Efficiency in the cutting room and dub stage

[danijel]

The most important time-saver that I was able to pull-off on two different 12-episode shows was that I get enough time to do DIA and BGFX editing and premixes BEFORE the FX and FOL editors kick in!

Ideally, I would be 5 days ahead of the crew - 2 days DIA editing, one day BGFX editing and then two days premixing. I hand them off the stereo downmix, then the FX and the FOL editors can edit their stuff in the volume ball-park over my premix - that takes some extra time on their part, but when I get their stuff, I'm basically correcting their premixes and adding reverb. I find that mixing such material is much more enjoyable, and that overall time spent is severely reduced. If the levels are all over, I sometimes don't even know what the editor wanted, especially if the internal levels on FX layers are ad-hoc.

It is also very beneficial that at some point the music composer/editor gets the DIA/BGFX premix, but not very doable, because they usually start working even before the picture is locked.

EDIT: when editing over a premix, editors don't have to cover the stuff that I was able to pull out as PFX (unless they want to enhance it) - it is absolutely impossible to know if something will be usable, and how good it will work, before the DIA is edited.

[danijel]

Another thing: FOL and FX can overlap, so there's a whole lot of exceptions that we developed so as to know who does what - e.g. a person sitting the sofa: the foley tracks should contain the cloth movement of the person (like his jacket jingles or suit movement noise), while FX carries the suit rubbing the sofa, leather creaks (if the sofa is leather), or other creaks (if the sofa is crapping out). Of course, it is only possible to devise such an extensive rules-list on serial shows.

Where there is time, it IS preferable to have the same sound event covered in several ways (PFX, FX and FOL) so that you get to choose, but there is not much productions here that can afford to do that, and especially to do the picking on the dubbing stage - the way we were taught is 'proper' in film school.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by danijel

Where there is time, it IS preferable to have the same sound event covered in several ways (PFX, FX and FOL) so that you get to choose, but there is not much productions here that can afford to do that, and especially to do the picking on the dubbing stage - the way we were taught is 'proper' in film school.

I don't have time anymore to be auditioning alternate FX. I need the editor to be decisive about how a sound is going to be covered and I want to be able to assume that if the sound has been cut, it is necessary and is meant to be played. Making choices is the essence of editorial work, mixing should be the process of putting the carefully crafted editorial plan into action.

The editor can always have alternate scenarios standing by in a fix session so they can be quickly imported into the mix session if necessary. If the editor absolutely feels the need to cut alternates into the mix session, then they should be muted and cut onto specific alternate tracks so it is obvious that they are not part of the primary game plan.

The current post production economy leaves little room for redundancy or time spent on just-in-case scenarios. Every unnecessary task eats into profit and threatens the survivability of editorial companies and post facilities. The number of post production companies that have gone bankrupt in recent years is staggering. If we want to be able to continue making a living doing what we love, it is going to require absolute clarity of artistic intent coupled with ruthless efficiency in its realization.

[danijel]

Originally Posted by ggegan

I don't have time anymore to be auditioning alternate FX.

I'm not sure, but think I read over at sounddesigners.org (a great French forum) that the traditional approach in France is that the mixer is actually the main sound player, not the editor (Steven, is that right, or is my French a complete mess? lol). So they would bring all the raw sound elements to the dubbing stage and do most of the creative work right there. Nowadays that sounds completely inefficient, but I wonder if this was ever the norm in the US?

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by danijel

I'm not sure, but think I read over at sounddesigners.org (a great French forum) that the traditional approach in France is that the mixer is actually the main sound player, not the editor (Steven, is that right, or is my French a complete mess? lol). So they would bring all the raw sound elements to the dubbing stage and do most of the creative work right there. Nowadays that sounds completely inefficient, but I wonder if this was ever the norm in the US?

When budget permits it is, but as Gary said, for lower budget work it is less the case. If you are on the dubstage, the mixers are more in charge than the editors generally speaking.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

When budget permits it is, but as Gary said, for lower budget work it is less the case. If you are on the dubstage, the mixers are more in charge than the editors generally speaking.

When I first started in the business the mixers usually called the shots and, especially at the studios were dominant figures, but that is an outdated model that has rightly faded away and I certainly don't look at things this way. I'm not in charge of anybody, I'm part of a team that is working together towards the common goal of realizing the director's vision.

I actually think of the supervising sound editor as a client in many ways. They bring me a lot of business and I rely on their good will and trust in me as a partner. When the work flows out from my contacts, then I can return some favors, but that doesn't mean I'm in charge. We help make each other look good and are each dependent on the other for success.

As a rule, the supervising sound editor spends much more time early on in the process working closely with the director and picture editor well prior to my becoming involved and so they are my primary source of insight into the aesthetics and intent of the director. During the predubs I absolutely rely on the sound editor's guidance to make sure that the mix will address the director's ideas, which should be reflected in the sound editor's cut.

Obviously, once the final starts the director's opinion trumps everyone else's.

[charles maynes]

Gary, I applaud you for your thinking on that, but I am afraid that in my experience there is an expectation that the mixers are indeed a little more in charge than the sound supervisor when on the stage- perhaps this is really variable, but I would feel really strange trying to pull weight on people like Mike Minkler or Kevin O'Connell. the majority of the mixers, including those two, who I hold in great esteem, DO indeed take a collaborative posture, but at the end of the day, they are the one controlling the faders and controlling the relative sound of the mix. This is not a criticism, but far too often I have seen editors grow myopic in what their material is expected to do within the greater scheme of things. I think this is more an issue on the FX side vs dialog- and certainly the relationship between the Director, Picture Editor and Sound Supervisor plays a great role in the landscape- Most mixers wish to get feedback that is more broad- and like to be able to solve technical issues their own way- which is entirely reasonable in my opinion.

of course, that is just my singular opinion on the issue.

[philper]

I figure I work for the picture editor (first) and the director (able to overrule the former). On my shows the editor has been on the show MUCH longer than me and is inside the director's head, hopefully. I will voice my opinion if it differs from theirs, and ask that they at least audition my take on a scene/sound, but if they don't go with it then I do what they want. Often the editor is better able to translate what the director wants into terms I can understand or make actionable than the director can her- or himself. Anymore I insist that the editor buy off on the mix before we final unless they are really totally unavailable. Every time I have not done this I have had to do parts of the mix over when the editor does finally hear the mix and has a chance to discuss with the director.

Philip Perkins

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Gary, I applaud you for your thinking on that, but I am afraid that in my experience there is an expectation that the mixers are indeed a little more in charge than the sound supervisor when on the stage- perhaps this is really variable, but I would feel really strange trying to pull weight on people like Mike Minkler or Kevin O'Connell. the majority of the mixers, including those two, who I hold in great esteem, DO indeed take a collaborative posture, but at the end of the day, they are the one controlling the faders and controlling the relative sound of the mix. This is not a criticism, but far too often I have seen editors grow myopic in what their material is expected to do within the greater scheme of things. I think this is more an issue on the FX side vs dialog- and certainly the relationship between the Director, Picture Editor and Sound Supervisor plays a great role in the landscape- Most mixers wish to get feedback that is more broad- and like to be able to solve technical issues their own way- which is entirely reasonable in my opinion.

of course, that is just my singular opinion on the issue.

Well, it's true that during the mix the director generally deals directly with me rather than the sound editor, and I also have no problem asking for specific things I feel I need from the editor.

There are supervising sound editors with different amounts of caché. It is not unheard of for a mixer to be replaced because he is unresponsive or disrespectful to a highly regarded supervising sound editor, especially if the editorial company has packaged the sound for the project. Conversely, if I am working with a sound editor who is floundering, then of course I'm going to step in and guide things with a stronger hand, but these dynamics change from project to project.

Generally there is little need to enforce a pecking order. We're in it together, and I would just as soon end the project as a friend and ally of the supervising sound editor rather than expend energy establishing which one of us was in charge.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by ggegan

Well, it's true that during the mix the director generally deals directly with me rather than the sound editor, and I also have no problem asking for specific things I feel I need from the editor.

There are supervising sound editors with different amounts of caché. It is not unheard of for a mixer to be replaced because he is unresponsive or disrespectful to a highly regarded supervising sound editor, especially if the editorial company has packaged the sound for the project. Conversely, if I am working with a sound editor who is floundering, then of course I'm going to step in and guide things with a stronger hand, but these dynamics change from project to project.

Generally there is little need to enforce a pecking order. We're in it together, and I would just as soon end the project as a friend and ally of the supervising sound editor rather than expend energy establishing which one of us was in charge.

I think most of us here in LA are aware of those dynamics and do establish good bonds which are respectful of each others contributions....or at least that should be what is aspired to....

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I think most of us here in LA are aware of those dynamics and do establish good bonds which are respectful of each others contributions....or at least that should be what is aspired to....

I would assume that you are very aware of these things, since you've been around the block a few times, but I think that a lot of film students and people who are new to the industry would find it confusing because it isn't always obvious or clear cut and things are constantly shifting. I just figure, when in doubt, collaborate and don't get too attached to your own strokes of genius.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by ggegan

I would assume that you are very aware of these things, since you've been around the block a few times, but I think that a lot of film students and people who are new to the industry would find it confusing because it isn't always obvious or clear cut and things are constantly shifting. I just figure, when in doubt, collaborate and don't get too attached to your own strokes of genius.

genius in the film business is as rare as four-leaf clovers....


you are totally correct about the befuddling nature of the politics though... Way back before my time, there used to be apprenticeships and such that eased people into the craft....

[Steven1145]

In response to Danijel, in France the rerecording mixer has a very high status, and they are nearly all freelancers. It's not unknown for some mixers with enough clout to put "their" people in place for sound editorial.
Concerning what gets to the mix: there are as many flavours as editors. Some sound editors come in with very precisely built tracks, while others will prefer broader strokes and leave a lot of stuff to be done by the mixer.
As there are'nt that many double-digit-million Euro movies being made every year, sound editorial teams are usually quite small (or even one man jobs). On most films, there will be a rerecording mixer and what we call here his assistant or co-mixer, who is also a rerecording mixer. Think of it like a dialog mixer and an FX mixer, but where there is clearly a pecking order between the two. It's not often that each rerecording mixer at the desk is considered to be of the same value.
As the assistant mixer is usually hired at the start of the mix, most of them become highly proficient iPhone users as they only have a few tracks of foley to mix while the boss is doing the dialog premix. That, I consider highly inefficient.

[Jfriah]

Originally Posted by danijel

The most important time-saver that I was able to pull-off on two different 12-episode shows was that I get enough time to do DIA and BGFX editing and premixes BEFORE the FX and FOL editors kick in!

I second this. Have been lucky enough to do a few projects where the schedule had the BGs done before the DIA edit and pre-mix and it was SO helpful to go 'up against that'. Throw in the temp music, have spotting notes so you have an idea if the scenes without music will REALLY be without music, and you're up the stairs quite away knowing what you can get away with and what to focus your time on a bit easier than just working with your DIA tracks and fill.

Good tip.

[Jfriah]

Originally Posted by ggegan

...when in doubt, collaborate and don't get too attached to your own strokes of genius.

Originally Posted by ggegan

(...mixers are...)part of a team that is working together towards the common goal of realizing the director's vision.

Good one; and I can't speak to the hierarchy as I've found it differs on the project/number of people involved/experience of the team members. I've worked on things where the mixer was 'the new guy' and ones where the sound sup/designer was 'the new guy' (sorry, new PERSON, no offense to the ladies---I'm just used to using the acronym "F.N.G." still.). What's important is that levels of respect are always heeded as we all have a job to do. And a director once reminded me of that and I use the quote often: "look, we all have a job to do here so can you just do yours? Just make it work."

Originally Posted by ggegan

...once the final starts the director's opinion trumps everyone else's.

And depending on the project: director/producer arm-wrestling matches while mixers take tea.

Originally Posted by philper

Often the editor is better able to translate what the director wants into terms I can understand or make actionable than the director can her- or himself.

Yes, just ran into a situation where this was very, very true and helped "calm" a few situations where the director was becoming frustrated because I clearly wasn't understanding what the director was looking for/wanting.

Originally Posted by ggegan

The current post production economy leaves little room for redundancy or time spent on just-in-case scenarios. Every unnecessary task eats into profit and threatens the survivability of editorial companies and post facilities.

For me----quote of the week. Thanks for that, Gary. And, thus, the assistance of tips provided in this board continues to help all users hopefully.

[Jfriah]

More of a DSP efficiency issue but also attributable to physical and time-efficiency:

My question of the day, theoretical differences between using compression (specifically, but could also be for other plugins)

a) your DIA master
b) your DIA tracks themselves

Voting stations open now!

(just had a discussion with an editor/mixer who prefers using compressors on all his DIA tracks and another on the master to round things out. Myself, I'm an "a)" operator)

[minister]

I have been way too busy to be on the boards lately, and I am too lazy to read through this entire thread.

What we do here is based on what I did/do as an editor, designer, foley artist and ideas picked up along way and then passed on to the assistants and we refine and adapt as we go.

First thing is to have an assistant make all the scene break markers -- using the production's nomenclature or our own if none was available. These markers are distributed to everyone. Then each department make a chronological (with TC) list of the foley and effects. Then these lists are arranged by type of sound : clothing, footsteps, doors, vehicles etc. Then we identify what we need to record or obtain. As the editorial process continues I make sure that the editing template we use for each dept. fits the project and my ultimate mix session. Then I give each editor his template for the film (that includes the color convention). The templates are similar to those discussed here : Foley F01 (cloth); F02 (footsteps); F03 (glass/plastic) etc. Effects sessions are also broken down similarly depending on the show, and even the BG's BG01 (room tone/air); BG02 (wind); BG03 (birds/bugs) etc... for traffic, wallla...

As the finalize their sessions, they name everything so that I can find it easily and know what it is. We start with the type of sound it is, DX, FOLEY, FX, BG. Then the film title abbreviation, then type, then specifics. For instance : FOLEY_LD_METAL_MOTORCYCLE_KEYS_INTO_IGNITION. Everyone knows what it is instantly and it sorts nicely in the bin.

Importing over CAT6 onto the stage is a piece of cake. Fixes come in the form of exported timestamped BWAVS.

No pre-dubs for editorial on films here (but yes for TV). Editorial all work on LE systems and they don't realy have the skills to do useful pre-dubs. I will pre-dub the Dialogue and Foley (for perspective between mic's) and BG's. The effects and music I like to Mix after everything else is in the ballpark.

I learned the hard way to set up each REEL's session identically in case I ever have to do a rebalance.

For this last feature I did, they did not split it into REELS in Picture editorial and I made it work in one Super Session -- but it took some work and pre-mixing because I had a HUGE FX Track count due to the nature of the film. It was 16 DX tracks and 2 DX auxes (one with the CAT 43 inserted and one Master DX), 30 Foley tracks, 55-60 FX tracks, 10 BG's, and 14 Music Stem tracks, plus at least 7 reverbs (4 were external boxes: Bricasti, Yardstick, TC4000, PCM 91), and 3 special effects tracks (one was an external box: Eclipse) etc. I maxed out my HD|5 Accell, and did the downmatrix in a separate pass. It DID slow my session down, but it was worth it and I would do it again.

All the editors get to hear their work on the stage, but do not sit in the mix sessions with the clients.

[philper]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

More of a DSP efficiency issue but also attributable to physical and time-efficiency:

My question of the day, theoretical differences between using compression (specifically, but could also be for other plugins)

a) your DIA master
b) your DIA tracks themselves

Voting stations open now!

(just had a discussion with an editor/mixer who prefers using compressors on all his DIA tracks and another on the master to round things out. Myself, I'm an "a)" operator)

Both. Sounds better to me to do it a little at a time.

Philip Perkins