ASE Newsletter 1996-10 Issue 8

[Archive]

ASE NEWSLETTER
Index to ISSUE 8 - October 1996
Editor: Matthew Tucker


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upcoming are two important events for ASE members, the AGM and the EDITORS NIGHT OF NIGHTS in Sydney. Read Henry's column for more information on these events!

"Contracts: Forget About Theory, What About Reality?" is the title of Richards Silverton's new article and covers some basic forms of Letter of Agreement and Deal Memorandum.

We've another Shame File to publish, this time an assistant editor gets a pretty raw deal.

The Avid Filmtech '96 was held last month and was a day of extraordinary information, from both local practitioners and Avid-endorsed experts from the USA.

Technical articles this month relate to new tricks with Shotlister and Pipedream, and Cindy Clarkson's writeup of the Neg Matching & EDL Seminar held in Melbourne is useful reading as well. Speaking of useful reading - in this issue we publish a bibliography of editing related resources, also an extract of a university paper by Michael Brandt on the effect of nonlinear editing technology on editing styles.

The AFTRS also announces new courses to be held soon in Sydney and Melbourne.

Newsletter editor Matthew Tucker is taking a break from doing these Newsletters until next year but gets an article on Broadcast Quality - and one more word in edgeways - before he goes ...

Last, but not least, there's a Joke and a great photo!

http://www.screeneditors.com/images/otton.jpg

[Archive]

Annual General Meeting 1996
AGM details

Elections
Nominations
Voting
Rules
Amendment to rule 3.11

When and Where

The Annual General Meeting of Australian Screen Editors Inc. is to be held at 2.00 pm on Saturday, November 9th at the Harold Park Hotel, Glebe, Sydney. On the agenda for the meeting: The annual report and financial statements for 1995/96. A motion to change rule 3.11 will be put to the meeting. The election of the committee for 1997 will be held. Please make every effort to attend this meeting!

1996 ASE ELECTIONS

It's that time of year again. Election fever!

The committee of the A.S.E. is calling for nominations of office bearers and committee members to form the new committee for 1997. Go on, be brave, be brazen. Nominate yourself or one or two of your multi-talented friends.

Positions to be filled are

President
Vice-President
Treasurer
Secretary
nine committee members.

Nominations
You can either nominate yourself, or propose another member (ask them first).

All nominations to be received no later than Friday 25th October 1996. All nominations should be accompanied by a 3 - 4 line biography and addressed to the Returning Officer, A.S.E., PO Box 6, St Leonards, NSW 2065.

The nominees will be announced the following week by mail. The election will take place at the Annual General Meeting.

Absentee voting

If you can't attend the AGM you can still have your say. You may appoint a proxy to vote on your behalf, provided you complete a proxy form and give it to your proxy to present at the meeting.

Those who live outside the Sydney area will automatically receive a postal voting form. Otherwise, postal and proxy voting forms are available on request.

Election Rules

If there is only one nomination for an office bearer's position that person will be endorsed by the meeting and considered elected. If there is more than one nomination for a position a secret ballot will be taken and the person who receives the greatest number of votes will be considered elected.

Likewise, if there are more than nine nominations to fill the committee members positions, a secret ballot will be held. The first nine members to receive the greatest number of votes will be considered elected.

Amendment to Rule 3.11

Notice is hereby given of a special resolution to change the rules of the Association.

It is proposed that rule 3.11 which states:-

An entitlement to Full membership will require one professional screen credit as an editor or assistant editor.

be changed to read

An entitlement to Full membership will require one professional screen credit as an editor or an assistant editor.
Where no on-screen credit has been given, proof will be required outlining the details of work completed as an editor or assistant editor.

The effect of this change is intended to clarify that editors whose work is not normally credit on-screen (such as news editors and commercial editors) are eligible for Full membership. There was never any intention to exclude such editors from Full Membership; it is simply a case of clarification.

[Archive]

From the President
http://www.screeneditors.com/images/henrycu.jpg
Since the last newsletter, things have been quiet in Sydney.

A number of the committee members are locked away in cutting rooms busy editing their films and some have been travelling overseas (But they didn't send us a postcard!!).

However the Melbourne mob have been busy as usual.

In Sydney there are three events planned for the the remainder of the year.

Another creative editing workshop is planned at the ABC using their Avids
The AGM on Saturday 9th November at the Harold Park Hotel, Glebe

The end of year party on Saturday 30th November.

End of Year Party!
This year we plan to have a great bash at "MoS Café" - the Museum of Sydney. Tickets are now on sale, only $25 as ASE will be subsidising a portion of the cost.

Lifetime Achievement ...
It is with great pleasure that, on the night of the party, the ASE will acknowledge a lifetime of work and achievement by the great film editor, Alex Ezard. Alex has worked in a number of roles in the industry, from make-up artist to producer, but editor was the role that gave him the most satisfaction.

He has edited approximately 30 features, as well as a number of documentaries, series and a multitude of newsreels. Some of the features that he has cut include: 40,000 Horseman, Jedda, Red Sky at Morning and The Glenrowan Affair.

In 1961 he was producer, director and co-editor of the Anzac Series which won a Gold Logie for best documentary series. His contribution to the Australian film industry and to film editing over the years has been immense.

Alex now lives in Port Macquarie and is 80 years old.

AGM
Don't forget, this is your association which is giving you a voice in the industry. So come along to the Harold Park Hotel for the AGM. Join in the action and raise your voice.

- Henry Dangar. ASE President

[Archive]

Contracts: Forget About Theory,What About Reality?

- Richard Silverton

I had intended in this edition to start examining the more important terms or "deal points" which editors should think about when negotiating their agreements with production companies. However, this is best left for the first edition next year. More pressing now is the need to discuss the practicalities of entering into a written agreement and how this might be achieved.

The message from the previous article is pretty clear - put it in writing! Since writing that article I have had the benefit of speaking with several editors all of whom have confirmed that most editors do in fact provide their services on a casual "handshake". This prompted me to ask why this was such an accepted practice and how might the "sounds nice in theory" suggestion of putting it in writing be achieved in the real world of film and television post-production.

It was suggested that the consistent failure to record professional relationships in writing was a cultural development which over time editors had accepted as common place in the industry. Some of the reasons given for editors' preparedness to work without certainty in their terms and conditions included thinking a written contract was simply unnecessary as the parties had a good relationship at the time of commencing the work, or not wanting to request a contract because the boss was a friend, or perhaps the budget of the film did not justify it.

I assume, due to the ongoing demand for information on contracts in this publication, that the tide is now shifting in the industry in relation to the necessity for the parties to enter into a written contract. Clearly the sentiment amongst the members of the ASE is that it is necessary. However, the difficulty seems to be with how best to achieve this in view of industry practice, the close relationships often held with production companies and the often low or tight budgets of the projects and organisations for which the services are rendered.

Obviously, the situation is sensitive. It would be impractical to expect or even require large amounts of time and resources to be allocated to the drafting of contracts. Naturally, if you are working on a large budget film which requires your services for a considerable period of time and you are to receive a hefty fee, there may be both a need and a justification for paying more attention to detail. However, it is fair to say that this is probably the exception rather than the rule. In most cases, budgets are tight and editors, being keen for the work, tend to avoid making demands on the production company. However, there are ways in which this status quo can be maintained while still achieving a minimum level of protection for editors. A long form contract is not necessarily required.

Either a letter of agreement or a deal memorandum would be adequate from a legal point of view and would be unlikely to insight resistance from the production company. Both documents are relatively simple yet will provide an improved level of certainty in the working relationship when compared to the current industry practice.

Letter Of Agreement

A letter of agreement is the most informal method of entering into binding relations with another party. This takes the form of a letter addressed to the other party and simply sets out in plain english confirmation of the proposed relationship. The addressee would be required to sign at the foot of the letter to indicate acceptance of the terms of the letter. The sending of the letter constitutes the offer and the signing of the letter by the addressee the acceptance. The intention to enter binding relations is evident from the sending of the letter and the subsequent signing by the addressee. The letter must identify benefits for both parties in order to provide the necessary consideration. The four elements of a contract would then be made out. If you were sending the letter to the production company, one way to open such a letter would be as follows:

"Dear ......... [Film Title]

This letter serves to confirm my agreement to provide my services as editor on the above film. As consideration for you paying me $........., I agree to provide my services to you on the following terms and conditions: ............"

Naturally, an agreement in the form of a letter is relatively informal and tends to err on the side of brevity. While in many cases it may provide the necessary protection, in other cases it may be more prudent to contract by way of deal memorandum. The use of a deal memorandum is common for contracting directors and producers on short films and documentaries.

Deal Memorandum

A deal memo (as they are commonly referred to) is a short form agreement that identifies the parties to the agreement at the head of the document and has sign-offs by both parties at the foot of the document. It sets out the terms of the agreement in the body, however unlike a long form agreement, relies to a large extent on accepted industry terms and knowledge to restrict the length and complexity of the document. Usually, the key terms are listed by way of subheading and then expanded upon briefly. As with the letter, there is inevitably a degree of trust and good faith required to give meaning to the document as the parties are only identifying the broad terms of the deal. Nevertheless, the use of such documents would offer a substantial improvement on the current situation.

Editors who are members of MEAA should note that there is a standard crew agreement which applies to editors. The standard agreement incorporates, as a minimum, the terms of the Theatrical Employees (Motion Picture Production) Award (Crew) 1988.

In the next edition, I will commence discussion on some of the terms which you should look out for when negotiating.

Richard Silverton is now practising with Gilbert and Tobin.

For more information on Gilbert & Tobin and Richard you should check out the award winning G&T website located at
http://www.gtlaw.com.au.
Richard's direct email address is [...]

[Archive]

SHAME FILE

On Coming To The Party ...

When an editor recently offered me a 10 week assistants position on a "very low budget" feature (3 week shoot, cut on film) I wasn't bothered by the fact that I would be working for a lower rate because the chance to work with this editor, and the chance to work, full stop, meant that I would "come to the party".

When I rang the production office to negotiate my fee I was suprised to find all they had budgeted for was 50 hours of an assistants time under the category "synching rushes", for $1500. Now thats a pretty healthy hourly rate, but 50 hours synching rushes on a 3 week shoot?.

The editor was equally astonished and demanded an assistant for the full 10 week cutting period. The production office came back with an offer of an unnegotiable weekly salary which equated to roughly half the standard feature fee for an assistant for an unspecified number of hours per week. All things said and done this turned out to be less than $10/hour.

What is interesting here is, what happened between the original 50 hours/ $1500 offer and the final offer? Am I worth $30/hour, as originally offered, or $10/hour? Obviously some error was made in budgeting, which is understandable - budgeting is a complex process - but not excusable.

The end result was that the editing department paid for this mistake. This looks suspiciously like post production budgets as contingency for production errors.

- name withheld

Editor's Note: Assistant Editors on a feature film usually earn between $A1000 and $1400 per 50-hour week.

[Archive]

Avid FilmTech '96
At the end of August, Avid Technology held the second of their yearly seminars - "Filmtech". The ASE was a grateful recipient of ten free tickets (at very short notice!) which were used by editors, assistants and committee members. It was a day full of extraordinary information, from both local practitioners and Avid-endorsed experts from the States.

Michael Phillips is an editor who is also developing Film products for Avid . He discussed processes wherebye he editor is able to send files back and forth from Avid to an SGI system, enabling special effects to be tested and previewed without duplicating information or losing time. He also explained the development of a system of interactivity between the script and your edited sequence which would allow the editor to select sequences from the script which would then play on the Avid. Magic releases which will "be available in the spring".

There was a lot of heartlifting discussion on editor involvement from pre-production through to post, with systems in place where the editor can have an active involvement in the pre- visualisation of special effects and therefore an active say in how shots are created.

Rob Kolbrin gave an example of a fight he had with the director of "Alaska" who was going to shoot helicopter shots using rear screen projection as part of the main shoot. Rob realised that until the cut was under way, he would not know exactly where he would need the helicopter shots, what size shot would be best etc and that things could change radically. So he convinced the director to just get some still snapshots of a helicopter in flight at various angles and shot sizes against a bluescreen.

These he cut into the film, using Photoshop to put in suitable backgrounds to determine what shots were required where in the film. The helicopter shoot was then done after the assembly with the correct backgrounds for the sequences (which had changed greatly from the original storyboarded ideas). This resulted in a 20% saving on the shoot and the director got what he wanted (so did the Editor!)

Rob also discussed using the Cinemaestro system, along with Mediashare on the Film Composer where rushes are logged automatically using barcode, a database is created with ink numbers, keycode and timecode enabling rushes to be sunc up once they are in the Film Composer at a rate of 2,000 feet per hour !!! Again the major discussion was based on using the system to eliminate the duplication of work, and maximise automation of processes. (There does seem to still be a role for the assistant in all of this!)

Julius Chan, a local freelance sound editor discussed more goodies to go into the editors basket. He gave a very clear description of the sound paths that are being used at present, and the changes we are looking forward to. He discussed the transfer of files using the OMFI Medianet, allowing sound editors to come on board at the rushes stage to give input and plan ahead on the basis of existing sound.

Julius mentioned the collaboration between sound and picture editors, with the example of ADR being fed directly into the Avid so that editors can work on that during the edit. He also discussed the fact that mixing studios will need to look to updating to Random access.

The day include food not just for the brain, but for the tummy as well with some well needed breaks from info overload.

Chris Chitty from Robotechnology gave a hilarious talk where he showed us a lot of tricks used in the creation of models for films and television series. We were treated to sheep frames used for Babe, where the models started to collapse because the engines overheated inside the woolly structures, so they had hoses pumping air up their bottoms. Nevertheless the models were convincing enough for real sheep to use bully tactics, pushing them out of the way in order to get the good grass they were hogging.

Chris showed us tapes of full sized whales created for "Ocean Girl" and convincingly real sharks being tested in public swimming pools - to the dismay of the locals! He threw balls at the audience to show true reflex and how there is a ripple effect through the audience. He gave us stories of a precocious childhood which showed an early leaning towards a life of inventiveness and striving for perfection when dealing with a dummy.

There was a discussion on Render Farming using SGI Softimage from the Kiss Corporation based in Melbourne which advocated sending effects rendering to them rather than have effects rendering overnight on your system only to find that they don't work. They have rooms full of Onyx's which can render effects in minutes that could otherwise take up to 12 hours. They gave an example of a 75 frame effect which depending on circumstances could take between 2 & 96 minutes to render on their system, multiply those times by 12 and that is how long it would take on your single system.

This discussion was nicely countered by Peter Moyer who runs a small company called Digital Filmworks in the States. He said at this stage it is still cheaper to do titles and dissolves optically than digitally, so save your money for the essentials and truly tricky stuff. He renders all his own effects overnight and does not see the time wasted.

He showed how they regrained 2000 frames of scratches on Lonesome Dove, created a hospital out of a building at the end of the only T-junction in Vancouver by matting in windows from office buildings, signs from real hospitals, painting out sign posts, adding exploding trucks and leaving in a sandbag accidentally left by the crew. He also showed us a shot from Viper which had a continuity problem where a pilot was wearing a headset in one shot and not in another.

As he said "I am an artist, and I do not draw, but I do steal," So he stole an ear from another actor and supered it over the headset & no one can tell the difference.

Conclusion

The day was one where there was a lot to learn, but tempered with humour. It leant towards collaboration, editor involvement through the whole process from pre production to final finish. The food was fabulous and the contact with the experts in the (substantial) meal breaks were full of information, stories and advice.

"The Experts" were also surprised and impressed with the sophistication of the industry here and our approach.

- Fiona Strain. AFTRS

[Archive]

Shotlister Tips

Recutting From Digital Online Masters

With digital tape formats offering virtually no degradation, some editors want to use Shotlister Non-Linear to edit a cutdown version of a program, and produce an EDL that refers to the onlined master, not the source tapes.

Copy the Reel of the onlined version using Reel/Manage.

Open that Reel and add a spare Track.

Use Reel/Key in Master to create a shot the same duration as the program in the spare Track.

Now whenever you drop a section, the same amount gets taken out of the spare Track. Using Wedge will open a gap in the spare track. Extra shots edited from tape will only be captured on the 'live' video and audio tracks. When the cutdown version is approved, use Block/Swap to add the extra shots to the spare track, then patch that track to Video and make an EDL of just that Track.

[Archive]

Pipedream Tips

Locating Archival Footage

If you have logged your Shotlister source or master reels, you can use Pipedream (ver 3) to give a neat and detailed printout of all the drops from each archival source, and automatically tot up the durations.

Make sure your Master reel is fully picked- up/described by Shotlister.

Select SHOW REELS - this gives a list of all the reels in the project. Select your final Master Reel (eg: 906) Type the description of the first archival source into the text box (eg: NFSA ). Don't worry about case.

Select SEARCH

A whizz and a flash later, Pipedream will display a list of all the shots that match the search text. If there are bits in there that are not part of the archive reel, select only those shots that are with CTL-CLICK. As you click you will see that the duration of all the selected shots is updated.

To print this information, select FILE/OUTPUT and choose PRINTER as the destination. Select the options to print either source or master reel/timecode, and either ALL the shots displayed - or just the ones you highlighted. Run to the printer and retrieve the page! Repeat the above process for all the archival reels.

Your producer will love you forever!

Matthew Tucker

[Archive]

The Neg Matching & EDL Seminar
10th October 1996
- Cindy Clarkson

On a hot balmy night 31 pairs of eyes were pleasantly tantalised by the video that Sioux Currie filmed and edited - a promo about what happens when the neg gets into Warwick and Wendy's negmatching hands at ComputAmatch. In between snippets of Warwick explaining the negmatching process we bopped along to Synchronicity by the Police as the video seamlessly slipped in and out of music clip style. Needless to say Warwick was wrapt with the promotional vid. Classy piece Sioux!

After a very brief hello from Seth Lockwood, Warwick Driscoll launched into the territory of EDL negmatching. To help with the process a handout of the different negmatching paths for non-linear and workprint features, and tips to make the neg matchers life easier was passed around. It became clear very quickly that neg matchers are a paranoid breed. A very necessary trait - I certainly wouldn't want the responsibility of cutting neg without knowing I've double checked, cross referenced, and consulted the Oracle before snipping.


NEGMATCHING
This is what happens to the neg once its been processed and telecined:

Once its cleaned, Warwick or Wendy checks the timecode start mark provided by the telecine chain and creates a tail sync mark on the first frame of the tail coloured leader. Warwick then sends this info back to the telecine chain to double check that the timecode correlates. That's his involvement until the project is finished and the EDL is handed to him.

The software his company uses, converts the final EDL to a CMX 340 list, then to film edge numbers.

The shots are pulled from camera start to camera stop and numbered. If it's for a television commercial a roll of selected takes in shot order is assembled and sent off to the online. If its a feature Warwick prays that the producer had the foresight to budget for a pos conform. (Where the selected takes are workprinted and sent to the cutting room where an assistant gets to match the workprint to the timecode fine cut. Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!)

Using a pos conform, the negmatcher has a constant reference to the workprint as he cuts the neg. A scary thing is cutting a feature with an EDL only. A Kine of the non-linear fine cut is not 100% reliable and costly. A video of the fine cut is handy but both the video or kine would act as a guide only.


EDITING
Things that the editor and assistant can do to help the neg matcher from having a hernia are:

When involved with a project that will use more than 23 hours worth of timecode it's vital that care is taken that duplicate numbers don't turn up. This is where 'user bit' numbers are important to avoid having six reels of neg assigned with one hour timecode.

If the project will involve material other than film source ie graphics or effects, designate a timecode number especially for them. It is extremely useful for the neg matcher to be given a list breaking down what the VTR source tape numbers represent what form ie animation, 16mm/35mm neg, graphics, titles etc. This saves several phone calls.

A common problem that occurs is that frames are not left for the neg matcher to destroy forever when creating the cement splice in a A & B roll situation. This happens more with workprint than non-linear but it's always a good idea to remember the neg matcher and leave at least one frame, preferable two or three so they can do their job with a smile.

After a quick break for a breath of fresh air, and refreshments Seth then introduced Wayne Hyett to talk about online, and what happens with the EDL. Most importantly Wayne stressed the need to know what hardware the online suite has so that the editor comes with the correct EDL. Then with time savings in mind he mentioned that if you're working with multilayering, each video layer has it's own EDL, and you must know which sort mode you want to use.


EDL SORT MODES
There are five types of sort modes: A,B,C,D, & E.

A mode sorts the EDL by master timecodes. The assembly will start at the beginning of the program and progress sequentially to the end. This is used mainly for commercials and short corporates.

Modes B to E are optimised or minimise reel change EDLs and are used for long form work, often saving the paying customer about two to three hours in online. Wayne was quite excited by a new technique known as preread, available for some digital recorders, which eliminates the necessity of a Master B roll and second source machine - which again saves time. During an effect, preread effectively reads the information from the master, mixes it with the layer from the source input, and rerecords it onto the same master! The disadvantage is when you need to change effects, as you have to change all the layers rather than just the latest one. A preread EDL is essentially an A- mode EDL.


MAKING GOOD EDLS
Things that help an online editor greatly are:

Start the EDL timecode at 00:01:30:00 otherwise time is wasted adjusting (rippling) the timecode to accomodate the 1:30 start.
Reel numbers are a major importance. Mark each tape clearly as this will save time.
Make sure the EDL is clean, ie; that certain events don't overwrite other shots. D-Vision doesn't do this automatically so you need to make a conscious effort to instruct the machine to do so.
Check with the online editor what disk the suite reads - high density or double density, DOS or CMX or Mac. Some suites don't read all of them.
ALWAYS have a printout of the EDL in A mode so the online editor can see where things are supposed to happen if there is a problem.
And finally if you want to change edits this needs to be done before the compile process has begun, as there is nothing you can do until the process is complete and the program mastered.

Wayne then touched on the Flex file format which had be specifically created for non-linear systems by DaVinci in the US, and the responsibility of the online editor to get an audio EDL off to the sound post production houses that are working on the feature, tv drama, documentary, or corporate.

The thing that was stressed by Warwick was the more diligent you can be with the EDL from telecine stage to the final EDL the less chance there is for a mistake to occur. For Wayne the more prepared you are when you walk into the online suite the more time is saved which saves money and wasted time. Always a bonus.

With jargon swimming around in our heads some of us wandered down to the pub where ComputAmatch very kindly set up a tab, much to the appreciation of the crowd that nattered on into the later hours of the night exchanging stories and laughs.

A HUGE thanks must go to Warwick Driscoll, Wayne Hyett, Seth Lockwood and Sioux Currie for their willingness to donate their time to enlighten those that were there. By the size of the turnout there are quite a few of us trying to wrap our heads around the whole EDL deal!

A BIG thanks goes to our sponsors for the evening: AAV Business Communications, AVID Technology (who also provided spot prizes), ComputAmatch and The Cutting Room for providing the facilities to create the Neg matching video.

Last but not least, thanks to the tireless efforts of Cordelia and the training subcommittee: Andrew Brimsmead, Sioux Currie, Warwick Driscoll, Seth Lockwood, and Sophie Merrick for getting the event up and running so quickly after the last one.

What's next guys?!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TRIMS
"The David and Richard Show" The video and audio tapes of the 'David and Richard Show', mentioned in the last issue of this paper, cost as follows: Audio tapes are $7.00 including postage. Video tapes are $10.00 including postage.

The next Victorian Commitee meeting is the 7th of November. As always please feel free to contact any of the commitee if you wish to have any issues raised at the meeting. Alternatively, if you want to come to the meeting and contribute or even join a sub-commitee please ring Cordelia at The Cutting Room to find out where and what time. We are always happy to have new enthusiasm join the table.

ASE DISCOUNTS
The Longford Cinema in South Yarra. Cinestore, 34 Bourke Street, Melbourne

The Kino Cinemas will discount tickets from the standard $11 to $8 for a dazzling smile and a flash of theASE card. The Kino can be found at 45 Collins Street downstairs in Collins Place. 9650 2100.

[Archive]

Read all about it! - Books on Editing

The following information is reprinted courtesy of Michael Chaskes, a Los-Angeles based editor, whose WWW site can be found at: http://www.loop.com/~chaskes/

Some of these publications may be available at the AFTRS library, and almost certainly through the branches of Cinestore.

Technical Guides
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)

Introduction to Film Editing by Bernard Balmuth (much the same scope as Hollyn's book, but in a less accessible, textbookish-style)

Film Editing Nutz & Boltz by Film Guy (another popular technical manual; I've not read it, but it's highly recommended by my friend, sound and assistant Avid editor Gary Mairs). This book's website is in itself an excellent editing resource, featuring excerpts from the book and Film Guy's editing question-and-answer column.

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")

The Art and Principles of Film Editing
The Technique of Film Editing by Karel Reisz and Gavin Millar ("very British but excellent," sez rec.arts.movies.- production poster Tom Hartig)

On Film Editing by Edward Dmytryk (somewhat outdated, and not quite in line with my own view of the editor's importance, but not without worth)

When The Shooting Stops... The Cutting Begins by Ralph Rosenblum (a fascinating memoir of a great editor's career, with lots of insight into creative editing processes)

In the Blink of An Eye by sound and picture editor Walter Murch (interesting personal recollections and some fascinating editing theory; thanks to film editor Lee Unkrich for recommending it)

Conversations With Film Editors (author unknown; per Lee Unkrich, "a fantastic collection")

Cinemeditor, "the official periodical of the American Cinema Editors, Inc." (available at Christy's Editorial Supply in Burbank, Calif., or send $15 for one year's subscription to American Cinema Editors, 1041 N. Formosa Ave., West Hollywood, CA 90046)

[Archive]

Traditional Film Editing Versus Electronic Nonlinear Film Editing:

A Comparison of Feature Films by Michael Brandt, Baylor University
The following is an extract of an abstract by Michael Brandt at Baylor University. Eight Hollywood feature films were analysed shot- by-shot in a carefully controlled study on the effect of electronic editing systems on editing styles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothesis 4: Films cut on electronic systems will structure dialog scenes in a more complex way than films cut on traditional systems.

... There was a significant difference between systems, but it was opposite of the hypothesized conclusion. Traditionally cut films average 1.093 (more complex) for dialog complexity compared to the electronically cut films which average .873. This is a difference of 25%.

The result is opposite of expected because of the way the terms are defined in this study. The measure itself was good in showing a difference, it just needs to be modified. Electronic systems inherently make it easier for the editor to find a shot and place it in the film.

The statistics here indicate that while a character is speaking in an electronically edited film, other things, besides the person speaking and the person being spoken to, are quite often shown, presumably because it is so much easier to find another image and insert it.

This use of picture without sound drove the dialog complexity value down, when in fact, the edited sequence was more complex for the editor. Electronic systems' nearly instant access to any image makes finding alternative images easier. In fact, it is quite possible that editors go out of their way to find alternative images simply because they can.

The use of alternative images may seem like a more creative way to edit, different from the way the editor had been forced to edit on traditional systems in the past. Looking for, and easily finding and inserting an alternative image, may give the editor a feeling of having a greater affect on the film. In this study, the electronically cut films used reverse shots 30% less than the traditionally cut films, often replacing them with alternative images.

This is a tremendous difference for the most practiced dialog sequence technique. There is little doubt that the shot-reverse shot style will remain dominant, but it is also likely there will be a greater number of variations to editing dialog when electronic systems are used ...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interested in reading the rest of this abstract? You can contact the author at NippyJones@AOL.com.

Want to know more about the study? What's new? Contact Dr Michael Korpi at Baylor University.

[Archive]

AFTRS Courses
Melbourne | Sydney

Melbourne

AFTRS MELBOURNE are running a New Media Program - "Editing With Avid" in November.
The short course is aimed at editors who have some knowledge of a Macintosh computer environment and desire familiarity with this non-linear system. There will be nine AVID systems available for the course. Each participant will receive at least 8 hours one-to-one tutorial on AVID with opportunities for extra free time on the systems.

Course 1

Date
11th to the 15th of November

Time
9.30 am to 5.30pm.

Cost
$495

Closing date
8th of November.



For an application form and more information contact Simon Britton (03) 9690 7111 or fax (03) 9690 1283.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sydney
The AFTRS is offering the following courses in Sydney:

1. NON-LINEAR PROTOCOL FOR PRODUCERS & DIRECTORS
This course is aimed at Directors, Producers, Cinematographers, Post Production Managers and others involved in the non-linear post-production process. It will enable Directors to understand the role of the Editor and the capabilities of the non-linear system. It will discuss the basic editing approach and requirements, what effects the system can create and when to use them along with implications for online and neg matching. This course will also discuss how non- linear editing affects your budget, schedule, crew, screenings and sound post-production.

Course No: 43.3404 Workshop: Two Courses, 2 Evenings each
Course 1
Course 2

Date
18th & 19th November 1996
25th & 26th November

Time
4:30 pm - 10:30 pm
4:30 pm - 10:30 pm

Cost
$180
$180

Closing date
11th November 1996
18th November 1996



2. NON-LINEAR EDITING FOR ASSISTANTS
This course is designed to give assistant editors a good working in tasks in the non-linear environment. Using the Avid non-linear system the course will cover the processes of digitising, logging, synching, consolidation, inputting and outputting EDL's and editing. It will cover projects that have originated from film and tape.

Course No: 43.3403 2 Courses, 2 Evenings each
Course 1
Course 2

Date
20th & 21st November 1996
27th & 28th November 1996

Time
4pm - 11 pm
4pm - 11pm

Cost
$200
$200

Closing date
13th November 1996
20th November 1996



3. NON-LINEAR EDITING FOR EDITORS
Using either the Avid or Shotlister non-linear systems these courses are designed for editors who have cut either film or videotape and need to upgrade their skills into the non-linear sphere. It will cover the processes of digitising, logging, synching, inputting and outputting EDL's, basic vision effects, adding text to vision, editing picture and sound, discussing film and video based projects. Hands-on editing is an important component of these courses.

(1) AVID Course No: 43.3402 Two Courses, 10 Evenings each
Course 1
Course 2

Date
4 - 15 November
2 - 13 November

Time
4pm - 11 pm
4pm - 11pm

Cost
$850
$850

Closing date
28 November
25 November



SHOTLISTER NON-LINEAR Course No: 43.3401 2 Courses, 5 days each
Course 1
Course 2

Date
11 - 15 November
18 - 22 November

Time
9.30am - 5.30pm
9.30am - 5.30pm

Cost
$300
$300

Closing date
4 November
11 November



For details & application forms, ring the Student Centre - (02) 9805 6444

For women in the industry, you may be eligible for a substantial rebate on these courses ring Sara Hourez on (02) 9508 6606 for info on the Industry Training Fund For Women (ITFW)

There is a 10% discount for ASE Members!
Melbourne | Sydney

[Archive]

WHAT IS BROADCAST QUALITY?

"Its no use recording a master tape that looks the bees knees if all the audience will ever see is the dog's breakfast."

Broadcast Quality is not an optional extra. It is simply the minimum quality you should accept.

From an objective technical standpoint, a program can be defined as being of Broadcast Quality when it can be transmitted using conventional analogue TV transmitters without distortion or artifact. In other words, what the consumer sees at home is what the filmmaker intended. This may sound simple and straightforward, and it is, but you have to be aware of some of the limitations on the processes of TV transmission.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in TV technology the weakest link is arguably the composite transmission systems used worldwide. These systems were initially set up to enable transmission of pictures and sounds within a certain fixed and narrow bandwidth. The advent of component and digital video technology has brought vast improvements to image quality and resolution, but such is the huge investment in composite transmission infrastructure that it will be quite some time, if ever, that television transmission as we know it will catch up. Hence it is the limiting factor in the chain, the narrowest data pipe.

Effectively, this means that no matter how sophisticated or expensive the postproduction process, if the end result does not fall within the ability of the transmission system to broadcast it, the consumer will NOT see the program as it was intended. This is what specifications are all about - a set of rules dealing with colour, luminance, timing etc that describe the television system within which programs will be broadcast.

The first videotape machines were, sensibly, designed specifically to record these signals, and pushing the signals on the tape much beyond the intended limits caused all sorts of problems such as flare, jitter, colourshifts, dropout etc.

As videotape technology progressed, the capacity to record better and clearer signals increased ... remember the huge leap from Umatic to SP Betacam? Now, digital technology is omnipresent, and videotape recordings are no longer constrained by the limits of transmission technology. On a digital tape you can record images with a far greater contrast, colour depth and resolution than ever before, and many of the failings of analogue videotape such as dropouts and noise are largely a thing of the past. Videotape soundtracks are now "CD quality" with the capacity for enormous dynamic range and subtlety. Its all so exciting I just fell off my stool.

HOWEVER ... the weakest link is still there, and that's the trap! Its no use recording a master tape that looks the bees knees if all the audience will ever see is the dog's breakfast. If a digital master tape is not kept within transmission spec, all that beautiful saturated colour will just smudge into itself on the home telly. Those rich crushed blacks will overload the transmitter unless they are flattened out, and those crisp white details could cause the transmitter to dropout unless they are removed.

So, as a matter of course, TV stations use a device called a Proc Amp (processing amplifier) just before the transmitter to remove the offending bits that it just can't cope with, bits that it cannot squeeze down its narrow analogue pipe.

But hey, those are the bits that gave your program that lovely look in the digital suite! Your lovely contrasty shadows just got flattened and the logo looks different. Your subtle atmos tracks are inaudible and the dialogue just doesn't cut through. What's going on? What can you do about it?

Well, I think the most sensible approach is to realise the limitations of each stage of post. By all means, use the new digital supports to capture and process the subtleties. Use the high signal/noise and freedom from dropouts to make the cleanest of keys and the most complex multilayering. Use the digital tools to fine tune the image and tweak the gamma curves. Sure, there are a whole different set of digital specs that you can use, PROVIDED THAT you stay in the digital domain, such as if your program will be delivered in the new DVD format.

But then, accept the challenge of making a program master that will look good outside the online suite. This means keeping it within the limitations of the transmitter and the ability of the consumer telly to display the result. Its as useful looking at everything on a component or digital monitor as it is doing a TV mix in a sensurround theatre. Mum just won't see it like that at home, and that's what really counts, isn't it?

It appears as if, to a lot of people, making a broadcast quality master is a costly and onerous task to discharge. It need not be so ... most problems are simply a result of individuals being unaware of the limitations in the process. And it does get onerous when those problems have to be repaired at a later stage or as a result of a "rejection".

Make it quite clear to your online facility the standards you require. If your requirements are clearly defined to begin with then you should not have to pay more to do "repairs" if necessary later on.

A Collection of BS

If you are told that meeting broadcast specifications will cost more then that's just crap, go elsewhere. Broadcast Quality is not an optional extra. It is simply the minimum quality you should accept.

"It contains archival material so it can't/doesn't have to meet broadcast spec."

BS. Even if the original material was not within spec, it can always be brought within spec on the master. And so what if it looks archival? (Unless of course you are pretending its NOT - then you have to do clever tricks.)

"It was shot on HI-8 so it can't/doesn't have to meet broadcast spec."

More BS. Once transferred to your master, it can easily be brought up to scratch. It may still look like Hi-8 - all noisy and weird colours and shaky - but unless you are trying to pretend that its Panavision it can be perfectly acceptable.

"Its not going to be broadcast so it doesn't have to meet broadcast spec."

In my opinion, still more BS. Why accept second rate for anything? The specifications quite adequately describe the limitations of most common videocassette formats as well as transmission. You never know whether one day someone will want to transmit your program. Remember, Broadcast Quality is not an optional extra. It is simply the minimum quality you should accept.

"We put stuff out like this all the time and no-one complains"

Read that line again and consider whether you really need that attitude?

"Soon, TV stations will all be transmitting D1 anyway, so ... etc,"

My Giddy Aunt! I don't believe I heard that! D1 is around 270MBits/sec. Cable maybe, but not television, not soon!

It could be argued that when you hook up to Foxtus and get your 3D-interactive-virtual- reality-television-on-demand piped down an optical fibre into your toaster then that will be true digital transmission and hence independent of those demon "specs" - but that would only really be true if you junked your old telly (and toaster) and hooked up a new digital set. And then, in order that you can download your Barry Manilow CDs from the internet, whilst watching Terminator and The Piano simultaneously, those images would have to be heavily compressed anyway. And compression relies on knowing what is black and what is white and what can be expected in between. And thats what the specs are for.

Read the Followup!

- Matthew Tucker

[Archive]

This will be my last newsletter for 1996, as I will be going overseas in November to get away from this blasted computer. Think I'm lucky? Well I'm not going to be here for the Night of Nights, am I? WAAAAAAAAH!!

Mark Spessot will be editing the Christmas edition of this newsletter. Please send any contributions (fade up sound of pigs flying past) on floppy disk saved as a TEXT FILE or in RICH TEXT format to Mark Spessot, PO Box 6, St Leonards 2065 NSW

THANKS SO FAR

I must pop in a sincere thanks to all the contributors to this newsletter so far and to those who have given me feedback. Here they are, in no particular order:

Henry Dangar, Bill Russo, Mike Honey, Helen Martin, Richard Hindley, Ted Otton, Fiona Strain, Roberta Horslie, John Pleffer, Marc Van Buuren, Jack Swart, Mark Muirhead, Nick Holmes, Richard Silverton, Simon Dibbs, Mark Ellis, Pamela Hammond, Sasha Madon, Darren Jonasus, Steve Doyle, Sara Bennett, "Name withheld" and "Troubled" ... and my counterpart in Melbourne, Cindy Clarkson, who has managed to keep up an ever-increasing flow of wordage from ASE's Victorian branch. Keep that whip out!

Thanks also to Wayne Hayes and Film Australia for recognising the worth of this enterprise and to Barbara Bedford for the hard yards in the folding bay!

EDITORS RANT ...

I confess I'm a bit disappointed that there hasn't been more user-input into the paper so far apart from the regular contributors ... there's been plenty of opportunity to express your views, share your stories; the Story Competition for example has had only 3 contributions, one of which doesn't count 'cos I wrote it; that's a poor showing by any account, not least because I hear editors telling stories all the time, most of them funny, yet no- one - except Richard and Pamela - are prepared to take ten minutes to sit at their AVID or whatever and type a coupla paragraphs.

Editors are hungry for trivia as well as Tips and Tricks, and while we're at it, why not share that little trick YOU discovered? That nonsense about giving secrets to the competition just doesn't cut the mustard.

What DOES cut the mustard though, are things like why your latest job is fun ('cos driving taxis takes me places' etc) and what makes it challenging and how you are approaching those challenges. Does you nothing but good to show how you have mastered the job.

We do enjoy reading that sort of stuff, don't we? If you don't, or if you have any other criticisms or suggestions, then there are two things you can do. 1. Write and tell me, 2. Collar me at the AGM and tell me so.

I'm asking this so I don't have to resort to printing photos like that one. I'm asking so that next year is bigger and better than this one.

If you haven't thought about it before, please think about contributing JUST ONE small item next year. Don't think your personal contribution will be trite and boring, in my experience they are invariably the opposite. Unemployed? Here's your big chance: pick up your pen!

If half our membership does one item each next year, think how rich this resource could be. In which half are you going to be?

- Matthew Tucker

[Archive]

EDITING JOKE

Vanishing Point

A director, his cameraman, and editor were stranded on a desert island. One day a brass lamp washed up onto the shore and they all rubbed it gleefully. Out popped a genie who announced he would grant them each one wish.

The cameraman wished to return to his home so he could be with his family. Poof! He vanished.

The editor wished she was on a skiing holiday at Thredbo. Poof! She vanished.

The director scratched his chin and said, "Gee, I don't know what I want ... I wish those two were back here with me to help me decide ..."