Let me introduce myself: I'm Michael Chaskes, a Los Angeles-based freelance film editor (for more about me, visit my home page, Michael's Cutting Room). Several years ago, I noticed that there weren't many web pages which are devoted exclusively to the art of film editing, and so I created this page to provide some basic information and links. Since then, I'm happy to report that a bounty of editing-related pages have sprung up, and you'll find links to many of them below.
Since I started this page in 1996 (how the time does fly!), many of you have written to say hello to me. Thanks! And if you wrote a while ago and still haven't heard back from me... well, my sincerest apologies. My life has taken some interesting turns this year, and as a result, my e-mail responses have fallen (and will probably remain) several months in arrears. I'm reading your letters as I receive them, but replies may yet be a while in coming. Thanks for your patience, and I expect to get around to replying... one of these days. (NOTE: Regrettably, I cannot promise lengthy replies of any sort, particularly to technical questions about the editing process, interview questions about myself, or advice on film schools and editing careers. I love to write on all of these subjects, but alas, time simply does not permit. Your technical questions will be much better addressed if you follow the links at the bottom of this page and/or read some of the suggested books. And for all who'd like to know how I've gotten to where I am now--wherever that may be--please visit my home page (URL above) and/or read my journal.) I can be reached at chaskes@earthlink.net.
If you haven't already seen it, I commend to you Loren Miller's insightful short treatise on motion in movies, which he graciously allowed me to reprint below.
There are also a few new links below. I'd love to add more reader contributions. From the outset, this page has contained a standing request for readers to submit material or links that are relevant to film editing. I've received lots of link suggestions (and added most of them), but very little actual writing. Your film-editing articles, tips, insights, and stories would add to this page's liveliness and value... so send 'em in! (Of course, all reprinted work will be duly credited to its author(s).) And naturally, please keep sending those links too.
Thanks for your visits, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Cutting Film vs. Non-Linear Editing
Newsgroup Postings About Editing
Film Editing Resources on the 'Net
A common misconception about filmmaking is that the director shoots only what film s/he needs, and that what is seen onscreen is more or less everything that the director shot. In most cases, nothing could be further from the truth.
Ordinarily, a director shoots vast amounts of "coverage"--that is, raw footage from which the film will be constructed. For any given scene, the director will frequently shoot a minimum of three "setups" or "angles"--that is, views on the scene that vary from each other in terms of focal length, camera position, amount or type of camera motion, etc.
For instance, for a simple two-character dialogue scene, typical coverage might include a long shot (both characters visible along with their environment), a two-shot (both characters facing each other, visible from head down to shoulders or waist), over-the-shoulder shots (close shots of each character, with the shoulder and back of the head of the other character visible in foreground), and close-ups (head and shoulders, or just the head, of one character only). The director will often shoot the whole scene, in its entirety--not just the portions s/he expects to use--from each of these angles. Further, the director will often shoot and print more than one "take" of each angle, in order to get the best possible acting and technical performances or to explore alternative interpretations of the material. When all is said and done, the director will probably have shot between 10 and 20 times as much footage as will ultimately be seen in the finished film.
The "dailies" or "rushes" (the film "straight out of the camera," after it's been developed, printed, and synched with the production sound) look nothing like a finished film. The dailies-watching experience consists of seeing the same script material performed over and over again, in long takes without a single cut except when the camera has been stopped and re-started, seen a few times in a row from one angle, then a few times in a row from another, and then another. Clearly, this material has a long way to go before anyone will pay to see it!
This is where the film editor comes in. Rather than being the person who simply "takes out the bad parts," the editor "puts together the good parts." In fact, s/he puts together everything. The editor attends dailies screenings and takes notes from the director on which takes the director prefers, and if the director has any particular scheme in mind for how a scene should be put together.
Then the editor actually begins to assemble the movie, scene by scene. S/he will often spend some time looking at the footage again, getting to know it as well as possible. Then s/he will choose and mark sections of one take or another that s/he wants to use. Finally, s/he will begin to cut the selected pieces of film together. There will be many false starts along the way, as the editor looks at the scene coming together and decides whether it's working or not. S/he may ask the opinion of an assistant editor or other trusted associate about the scene. Finally, s/he will put it aside and move on to the next scene.
As the editor cuts, s/he must keep a number of considerations in mind. S/he must look for the best acting performances and technical values (camera motion, lighting, etc.). S/he must make each individual cut as fluid and seamless as possible (except where a more rough-hewn effect is desired). S/he must cut to new and appropriate angles at dramatically proper points in the scene. And, in the final analysis, s/he must use the material the director has shot to tell the story in as involving and as emotionally charged a way as possible.
(Note: For purposes of the following discussion, I will use the Avid Film Composer as a representative non-linear system, since it is the leading system as well as one with which I happen to be familiar.)
In the last several years, a revolution has taken place in film editing. Until recently, virtually all feature films were edited "on film." That is, editors cut actual film--workprint made from camera negative and mag dubbed from original production recordings. They viewed and listened to footage on an upright Moviola or on a flatbed table, marked cut points with grease pencil and Sharpie pen, and made the actual cuts with a splicer and tape.
A few editors preferred to cut film electronically, transferring dailies to videotape and then laboriously assembling a cut by re-recording selected shots from deck to deck in the order desired. This "linear" editing suffered from one major drawback: since no videotape was physically being spliced, the editor was required, upon trimming, extending, or adding a shot anywhere but at the end of the cut material, to re-record all of the cut work that followed the change. Film, on the other hand, still retained a marvelous "non-linear" quality: one could add or extract material anywhere in the cut without affecting the footage that followed it.
Computers facilitated a revolution in the editing room. By modifying home PCs such as the Apple Macintosh or DOS-based computers, Avid, Lightworks, and other companies ushered in the age of Digital Non-Linear editing. Their innovation: making it possible to digitize footage: originally onto optical disks, later onto high-capacity hard drives. Rather than cutting film or re-recording videotape, the editor merely creates files which tell the computer in what sequence to play back which pieces of digitized material. The editor can make changes at any point to any part of the sequence without affecting what follows.
Non-linear has swept the editing world. From studio films to low-budget, even to student filmmaking, everyone seems to be editing on Avid or a competing non-linear system. The president of the Editors Guild wrote in 1996 that film-based editing was dead, and in a recent conversation with a technician at a major Hollywood lab, I was told that 80% of all films they process are telecined for non-linear editing.
And yet, there are still plenty of flatbeds out there, and labs still print dailies on film if you want them to. (Mag stock is beginning to grow scarcer but, to my knowledge, will still be available for some time.) Cutting on film is still possible and still (at least compared to non-linear) relatively inexpensive.
What advantages do digital non-linear systems offer over traditional film-based editing? The first is an enormous savings in time. Cutting film requires endless putting up of rolls, taking down of rolls, shuttling through rolls, rewinding rolls, etc. to find and view footage (or, on a Moviola show, unwinding of shots, viewing shots, re-rolling shots, etc., etc.) When the editor actually wants to make a cut, s/he must physically line up the out point on both the picture and the track to assure sync, make the cut, splice the new shot into the cut, and splice the dailies roll back together to close up the gap. Finally, when the editor wishes to extend a shot, whether by a a few frames or a few feet, s/he must find the necessary footage--which might be back in the dailies rolls, hanging from the trim bin, rolled up with unfiled trims or lifts, or (as inevitably happens, particularly during a crunch) completely and mysteriously AWOL.
In non-linear, these problems disappear. The computer can instantly access and display any part of any shot at any time. Shots can be organized and re-organized without physical labor, by simply dragging shots into a new "bin" (the Avid term for a digital file folder). Cuts are made instantly; the editor need only choose an in and out point in the source material and an in or out point in the cut work (or vice versa), click a button, and voila. Extensions or trims can also be made instantly.
A second advantage of non-linear systems is the increased ability to experiment. In film, if an editor wishes to re-cut a scene while retaining the option of returning to the previous version, s/he must make a dupe of the old scene, reconstitute the footage back into the dailies rolls, and recut. This is time-consuming and expensive, results in a large number of splices in the workprint, and requires another reconstitution and re-assembly if the original version is opted for.
In non-linear, the editor simply creates a new file (or "sequence" in Avid parlance) for the alternate cut. Both sequences--the original and the recut--can then be viewed back-to-back if desired. One can theoretically generate any number of versions of a given sequence with no undesirable repercussions.
A third advantage of non-linear systems is the ability to instantly create and view optical effects (such as fades, dissolves, wipes, titles, superimpositions, etc.). In film editing, one marks the workprint with grease pencil where an optical is desired, but the actual appearance of the effect can only be imagined. Later, the required camera negative is pulled so that an optical house may create the actual opticals; if the editor doesn't like an optical, it must be discarded or re-ordered, and the original expense of producing the optical has been wasted.
Non-linear systems will create a viewable effect more or less instantly. Eventually, an optical house will still have to create optical negative with which to strike release prints; but the editor can first play with the effect on the computer until s/he is sure that the effect ordered is in fact wanted.
Non-linear systems also have a number of disadvantages. The first consideration--for low-budget films in particular--is their cost. In Los Angeles, an Avid Film Composer with a relatively modest 18 GB of digital storage can rent for between $700 and $1,500 per week, while a flatbed and editing bench setup (including rewinds and splicer) should rent for considerably less. (Of course, editing on film requires full-time work by one or more assistant editors, and in low-budget, their salaries may or may not eat up the remaining difference in cost.)
The second disadvantage is resolution. While some non-linear systems will digitize at "broadcast quality," systems geared toward feature film editing will generally digitize only at fairly low resolutions. At these resolutions, fine detail is lost and the image appears somewhat pixillated. This can make it difficult for an editor to assess the visual quality of a shot which s/he is considering for use in the cut. (Higher resolutions consume more disk storage, which adds extra expense. Avid's Film Composer does not even offer broadcast-quality resolutions, although their Media Composer 8000 and 9000 models do offer both broadcast-quality resolutions and film-cutting capability.)
The third disadvantage of non-linear systems is that one cannot easily view cut material on a movie screen (or even the dailies, for that matter, since--on low-budget films at least--videotapes are frequently telecined directly from negative, and positive workprint is never made). In film-based editing, of course, one can drag one's cut reels down to the screening room any old time and have a look. In non-linear, even if a production has the budget to print dailies as well as telecining them, assistant editors must output cut lists from the Avid and manually conform the workprint to the editor's work on the Avid. In this way, cut work can be screened in the ordinary manner... but at considerable expense.
A fourth disadvantage is the inevitability of downtime. Catastrophic breakdown of flatbed editors is rare; at most, typically, one might blow a lightbulb, which can be replaced in a moment. Avids, on the other hand, experience a variety of technical problems ranging from software conflicts to hardware incompatibilities to corrupted files to defective cards. Any one of these can stop editing dead in its tracks, and fixing it can in some cases take days. Even though Avids still save editing time in the long run, their occasional prolonged downtimes can cause intense frustration.
Finally, non-linear systems have one last disadvantage. By allowing filmmakers to edit faster than ever before, and with their high rental costs, they are encouraging producers to put fewer and fewer weeks of picture-editing into post-production schedules. This raises a question: just because it's become possible to cut a feature film in five weeks, does that make it desirable? Traditional film editing enforces, through its physicality, a slow and deliberate pace, and produces a happy by-product: plenty of time for editor and director to reflect on the cut. Sometimes it's necessary to walk away from a cut for a little while, then to come back and screen it again with a fresh eye. Reflection over a period of a few months can be good for a film in progress. By encouraging producers to trim down the editing process, non-linear systems are unintentionally causing films to be rushed into picture-lock, whether they're completely ready or not.
For better or worse, non-linear editing is clearly here to stay. How long film-based editing will co-exist with it is anyone's guess. Speaking strictly for myself, I think that the unbelievable speed and ease of non-linear editing more than makes up for its other deficiencies. After one has edited without those once-necessary evils of searching for trims or making one-frame extensions, returning to film-based editing seems like an impossible chore.
But, having returned to the occasional 16mm flatbed project after editing on Avid, I found that it is possible to go back. There are certain tactile pleasures to editing on film which non-linear can't match: the feel of celluloid in your hand as you thread up a flatbed or make a splice, and the satisfying sight of cut material slowly growing in diameter around the take-up core.
Of course, in the end it's all the same. As audiences view the finished film, they won't know by what technique it was edited; they will judge only whether the film touched them, moved them, entertained them, made them think. Putting together pieces of film to elicit these responses is the only thing that matters for the editor, whether s/he works on film, videotape, or non-linear.
by Loren Miller - excerpted (by author's permission) from the editing-l list, 10/28/98
The medium was and is about recordable motion and landscape, be it face or facade. The best films use those capabilities to highest advantage, indicating movement even on the soundtrack. Also the best actors use it, like Michael Caine--"it's all in the eyes, you see? Like that." And he darts his eyes to the left in an instructional video I really enjoyed.
That's what makes movies so great for me-- the RAIDERS-like chase is the ultimate in movement, but a classic showdown rivets you as well, with "nascent" motion--the promise of motion. You're watching for the slightest flinch--the operative word is WATCHING.
As screenwriter, as director, as editor, you devise scenes which play to the strength of the medium and--all other values being equal--you'll never go wrong. You'll also discover, your character dialog is rather secondary, in the sense that it never tells you what's happening or echoes the character's physically recordable behavior. Robert Gessner called this "Idea into Action through Character." Now why do you suppose this New York film professor was so concerned about "action" as opposed to "dialog"? Because he was teaching film, not stagecraft.
As editors, we often help story motion along--selection, arrangement, pacing. The problem is, if WE don't understand the medium's intrinsic love for motion any better than our directors, all we're going to do is try to emulate a pattern we've already seen from a century of world moviemaking. And while it pays the rent it does little to further the unique project before us or possibly to further the art.
If we understand what really makes movies tick we carve the pattern directly from the ideas embodied in the moving material. It's like John Dunning said in FIRST CUT (another good book, already recommended here) and I paraphrase--
"Forget theory; each film presents a different case."
Dunning cut Wyler's BEN-HUR [co-edited with Ralph Winters]. I was 11 or 12 when I saw it. I stepped out of the opera house into the sunlight that Montana Saturday, still reeling from the Chariot Race, and said to myself, "That's for me!" I still feel that way.
Now with this heavy treatise behind you-- who's designed a good movie lately? Or better yet, who among the week's top grossers once again forgot to use the medium to best advantage?
Y'all remember the first half of Carol Ballard's BLACK STALLION? I say there was a sinking ship sequence there which was ten times more effective than TITANIC.
I've contributed a number of posts about editing to various film-related newsgroups. I have reprinted them below, along with some responses, for the sake of whatever insights they may contain. (I have edited some of my own posts for clarity and length and shortened the posts of others' for length.)
Continuity in Editing
From Sarah and Michael Chaskes <chaskes@loop.com
Organization The Loop
Date Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:03:24 -0700
Newsgroups rec.arts.movies.production
Message-ID <3175164C.2495@loop.com
References 1
Daniela Saioni wrote:
I'll have you know that I am a script supervisor and I have been privvy to
countless closed sets of straight/gay/lesbian sex scenes. [snip] I have
NEVER been asked to leave a closed set (or any set, for that matter) because,
as you know, a script supervisor is responsible for making sure the show cuts
together, as well as making sure the slate is accurate, timing the scene and
getting the camera info. [snip] it's almost laughable how
the hormonally charged male keys miss the most obvious of details when moving
to a new angle in a sex scene. On the last one I did, I was the only one with
an objective eye who could place the actresses' hair and brastrap at the
appropriate match position to be able to cut into the closeups properly.
As an editor, I'd like to comment on Daniela's post. While I'd be the _last_ person
in the world to put down script supervisors (boy, if they're not doing their job
right, the editor's world becomes a living hell), I must take some issue with her
remark concerning "making sure the show cuts together."
There certainly _are_ cases where a script supervisor can affect whether a sequence
"cuts together." In a feature I cut, a chase scene (car chasing a truck, both
vehicles in motion) segues into an unscripted stunt (car jumps a ramp, landing
in the back of the truck, which is at a dead stop) _without any coverage having
been shot of the truck coming to a stop_. The director and I finessed this sequence
as best we could, but had _someone_ (script supervisor or otherwise) realized
this ahead of time, a major problem could have been avoided.
But Daniela seems to be referring to more minor lapses in continuity... hair and
clothing placement, etc. While these should by no means be ignored, I want to dispel
the myth that good cutting relies on slavish attention to such details.
Because the job of maintaining _perfect_ continuity is not possible, and because
shots are sometimes put together in an order not originally imagined during shooting,
there are always situations where the editor must choose between putting the scene
together according to continuity (e.g. holding on the master shot for the duration of
the entire 5-minute scene so as to avoid a disconcerting moment wherein the wine
glass leaps from the actor's left to right hand on the cut) _or_ cutting the scene
for maximum cinematic/dramatic effect (cutting in to the close-up, wine glass
be damned).
_No_ editor will opt for continuity in this case. And the funny thing is, in the
long run, it won't matter. Either the audience _won't notice_ the thing in the first
place, or it will just register as a brief twinge ("Look, Mabel, the wine glass
switched hands!") before the audience is (hopefully) transported away from such
mundane details by the power of the story. (The most anal viewers, of course, will
promptly and gleefully apply for membership in Premiere Magazine's "Gaffe Squad," but
we can't do anything about them.)
What I mean to say, Daniela, is that the editor _always_ appreciates a good script
supervisor. Big time. But to say that the script supervisor is responsible for
whether the film actually "cuts together" is in most cases, I'd say, something of an
overstatement.
Michael Chaskes
Daniela responded:
Re: Continuity in Editing From daniela@astral.magic.ca (Daniela Saioni) Organization Mondo Cinema Date Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:41:54 -0400 Newsgroups rec.arts.movies.production Message-ID <daniela-1904960441540001@elysium4.magic.ca References 1 2 I didn't mean to suggest that the editor is not actually the one responsible for making sure the film cuts together or that every single tidbit of continuity must be preserved at all possible moments (sorry if my posting sounded a bit cocky that way!) but when people ask me to summarize my function on set I have always paraphrased it with words to that extent (let's say there is a disconcerting cut or an obvious continuity error, who gets the blame for that? the continuity person, n'est-ce pas? And even if we don't get the blame, we do feel bad about it).
Daniela then asked me what I thought the script supervisor's important duties were from the editor's point of view. I responded, and she responded back as follows. Notes: 1) Her P.S. pertains to a post found farther down on this page.) 2) In most English-speaking countries, "Director of Photography" is abbreviated as "DOP" (as Daniela does below) rather than as the American "DP." (You may have already known this, but I only learned it recently myself.)
Re: Continuity in Editing Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 16:32:57 -0400 From: daniela@astral.magic.ca (Daniela Saioni) Organization: Mondo Cinema Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.production References: 1 In article <31883C86.56C4@loop.com, chaskes@loop.com wrote: But I'd say the most important one is the maintenance of _accurate_ script notes. Which takes were shot... which were ordered printed... what camera/sound rolls they were on... which takes were (as is inevitable) _misslated_. There's creating the lined script, too, of course (I have a theory that Avid is making the lined script less essential since, at least when relatively little footage is shot, it's almost faster to look at the available shots in the Avid bin than in the lined script anyway). But script notes are the key. Both as an assistant and as an editor, I've wasted many valuable hours when the script notes were not accurate, trying to figure out what footage I still needed to get or where a particular shot was. Frankly, from the editor's point of view, script supervision is a fairly thankless role... it generally gets noticed only when it isn't done right. But, fortunately, it usually is. :-) Michael Chaskes Hi Michael, thanks for your response. It's true about the lined script losing importance since the widespread use of Avid and other nonlinear technology. The editor of the last feature I did joked that all script notes end up in the blue box in his office because he cuts so fast (of course, that's not going to stop me from doing them accurately!). I understand why you see the notes as being the most important facet of the job of a continuitist from your point of view (indeed, without clear, accurate notes, a script person should just pack up and go home). But I wonder if you realize the number of times I've been on a set where either the director, the DOP or BOTH were either clueless about coverage or just stuck on occasion. Therein lies a very important time for the continuity person, for it is you that they turn to for advice as well as being the authority on the theoretical axis of action (and if the editor is on set, of course the editor will also be consulted, but they're usually busy cutting). Continuity gets called upon to make suggestions about coverage pretty often, especially when it's a first-time director. I'm not strictly talking about crossing the axis, although that comes up more often than anything . I have worked on shows like Traders (it's shot in the style of Homocide for those who haven't seen it) where the rules of axis are super-flexible and so I tend to be more flexible than most in this regard because I've seen many ideas which seemed bizarre at first come to successful fruition on the screen. What I'm saying is, to be able to fulfill that role properly, the continuity person has to understand editing and storytelling principles, and , to some extent, be creative. Often there is one hour left to shoot a three page scene and everyone is panicking and the director looks at their shot list and realizes it's impossible and they'll turn to you and say, "what do we need to make this scene work?". So you brainstorm together, maybe with the help of the DOP, and realize you really need that insert, or you can combine those two or three angles into a tracking shot, or the dramatic point will be told in these two angles. You might not realize that that kind of dialogue happens on set, but it does, and it definitely affects the kind of footage you get in next day's rushes. It is at this point where I truly believe I am representing the editor on set, because I try to second-guess what they want from us in terms of coverage and storytelling. Any other script supervisors find that kind of thing goes on often? I hear it from others all the time. In fact, I have found it is usually the more experienced directors who talk to me the most about coverage, usually as a sounding board or a double-check for their own ideas. With the newer directors I'm more involved in actually coming up with the shots. You may wonder why the heck they would ask the continuity person, but it actually makes some degree of sense if you consider that script people generally work on the set around 300 days a year and the director might work on set for six months in a good year. Also, the continuity person, much like the editor, gets to work with many different kinds of directors and viewpoints and might have been faced with a similar coverage situation in the past. I really don't mean to toot my own horn, but I just wanted you to consider that doing continuity does not just mean watching the continuity and that's not the only way my job affects you as an editor, aside from proper notes. P.S. I fully agree with your post on film schools; were it not for my absolutely brilliant editing professor and four years of cutting anything I could get my hands on, how the heck would I have had any foundation to do my job as a continuity person? ciao :) dee
Re: Damned Film Schools From Sarah and Michael Chaskes <chaskes@loop.com Organization The Loop Date Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:54:37 -0700 Newsgroups rec.arts.movies.production Message-ID <31859D0D.6889@loop.com References 1 2 MaxxFish wrote: After three years of film school, I got an internship before my Senior Year. It was with a commercial production company. I learned more on the first shoot that I went on than in three years of school. Sure, school will teach you the theory, and some schools are better than others for this. But once you're out in the real world, theory goes out the window. You will look back and laugh at the lighting ratio tests and continuity rules. MaxxFish has a point here, but I think film school serves (or should serve) a purpose other than teaching "lighting ratio tests and continuity rules" anyway. We've all seen films, both student and professional, which are starting at ground zero as far as film grammar goes: these filmmakers have no idea how many times their "fresh new" trick shot has already been used, or how to light a scene dramatically, or how to set pace during editing. For some of them, no amount of training, filmwatching, or anything else will help, but for others, some solid film studies (involving watching lots of films by great directors) could actually do some good. My film program actually didn't bother with more than cursory attention to math formulas and rules of thumb, but it did try to teach us how accomplished directors use film to tell a story or produce an emotion. When I edit, I don't always cut for continuity, but I always take into account the very solid things I learned about, say, manipulating audience expectations. I agree with MaxxFish that as far as purely technical considerations go, actual work experience will teach infinitely more, infinitely quicker than film school will. But I also believe that a good film program can teach one some fine points that too many filmmakers (and film schools) overlook. Michael Chaskes
An Editor Speaks From Sarah and Michael Chaskes <chaskes@loop.com Organization The Loop Date Wed, 01 May 1996 16:53:48 -0700 Newsgroups rec.arts.movies.production Message-ID <3187F98C.EC5@loop.com References 1 2 3 4 Michael Klenner wrote: If your ultimate goals lie in directing, writing, and/or cinematography, then yes...(a good) film school will probably give you an opportunity to spread your wings and see what works, and also give you time and facilities with which to create your first "calling-card" so-to-speak. However, if you prefer to work as an editor, sound recordist, or some such craftsman, then you might be better of[f] playing for contacts until you get an assistantship with a professional. I don't mean to sound self-important, but I think that placing editors in the "craftsman" category isn't quite right. The actual acts of operating a flatbed and cutting and splicing workprint can be mastered by anyone (or by a chimp, probably) in very little time. Even non-linear cutting requires fairly minimal training, if one's ever seen a computer before. It's the actual decision-making of cutting that's hard: for instance, how to turn 1,000' (or more) of raw coverage into a 100' scene that delivers the maximum emotional and storytelling impact that the material is capable of. It's not just cutting by numbers--"the long shot, then the over-the-shoulders, then the close-ups." It's a creative process. Maybe you play the whole thing in master shot. Or the whole thing in close-up. Or maybe you cut together any number of angles in any number of ways. It's a process requiring intense creativity, and the editor is the first person to tackle it. And, as I said in an earlier post in the "Re: Damned Film Schools" thread, I credit much of what I know about editing to my college studies in the film major. I think that film study benefits potential editors as much as potential writers, directors, and DPs, and that--in turn--well-educated editors benefit filmgoers who come to watch their work. BTW, Michael K., you recommended not only that editors skip film school but that they apprentice to/assist a professional in order to learn how to edit. I tried that route myself and found that while I was learning a lot about keeping logs, rewinding reels, syncing dailies, and so forth, I didn't learn a heck of a lot about actual film editing. I changed tacks and started cutting anything I could--student films, no-budget films, etc.--and watched my editing skills grow with practice. MY advice to editors is (a) go to a good film school if you can; then, in any event, (b) cut anything you can get your hands on. Assistant work can help one learn some of the technical details of the post-production process, but you'll only learn to edit by editing. Michael Chaskes
I'm always on the lookout for more additions to this section. If you know of any good editing links, please let me know.
rec.arts.movies.production - deals with all manner of production-related issues, editing included. rec.arts.movies.tech - primarily for presentation/exhibition-related issues like widescreen formats and theatrical sound; may be of interest.
Editing-L
Description: Per list administrator Lee Unkrich, Editing-L is "devoted to discussion of the art and technique of film editing. It is intended as a forum for professional editors, student editors, as well as anyone who is interested in this fascinating, often misunderstood art. The term 'film editing' is meant to include both editing on motion picture film, as well as on all of the current linear and non-linear editing systems. Philisophical discussions are welcomed, as well as specific questions concerning technique. Please, however, restrict discussion of system-specific topics to the various system-specific newsgroups and mailing lists."
For Subscription Info: Leave subject line blank; type "info" in body of message.
(Note: I'm told this list is now deceased, but haven't had a chance to check for myself--for sure I haven't heard much from it lately! So don't be too disappointed if you write and nothing happens.) On the Web: Editor Darren Jonasus has begun compiling a Web archive of Editing-L threads; Andy Birkhead has also created an Edit-L FAQ.
Avid-L
Description: Forum for Avid users to share tips and answer each other's questions. Avid employees often contribute to the discussions.
To Subscribe: type "subscribe avid-l-digest name <e-mail address" in body of message
On the Web: Visit the searchable, rather comprehensive Web archive of Avid-L threads, or Andy Birkhead's Avid-L Compilation FAQ.
Many of these are also available at general bookstores, from specialty shops such as the Samuel French Bookstore, or at online booksellers like Amazon.com.
The Film Editing Room Handbook by Norman Hollyn - the best and most readable guide I've seen for assistant/apprentice editors, and a good overview of the feature-film post-production process in general. The new edition has been updated to include non-linear as well film-based editing room processes.
Introduction to Film Editing by Bernard Balmuth (Focal Press) - much the same scope as Hollyn's book, but in a less accessible, textbookish-style; I don't know whether it's been updated since the non-linear revolution.
Film Editing Nutz & Boltz by Film Guy - another popular technical manual, but one which is temporarily out of print. According to my friend and fellow editor Gary Mairs, there's "no word on when it will return; every cinema bookstore in town [Los Angeles] has long since sold out." Presumably, used copies are still floating around. The author's website, which itself used to be an excellent editing resource, is also sadly on hiatus.
Film Editing Handbook: Technique of 16mm Film Cutting by Hugh B. Churchill - recommended by Bill Paton, who cites its "practical methods of dealing with 16mm film editing, such as use of the gang synchonizer, organization and more. Also includes sample forms and charts."
Electronic Post Production and Videotape Editing by Arthur Schneider (Focal Press) - I haven't read it, but its author is a member of A.C.E. (and recent recipient of their Life Achievement Award--congratulations, Art!) and a 40-year veteran TV editor.
Also check out the companion volume, Electronic Post Production Terms and Concepts. Digital Non-Linear Editing by Thomas A. Ohanian (Focal Press) - "great to introduce one to the basics of nonlinear editing," says Gustavo Gaiarsa, an editor in Sao Paulo, Brazil. As Ohanian is the much-admired Chief Editor at Avid, I don't doubt this for a second.
The Technique of Film Editing by Karel Reisz and Gavin Millar (Focal Press)- "very British but excellent," sez rec.arts.movies.production contributor Tom Hartig.
On Film Editing by Edward Dmytryk (Focal Press) - Most of Dmytryk's advice makes much more sense after one has already learned how to edit than before. Nonetheless, much of his theory seems quite sound; if nothing else, his advice for dealing with incoherent directors' requests for changes is quite priceless.
When The Shooting Stops... The Cutting Begins by Ralph Rosenblum (and Robert Karen) - a fascinating memoir of a great editor's career, with lots of insight into creative editing processes. Editor Loren Miller has written a nice remembrance of Mr. Rosenblum.
In the Blink of An Eye by sound and picture editor Walter Murch - interesting personal recollections and intriguing editing theory; thanks to film editor Lee Unkrich for recommending it.
First Cut: Conversations with Film Editors by Gabriella Oldham - in-depth interviews with feature and documentary film editors. (Thanks to Lee Unkrich for bringing the book to my attention, and to Eddie Bailey for providing specifics on the title and the author's name.)
Selected Takes: Film Editors On Editing by Vincent LoBrutto (1991: Praeger, New York) - This one gets a big thumbs up from Gary Mairs: "It consists of interviews with well-known feature editors, much like First Cut, with which it shares a number of interview subjects, though the interviewer seems better informed on editing practice."
Jump Cut! Memoirs of a Pioneer Television Editor by Arthur "Jump Cut" Schneider - Mr. Schneider informs me that the book has just been released by McFarland Publishers.
Grammar of the Film Language by Daniel Arijon (Silman-James Press) - "More like a book about directing, but teaches things every editor should know" (Gustavo Gaiarsa).
Cinema Editor, "the official periodical of the American Cinema Editors, Inc." - you can order it online from the A.C.E. Store.
Avid help, from the general to the extremely detailed, abounds on the web.
If you're new to non-linear, you might start with FrameWorks' Non-Linear Post Production page, a good introductory overview of the subject.
For a more in-depth discussion of Avid issues, particularly as they relate to the relationship between 24 and 30 fps projects, move on to Alan Stewart's page of technical documents, which explains, concisely but completely, such topics as the 2:3 pulldown in film telecine and how the Avid deals with it (Stewart, an Applications Editor for Avid Technology, knows of what he speaks).
When technical issues really have you down and things are getting sticky, consult the codified wisdom of the myriad contributors to the Avid-L e-mail list: at one time or another, Avid-L has probably dealt with every major Avid technical issue imaginable, and Andy Birkhead's Avid-L Compilation presents some in well-indexed FAQ form (there's also a link there to his Edit-L FAQ). You can also visit a searchable, rather comprehensive Web archive of Avid-L threads.
Digital Media's Avid Tools page may also be useful, as it contains links to other helpful Avid files and tips.
Finally, Avid itself offers the Avid Knowledge Center, the official online compendium of Avid wisdom.
Additionally, AvidUniverse offers articles, interviews, and outbound links dealing with all things Avid.
Runway Edit's Editor to Editor series features simply-written but informative articles of interest to film editors working on Avid and Lightworks.
Media 100 Home Page; editor Jordan Goldman also recommends the Media 100 Resource Website and the Media 100 Worldwide Users Group page
postforum - macintosh digital video resources - Perry Paolantonio's site for online discussion of Mac-based systems.
FilmLogic Home Page - FilmLogic has created Power Mac software which, it advertises, moves Adobe Premiere and other desktop nonlinear editors into a true 24 fps film-editing environment, complete with the ability to produce negative cutlists.
The Motion Pictures Editors Guild Home Page - the official website of IATSE Local 700, complete with information on how to become a member (hint: it's pretty hard), special members-only discussion boards, and--perhaps most useful for the lay public--the on-line version of its newsletter, which is loaded with interviews, non-linear tips, film and book reviews, and other articles of general interest to editors.
American Cinema Editors - home page of the U.S.'s honorary organization for film editors.
J&R/Moviola Editors Alley - the Hollywood post-production rental company's editing resource.
EditorsNet - a very nice site dedicated to picture and sound editing, featuring interviews with editors of big films as well as business and tech news.
editing? that's throwing away your movie! - a bizarre little site from the intensive cinema unit. Features a history of the upright Moviola and a quaint but very detailed step-by-step lesson on hot-splicing.
SOFIA Editing Page - an overview of basic editing theory.
Film Schools - the Film Maker's listing of North American colleges and universities with film programs and coursework; a more comprehensive list is to be found in the American Film Institute's published directory, available at most libraries. Film Maker also offers the Library Of Annotated Film School Survey, a page that allows film school grads to post "reviews" of their experiences at their particular alma maters. N.B.: There is no list that I'm aware of which specifically lists schools offering editing courses. (People frequently ask me about this.)
Internet Filmmaker FAQ - Ben Craig's excellent all-purpose filmmakers' FAQ, which addresses a few editing issues.
Cyber Film School - Online Filmmaking Learning - links to various production-related web articles and resources, organized by category. The editing section links to some useful technical pages (and even a link to this page, along with a flattering description... I'm blushing!).
Fade to Black Post-Production Conference - transcripts from a 1996 Australian conference on the role of digital editing in post. Thanks to Matthew Tucker for putting me onto this link.
Page From Outer Space - Matthew Tucker's terrific editing site.
Australian Screen Editors - another great site from Matthew Tucker; includes links to tips, anecdotes, ASE's monthly newsletter, and more.
So what does an editor do? - an amusing but, sadly, not inaccurate short essay about film and video editors, courtesy of the BBC. I found the link on the Mining Co.'s Editing Internet Resources page.
Reading a Film Sequence - of general interest for editors; from the University of Victoria's "New German Film" course. Thanks to Bill Paton for suggesting the link.
Cut to the Chase - advertisement/ordering information for a software product that offers to provide Hollywood-style footage for users to practice editing on a home computer.
The archive of DOX Documentary Film Magazine contains a very good article about "two-dimensional" documentary editing, which is an editing style that throws standard continuity rules out the window. The article is written by Lars Bo Kimergaard, professor of Film and Media Studies at Copenhagen University, who would appreciate hearing your thoughts on his article.
Film Sound Theory - Sven E Carlsson's outstanding page defines sound terms, quotes liberally from theorists, and gets into some nitty-gritty case studies on film sound design, including Ben Burtt's classic work on Star Wars.
If you simply can't get your hands on an Avid (or a feature film) by any other way means, you could shell out to attend Avid Film Camp. A similar outfit is The Edit Center. Both, as I understand them, offer participants the opportunity to cut a real feature film collaboratively on Avid, under the tutelage of master editors.
I look forward to expanding and improving this page with your help! Thanks for visiting the Film Editing Home Page.
Minor update made: February 6, 2000.
There have been visitors to this page since May 4, 1996.
Special Thanks To: Web Counter Drew's Scripts-O-Rama for use of the filmstrip wallpaper, and also to Matthew Tucker (once again) for tweaking it