questions for the editors

[7734]

hey guys, i'm curious as to what type of hardware you guys use for you digital editing. my comp (PC) is running a 2.13 ghz Core 2 Duo with a 256 MB Gforce grfx card. My hard drives are all 7200 rpm and of course my NLE is the superb Vegas. Most of the little things i've done have worked really well, that is the quality is as great as it should be and nothing's ever crashed, and all the final products are seamless. but of course I hear that rendering a full movie can take days and days, so i really don't know how my hardware will stack up in the end (when my bud and I actually get the movie up and running!) are any of you guys rocking the quad cores? I'm almost interested in the Core 2 Extreme 3.0 ghz but at $1100 it's a little steep. any feedback?

[MinionZombie]

Well, obviously the more powerful and more capable a rig is, the quicker it'll render out a flick. But I guess it also depends on what you're asking it to do - like Magic Bullet - that adds a lot more time. I remember rendering out the final version of IAZM2 (which had a layer of white diffusion over all of it) took something like 11 hours to do on my rig, and that was for about 20 minutes worth of footage. What you could do, if you're worried about things taking longer, is render out parts of the film to a miniDV tape or an AVI - whatever floats your boat - and then take all the parts and stick them together (by this stage they're all finished off as you want) and then render out from there, because if it's just straight forward rendering, that usually takes a very short amount of time when compared to having to do everything at once. I often do this sort of thing on larger projects, it also helps if you're worried about losing data, or just don't want to run the risk (even if the risk is in reality rather small). Like when I write an essay, I print it off in stages so I have hard copies to go along with the saved copies). My rig is: 2.2ghz processor 1gig RAM 256mb ATI 9600 graphics I personally use Vegas for the more complex editing tasks (such as Magic Bullet, or other things) but for the main 'cut & shut' chopping I use the far simpler (and admittedly far more unstable) Pinnacle Studio. Indeed, Studio isn't flash at all, but I can do basic editing on it fast and easy - and ultimately most editing is a fairly simple task, cutting between stuff and usually not having to do anything properly fancy. For the fancier stuff, then I go to Vegas...either doing that first or doing it second...printing to miniDV after whichever is first and then re-importing. When I come to do IAZM3, the entire thing will require a lot of Magic Bullet work, so what I'm going to do - and this is because my rig does take a while to do complex rendering - do a rough cut of the film with all the shots I'm going to use. I'll render that out to miniDV, then re-import into Vegas. Slice all the individual shots out again and then apply the Magic Bullet, then print to miniDV and re-import again where I'll go back to Studio for the final edit. Sounds complex to you lot perhaps, but it makes sense to me and it's what I'm comfortable with - it eases me at the very least in terms of not wanting to run the risk of losing any data (no matter how slim the chance) - because I know that if that ever happened, it'd be soul destroying and make me so f*cking angry...so I like to be safe rather than sorry. Anyway, it makes sense for me, and does the rendering in stages, which for my rig is helpful. Anyway, not sure if any of this is of any use whatsoever, but I got on a roll.

[Danny]

for my crappy youtueb vids i use movie maker, but for stuff for my degree were going to be using... final cut pro i believe, allthough theres another one that begins with film too, im not sure which it could be.

[PJoseph]

When I'm editing TV shows, we generally use Avids (MAC) for offline and Symphony (PC) for online. This is because ease of use between systems and editors - we all share the media from one source, so we are all connected - and sharing projects back and forth is litterally a drag and drop process. At home, I'm runnig FCP 4 (old) on my laptop and often times, when I'm editing other little bits for tv shows, I bust out the FCP and crank out cuts, bump them off to DV and then put them in the main show. I love my FCP. In fact, it's time to upgade. If anyone out there really plans on cutting professionally, you've got to be Mac savvy - while there is AVID Adrenanline for PC, it sucks. Sucks more and more as I use it. Now, the AVID online software, Symphony is a PC based machine, but that's not for the offline. Films these days are getting cut on FCP for MAC (No Country For Old Men proudly puts that in its credit). Of course, if you are cranking out films at home and you've got a PC based editing system, I would never discourage you NOT to use it - use the tools you have - ultimately they are all tools and how you use them is the trick. But I believe some of you plan on cutting as a profession, and you need to learn these two pieces of software if you plan on making the leap. pJ

[DjfunkmasterG]

hey guys, i'm curious as to what type of hardware you guys use for you digital editing. my comp (PC) is running a 2.13 ghz Core 2 Duo with a 256 MB Gforce grfx card. My hard drives are all 7200 rpm and of course my NLE is the superb Vegas. Most of the little things i've done have worked really well, that is the quality is as great as it should be and nothing's ever crashed, and all the final products are seamless. but of course I hear that rendering a full movie can take days and days, so i really don't know how my hardware will stack up in the end (when my bud and I actually get the movie up and running!) are any of you guys rocking the quad cores? I'm almost interested in the Core 2 Extreme 3.0 ghz but at $1100 it's a little steep. any feedback? When I edited Deadlands I used Sony Vegas 6.0, and was using a single core AMD 64 3700+ with a 7900GT Video card. The 72 minute version took 2 hours and 11 minutes to render completely. Now I am using the Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 with 2.66ghz, 4gb of Ram and an 8500GT video card with 512 mb of ram on the card. The rendering of the 72 minute version took 54 minutes. You will be fine 7734, no sweat, your PC's specs are fine.

[MinionZombie]

Wise words PJ. While I do edit a fair bit, it's mainly on my own projects. When I get to make my first indie - hopefully sometime in the not too distant future anyway - I'd look to get someone to edit it. While I can enjoy editing, it can often be a pain in my arse at times. I'll be editing some projects soon which I'm getting paid for, but they're small projects which will be fairly simple to construct and don't require anything fancy. But I'm not looking to edit professionally, so I just stick with what is right for me right now and what does the job I want. But indeed, if you're going properly professional, it ultimately still comes down to Avid or FCP.

[PJoseph]

Glad to help Minion...like I said, you should use the tools you have because you will still learn how to edit and that's more important. I'll tell you a little of my story - my father taught me how to edit on Super 8mm when I was thirteen. Years later, I didn't have an AVID in film school - still cut on flatbeds. When I was hired to produce my first TV show in Miami, I had no clue how to use an AVID. I had messed around with one, but never really cut something for real. I learned how to cut a multicam TV show on an AVID in one week by watching someone else edit. You know why? Because I was already an editor, I was just learning how to use a new tool. When I got FCP for my G3, again - it only took me a few days to effectively cut. I never once took a class on either pieces of software - I just picked up tricks from other people, and learned by doing. I actually never started out in the business as an editor, I just started editing my own shows - a skill that has become invaluable because I have a larger skillset. So, keep trucking on what you have - ultimately, the language of editing is the same. When you get to the projects that require AVID or FCP, the transition will be easy. pJ

[C5NOTLD]

. But indeed, if you're going properly professional, it ultimately still comes down to Avid or FCP. Depends on what you mean by professional. You can achieve professional editing results with other software if you are strictly looking at distribution to home video (dvd). The plus for Avid and FCP is that they are great for theatrical/shot on film projects. Render time on a 90 minute movie is 90 minutes. My system: 3.0 GHz Core2 Duo P4 CPU,1333MHz FSB/8MB Cache 2 GIG DDR2-667 Nvidia Dual Head PCI-e Graphics Card 2 GIG ram 1 TB video storage (32MB cache) 160 GB audio drive 160 GB system drive Editing package: Video Toaster Additional Software: Lightwave 3D 9.0 (animation and compositing) Adobe Photoshop Adobe Audition Aura

[MinionZombie]

More wise words PJ, like you said, the actual act of editing never changes across the board. The theory of editing is something I've been learning for many years now, both by studying and by doing, and that has helped me become a better cameraman - which is more where I'm currently climbing the ladder at the moment. On a documentary I've been working on for quite some time now, the editor has frequently praised my footage and the variety of shots, because it was good footage but also because it made his job a lot easier...not tooting my own horn, just putting that forward. Indeed, like you said, when it comes to learning new software it's always easier when you're just shown. I used a very small amount of FCP this year when I was working as a footage loader/logger on a social study project. The stuff I needed to know was shown to me. It was simple and straight forward when I was shown exactly what to do and makes using new software so much better, I'm not one for sitting down in front of new software and learning all the bells and whistles...I prefer to learn something like that by being shown/doing under instruction. Perhaps in the future I might get into FCP or Avid, under instruction, but it's not my intention...not that I'd be dead against it, but you know...

[PJoseph]

C5 - yes, you can achieve pro results with lots of software and there is no reason not to - especially if you are working on your own and you make great stuff with it. When I say professinally, I mean this - if you wanted to get a job as an offline editor on a TV show or movie, you would be cutting on an AVID or FCP. When I hire an editor, that's what they need to know. And BTW, editors make a good salary - if you want to edit as a career, it's worth learning those systems. pJ

[MinionZombie]

Define a good salary. Indeed, there's proper professional, and then there's lower levels/semi-professional I guess, and then there's a whole other level which is "whatever you do for your own stuff". In terms of pro, it's good that it ultimately comes down to Avid or FCP, because it narrows/standardises the playing field basically.

[PJoseph]

An average rate for TV show editors is about $3000/week. If you cut commercials, it's a lot more. if you cut network scripted shows, it's very good and you can go union. If you cut features, can be great. pJ

[GingeUK]

Pentium 2 Duo Core 2.67 2 GB RAM NVidia GT8600 500 GB Hard drive Software: Adobe Premier CS3 Adobe After Effects CS3

[C5NOTLD]

C5 - yes, you can achieve pro results with lots of software and there is no reason not to - especially if you are working on your own and you make great stuff with it. When I say professinally, I mean this - if you wanted to get a job as an offline editor on a TV show or movie, you would be cutting on an AVID or FCP. When I hire an editor, that's what they need to know. And BTW, editors make a good salary - if you want to edit as a career, it's worth learning those systems. pJ You're absolutely right. As you already know a lot of independent filmmakers use other systems besides Avid and FCP.

[Danny]

i swear avid was one of the topics my new film teacher was talking about when he got into what we would be editing with and said soemthing along the lines of "its not being taught since its effectivley able to be used as a consumer product, you will be taught to use newer industry standards instead" his words not mine, so dont bitch at me about my post for once