etc. You need to say film or video so as not to be confused with print. And no one outside of the industry will know what a non-linear editor is. And inspite of the academy awards show explainations each year of what an editor does, most people don't have a clue of what's really involved.

Chaz S.


Return to posts index

Pixel Monkey
Carlin-ize it!
on Jun 2, 2006 at 4:17:08 pm



[Chaz Shukat] "...most people will think you are a "print" editor, like for newspapers, magazines..."

Gave up monster.com and careerbuilder sites ages ago. Kept getting alerts for web editors. To 98% of the modern population, that's what an editor is.


Hee hee. Love these posts - teetering on the edge of "Good Grazing". How's this: instead of the word "Editor", let's become another skit in George Carlin's Euphamisms routine...
Video Editors become "Pixel Media Ammendment Specialists"
Film Editors become "Emulsion Media Emotional Perspective Specialists"
Assistant Editors become "Pixel Media Technical Support Associates"
Negative Cutters become "Positive Cutters"
and Online Editors become "Pixel Media Upconversion and Adaptation Finalizers".

______
/-o-o-
`(=)`/...Pixel Monkey
`(___)



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]