Efficiency in the cutting room and dub stage

[ggegan]

I have started this thread because the points raised in the recent thread discussing the necessity of putting fades on every cut point to a larger issue of efficiency in general in the new post economy.

Most of the films I work on have post budgets somewhere between $200k and $400k, which may seem generous to some, but there is often a fair amount of unfinished editorial work and an insufficient number of predub and final days to do the job as I would ideally like to and still allow the facility to make a decent profit.

Sometimes it seems that almost every project, regardless of its budget, has been pared down to whatever the wishful thinking bean counters hope will somehow barely suffice, and then when we have to go over in time or resources, we are asked to discount our pay to conform to their unrealistic expectations. Too many projects become a struggle just to get done on time, especially if your primary focus is on making sure the director realizes his aesthetic intent, which is job one (to the director at least). Of course this is just part of the nature of the beast, but I believe there are things we can do to alleviate the situation.

So what I hope to achieve in this thread is for us to discuss smart and creative ways to increase efficiency so that we can recapture the time that has been taken from us in our schedules, thus allowing us to spend more time doing creative work less on repetitive or unnecessary housekeeping chores.

[charles maynes]

Being on the receiving end of mixer wrath too many times, I have to stress first- communication.

second, consistency.


For low budget shows this extends to picture departments as well- The most important shift I have seen is the idea of dubbing from a show length output- (something I am doing right this second, on a show from Universal) this cuts time and effort substantially- it requires however time- because piece-meal reel by reel turnovers are not possible inside the paradigm- where the real strength of this paradigm lives is in cutting any repetitive materials like BG's- you can freely cut and paste through the timeline, maintaining track arrangement, and having setup time dramatically reduced.

[georgia]

A few things I'm a fan of in Post.

1. Document, Document, and then Document
2. Naming Conventions
3. Track and Event Management
4. Clean and well layed out sessions
5. meetings/reviews with Editors and Mixers BEFORE the day of the mix
6. Client expectations and management of said

for starters...


Also meetings with editorial ( both picture and sound ) from DAY 1.
Planning, research, understanding the plan and driving to it.
From Storyboard, to editing, to predubs, to Sound Design to mix....
Everyone needs to be on the same page and have a solid understanding of the Delivery, both in ART and TECHNICAL sides, including process path and requirements.

cheers
geo

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Being on the receiving end of mixer wrath too many times, I have to stress first- communication.

second, consistency.


For low budget shows this extends to picture departments as well- The most important shift I have seen is the idea of dubbing from a show length output- (something I am doing right this second, on a show from Universal) this cuts time and effort substantially- it requires however time- because piece-meal reel by reel turnovers are not possible inside the paradigm- where the real strength of this paradigm lives is in cutting any repetitive materials like BG's- you can freely cut and past through the timeline, maintaining track arrangement, and having setup time dramatically reduced.

I totally agree with you on this. We call it a "Super Session", meaning the session contains all reels, each starting on a new hour. If the show isn't too busy and it is laid out efficiently, then one HD6 can handle all BGs, FX and Foley, which I love.

I know some mixers are very skeptical about Super Sessions because there are inherent risks to putting all your eggs in one basket and also because there can be unintended consequences for previously mixed reels if you invoke certain commands. You can blow away a lot of automation really fast if you hit the wrong button sequence, but that's what backups are for. It is probably more problematic for Dialogue/Music mixers than for us FX mixers. Also, the editor has to prepare the session with this in mind so that the layout is consistent from reel to reel. I prefer to work in Super Sessions whether I am on the ICON , a Neve, or any other type of console.

You can still deliver the sessions separately as long as the editorial sessions are consistent. If the track naming scheme is mutually agreed upon in advance between the mixer and editor, then importing new reels into the existing tracks is a snap, although you need to import them in order. If you go out of order, importing is only slightly more complicated. You just import as new tracks and then drag the regions up into the existing tracks using the object grabber. Then delete the emptied tracks and you're good to go.

As a mixer, I see Super Sessions as a major advantage for several reasons.

1) I can save an enormous amount of time by only having to set up the mix template once. This can mean as much as an hour or more saved per reel.

2) Crossover reels can be made to reliably match extremely quickly. A change at the end of the outgoing reel can be executed in the incoming reel very quickly. This is an huge time savings in those cases compared to the alternative methods I know of for checking changeovers.

3) Reel changes are instantaneous. If you add up all the time you spend loading sessions on the average mix, this is also a big time savings.

4) I can instantaneously locate to any point in any reel to steal FX or automation. If I decide to change a reverb setting for a recurring location, I can update the entire movie fairly easily. I can also compare relative levels between scenes and reels to check for consistency.

5) File management is much more simple, although prudence requires making a separately named back up of the super session every time you change reels. That way you don't wind up with catastrophic surprises with reels you mixed days ago. It is extremely rare that I have those kind of issues because I'm very careful and have adapted my mix methods for safety when working in Super Sessions, but I'd be a fool not to cover my ass.

The biggest downside is doing conforms. Not impossible, but definitely requires some careful thinking and a change in standard procedure for most editors.

[charles maynes]

Gary- similar- but I am working on a 100 minute feature right now with tied reels- there are no "reels" at all. It is one 1hr 40min clip.

We are doing just fine perfomace wise- though we are on two systems- one with DIA/FX/BG, the other with Foley and Music.

In this case, it is a direct to DVD release, but we could do reel breaks after the printmaster for pullups....

[georgia]

with you guys all the way! It is amazingly easier to do a feature in one session and not 5, 6 or more... reels.

Also, I normally bring a couple of assistants to the dub stage with me. One just grabs the protools session and creates a cue sheet and makes sure there is a marker at each scene cut. He or she then spends the whole mix just tracking my moves from track to track, timecode to timecode as I work... So when I get deep in the middle of something I can ask.. "where is that door open again." And they are completely on top of the timecode and track location of the SFX or event i'm looking for. They also note when I work on something for a while, because i'll probably go back there again. Another asst has Soundminer setup on a system with protools so while i'm mixing, if I or the Client want to change or add something, They do the prep work, drop it on a track at 'timecode' and I just suck in the track or the edited files and drop them in. Saves lots of "hunting" and "editing" time on the stage. I can just plow along....

as to reel breaks, we just print the stems and mix and then do a 'Reel break' session from the master.

cheers
geo

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by georgia

with you guys all the way! It is amazingly easier to do a feature in one session and not 5, 6 or more... reels.

cheers
geo

Your earlier point about strategic planning between editorial and mixing is critical to success. It is much easier to do this with in-house package deals. It seems to be much more difficult to get everybody to work cohesively when two separate entities are working together. The agendas are sometimes conflicting because the money is distributed separately and there may not be a profit advantage for a separate editorial company if they are asked to alter methods to benefit the entire process. Everybody has to cover their own asses, sometimes at the expense of the other. It is getting better though as standardized procedures become generally agreed upon.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by georgia

Also, I normally bring a couple of assistants to the dub stage with me.
cheers
geo

Assistants, cue sheets? I seem to have a vague memory of them somewhere in the back of my mind.

Just kidding, I'm jealous though. Not about cue sheets. I could never figure out where to put them so they weren't in the way all the time.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by ggegan

Assistants, cue sheets? I seem to have a vague memory of them somewhere in the back of my mind.

Just kidding, I'm jealous though. Not about cue sheets. I could never figure out where to put them so they weren't in the way all the time.

Assistants (cue the Letterman "back in time" effects)....


times sure have changed.....

[georgia]

Originally Posted by ggegan

Assistants, cue sheets? I seem to have a vague memory of them somewhere in the back of my mind.

Just kidding, I'm jealous though. Not about cue sheets. I could never figure out where to put them so they weren't in the way all the time.

on a laptop, sitting on an interns lap.... slightly behind me and on my right, so that they can speak to me quietly but not get mowed down when I slide down the console to grab a fader...

..... guys.... you need to get an intern or 3 !!! you train 'em ... they work for free... everybody wins.


cheers
geo

[philper]

So when you folks load everything for a dramatic feature up into a super session, do you still have big markers or etc to show you where the reel breaks will be? The film still has to be edited to accommodate film reels, and so when do you do the pullups etc? After the mix is a separate session? In TV doc world we've been in the super session mode for a long time, for better or worse. It is more efficient in terms of getting at sounds from other places in the film, and gets everyone thinking how the film will play as a whole right from the start. But it is more taxing to the DAW, and as was said, there is a greater possibility of Automation Disaster if you aren't scrupulous about backups. In the earlier thread about fading all regions, it seemed to me that most DAWs have a way to preset how it cuts files, ie as a default fade of some length and shape, and that works pretty well. I don't see a need to "fix" a fade if the clip in question is sitting well in the track.

An issue that hasn't been brought up yet in this "efficiency" thread is how you set yourself up for doing the dreaded TV network "undipped" split-stems. I'm continuing to tweak mixer and busing setups to try to get the number of bounce passes down re this issue, but there are some things that are still mutually exclusive and can't be done at the same time, or so it seems to me. I'd love to hear how some of you heavy hitters set up to deal with making all those wonderful deliverables as easily as possible.

The issue of how an editor sets up their tracks which then get OMFed to us will always be a bone of contention I guess. I don't see how I will ever avoid the hours of detective work finding everything in an import, although some basic organizing on the part of the editor certainly helps.

A last question is how you handle an editor who thinks (possibly with good reason) that they have essentially "mixed" the film already, and wants their mix used as the work goes on--including pans, levels, EQ and maybe even more complex signal processing?

Philip Perkins

[georgia]

Originally Posted by philper

The issue of how an editor sets up their tracks which then get OMFed to us will always be a bone of contention I guess. I don't see how I will ever avoid the hours of detective work finding everything in an import, although some basic organizing on the part of the editor certainly helps.

I normally have a set of basic specs in my contract for a mix session. ( ok sometimes it still gets screwed up... no ..wait... scratch that.... sometimes, every once in a while, it actually ends up being done right.) In the specs it calls for OMFs to have some basic formats and/or layout..

Originally Posted by philper

A last question is how you handle an editor who thinks (possibly with good reason) that they have essentially "mixed" the film already, and wants their mix used as the work goes on--including pans, levels, EQ and maybe even more complex signal processing?
Philip Perkins

If that's what the client wants, then ok. Otherwise I mix it the way I want, and/or the client wants. I look at it this way, they are paying for my time and my expertise... IF they don't want to listen then they are wasting their money and, more impportantly, my time.

If i'm the sound designer and i'm handing off to a mixer, I just provide my work and let the mixer do their job.

cheers
geo

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by georgia

They do the prep work, drop it on a track at 'timecode' and I just suck in the track or the edited files and drop them in. Saves lots of "hunting" and "editing" time on the stage. I can just plow along....

When doing stage fixes and it only requires 1 sound I normally don't do tracks as this takes more time. What I do is consolidate the file and this timestamps it. The mixer then just spots it in on import or dragging from finder.

Sometimes I am on the stage for fixes and I have the fx mixers drive mounted on my portable rig (macbook with le soundminer and 700gb of effects) the edit session open and I'm just riding along with them. The director can ask me for things right there and I can feed the mixer seamlessly.

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by philper

The issue of how an editor sets up their tracks which then get OMFed to us will always be a bone of contention I guess. I don't see how I will ever avoid the hours of detective work finding everything in an import, although some basic organizing on the part of the editor certainly helps.

A last question is how you handle an editor who thinks (possibly with good reason) that they have essentially "mixed" the film already, and wants their mix used as the work goes on--including pans, levels, EQ and maybe even more complex signal processing?

Philip Perkins

I am really trying hard to make sure everything is labeled in a way that is easy to understand but with complex scenes sometimes there is spill over into other tracks that might not be apart of that set of effects (cars tracks dipping into the guns tracks for 1 scene). i think one of the big issues here is that there are more then 1 way to skin a cat and every mixer works there own way and it just requires communication to get everyone on the same page. nobody should be mad at this point unless you have worked together enough to know how someone likes it.

As an editor i would never think i have mixed the film. how could you? You are only working with your elements and really can't state that these things will work perfectly with the other elements. Now with design stuff i might have an idea of how i think it should be played. Should that come to you as a note? on paper? or some cryptic region renamed in the session. Editors delivering omf is weird. If they aren't cutting in protools they should

[jimlongo]

Originally Posted by philper

In TV doc world we've been in the super session mode for a long time, for better or worse. It is more efficient in terms of getting at sounds from other places in the film, and gets everyone thinking how the film will play as a whole right from the start.

Just today I was thinking it would be handy to have a this supersession approach to episodic series work as well. Save you having to find those common elements (think region groups with automation) that keep cropping up from show to show.

If only for the sluggishness of such a large beast.

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by jimlongo

Just today I was thinking it would be handy to have a this supersession approach to episodic series work as well. Save you having to find those common elements (think region groups with automation) that keep cropping up from show to show.

If only for the sluggishness of such a large beast.

What would be cool (and I know its not possble but still) would be multiple sessions open at one time. This would allow you to pull what you needed from one into the other quickly.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by JSt0rm

What would be cool (and I know its not possble but still) would be multiple sessions open at one time. This would allow you to pull what you needed from one into the other quickly.

yes- that would be convenient....

[Jfriah]

Originally Posted by ggegan

Assistants, cue sheets? I seem to have a vague memory of them somewhere in the back of my mind.

Just kidding, I'm jealous though. Not about cue sheets. I could never figure out where to put them so they weren't in the way all the time.

Yeah I hear ya... I AM the mixer and his/her two assistants... Plus, interns love the glamour and excitement of the film industry. They're fresh!


Great information so far. I also agree with file naming, and meeting with editors (sound) before the mix. But what's this about meeting with the editorial (picture) department? Mmph...

And I do try to template sessions where I can. Especially for my episodic work. Import tracks, grab, move, delete empty tracks, mix!

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

Originally Posted by philper

An issue that hasn't been brought up yet in this "efficiency" thread is how you set yourself up for doing the dreaded TV network "undipped" split-stems... I'd love to hear how some of you heavy hitters set up to deal with making all those wonderful deliverables as easily as possible.

In the earlier days: "night crew". Nowadays: sounds like we work in a similar fashion, Philip--Especially on episodics, my track count/voices/time slots is usually manageable enough where I'm doing subrouting to knock of a few stems at a time but yes, I tend to get a lot of reading done when rolling stems from time to time.

Undipped...anyone ever have to deliver anything except undipped MUSIC?

And I'm very curious to continue reading about picture department and track organization and OMFs and communication with editorial... We are very much two different camps 'round these parts and they are typically very unresponsive and resistant to ANY change. I know it is all in the communication, but I've even had post sup's tell me to back off because "things won't change". Sad, really. Picture never works 'to' sound (in terms of sound following picture edit), sound always works AFTER picture.

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

Originally Posted by jimlongo

Just today I was thinking it would be handy to have a this supersession approach to episodic series work as well. Save you having to find those common elements (think region groups with automation) that keep cropping up from show to show..

For my last episodic which went 6 seasons, I was FX editor as well and from S1 kept a constantly-growing PT session entitled "Stock FX" that had sounds and builds laid out on separate tracks that I'd just import/track transfer and spot to where I needed in new episodes. All the doors, transitions, phones, yada yada. Then if I wasn't sure, I'd just throw bounced-at-zero sounds in a folder that I kept on the side and could just import them if needed. The worst was in S6 going "doh! which episode had the..... Hmm. Search or rebuild, search or rebuild..."

[Jfriah]

Originally Posted by JSt0rm

As an editor i would never think i have mixed the film. how could you? You are only working with your elements and really can't state that these things will work perfectly with the other elements. Now with design stuff i might have an idea of how i think it should be played. Should that come to you as a note? on paper? or some cryptic region renamed in the session. Editors delivering omf is weird. If they aren't cutting in protools they should

I think, in this discussion above, "Editor" was referring to picture not sound? Correct me if I'm wrong. The OMF, to me, implied picture editor doing "their mix".

-J

[philper]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

I think, in this discussion above, "Editor" was referring to picture not sound? Correct me if I'm wrong. The OMF, to me, implied picture editor doing "their mix".

-J

That is what I meant--picture editors falling in love with their sound cutting and mixing etc..

In American commercial network TV the norm for stems has become everything undipped. The mix-minus narration has to play like the narration was never there, and the verite/B roll and sfx and music stems have to play like there was no narration or dialog.

Philip Perkins

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

I think, in this discussion above, "Editor" was referring to picture not sound? Correct me if I'm wrong. The OMF, to me, implied picture editor doing "their mix".

-J

the OMF more typically will be the tracks which make up whatever mix the guidetrack is constructed from. Usually it will have production, temp adr, temp sound effects and music. all un-merged ideally.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by philper

So when you folks load everything for a dramatic feature up into a super session, do you still have big markers or etc to show you where the reel breaks will be? The film still has to be edited to accommodate film reels, and so when do you do the pullups etc? After the mix is a separate session? In TV doc world we've been in the super session mode for a long time, for better or worse. It is more efficient in terms of getting at sounds from other places in the film, and gets everyone thinking how the film will play as a whole right from the start. But it is more taxing to the DAW, and as was said, there is a greater possibility of Automation Disaster if you aren't scrupulous about backups. In the earlier thread about fading all regions, it seemed to me that most DAWs have a way to preset how it cuts files, ie as a default fade of some length and shape, and that works pretty well. I don't see a need to "fix" a fade if the clip in question is sitting well in the track.

An issue that hasn't been brought up yet in this "efficiency" thread is how you set yourself up for doing the dreaded TV network "undipped" split-stems. I'm continuing to tweak mixer and busing setups to try to get the number of bounce passes down re this issue, but there are some things that are still mutually exclusive and can't be done at the same time, or so it seems to me. I'd love to hear how some of you heavy hitters set up to deal with making all those wonderful deliverables as easily as possible.

The issue of how an editor sets up their tracks which then get OMFed to us will always be a bone of contention I guess. I don't see how I will ever avoid the hours of detective work finding everything in an import, although some basic organizing on the part of the editor certainly helps.

A last question is how you handle an editor who thinks (possibly with good reason) that they have essentially "mixed" the film already, and wants their mix used as the work goes on--including pans, levels, EQ and maybe even more complex signal processing?

Philip Perkins

The way I do super sessions on features, each reel starts on a new hour, with R1 at 1:00:00:00, R2 at 2:00:00:00, etc. There is a sizable time gap between reels so it's pretty obvious where they start and finish. The recorder is in individual reels because we work in destructive mode. I often don't record anything at all until we do a playback of a reel and then record the entire reel in one pass as we screen it. For fixes we'll punch into the stems and temp printmaster if there aren't too many of them, and if there are, we'll just make another complete pass at the end of the day.

The pullups get cut the morning of the printmaster by the mix tech. He just imports the first few seconds of the next reel and cut it on usually with a small crossfade.

I don't notice any slowdown of the system whatsoever with super sessions. I've heard people say that it slows their system down, but I can't see any reason why it would. The only issue I've seen is when you have to relink a ton of files it can take a while, but once it's done it's done.

Pro Tools has auto back ups. I set it to one every 5 minutes and a maximum of 32 backups. That's more than I ever need. I also have the super session backed up at lunch and the end of the day plus whenever I move on to another reel. Those backups use a naming scheme that indicates what reel the backup is specifically related to, even though the session is still a super session. I only use them in the rare circumstance where I would want to reimport a reel from the backup. I don't work from them, I use the current complete super session as my master session.

The only deliverables I deal with are those created during the printmaster and the M&E. Our mix tech handles the other stuff because it would be too expensive for us mixers to do so and it really isn't something that requires our skillset.

Regarding editors who supposedly "predub", many claim they are doing it, but few do much more than set basic relative levels. I can count on one hand the number of editors who have been able to bring me usable predubs from the cutting room. Mark Mangini (although he now even finals his own shows), Jon Johnson, Eric Norris, Alec St. John (also finals his own stuff now), Jay Nierenberg and maybe a few others I can't think of right now. For one thing, most are working on underpowered systems that can't handle a real mix session with all the plugins, sends, etc. Most don't even monitor in 5.1 or a calibrated room, so the levels are only relative and the pans wouldn't even be correct. To top it off, they don't have the time, they're too busy just trying to get everything cut and conformed in time. If they can pull off a usable predub, then I think they should also be getting paid double for the time they are mixing and not strictly editing, and that isn't generally in the editorial budget.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against editors mixing, or mixers editing for that matter. I'm not proprietary in the least about the mix. All I care about is that it comes out sounding good. Anyone who can do anything that helps me do a better job is welcome to jump in. Sometimes when I'm working with an editor who knows how to mix like Alec St John, I'll just give them my chair and go make a couple of phone calls or walk over to Starbucks. I get a break and the client gets to see the editor mixing which helps them make the career transition if that's what they're looking to do.

[charles maynes]

as to workflow- for me- I will start with BG's- laying markers on every scene transition. once that is done, I will cut and narrow the tracks as best I can and then do FX. After that, Design.

I am one of those editors who HAS done real predubs- (I did a bunch for Chris Minkler on both the "The Alamo" and "The Great Raid" but I did it under duress)- the stage time disallowed predubbing, so Chris and I set up a scheme that would allow him to get usable premixes.

I dont like mixing in an non-stage enviornment though. And it is certainly not a career path I am interested in. Design, and field recording are way more interesting for me.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

as to workflow- for me- I will start with BG's- laying markers on every scene transition. once that is done, I will cut and narrow the tracks as best I can and then do FX. After that, Design.

I am one of those editors who HAS done real predubs- (I did a bunch for Chris Minkler on both the "The Alamo" and "The Great Raid" but I did it under duress)- the stage time disallowed predubbing, so Chris and I set up a scheme that would allow him to get usable premixes.

I dont like mixing in an non-stage enviornment though. And it is certainly not a career path I am interested in. Design, and field recording are way more interesting for me.

Charles,

For all the friends and co-workers we have in common, I'm really surprised we have never personally met or worked together, unless I'm just getting senile and can't remember - a distinct possibility. We'll have to get together for lunch or a drink sometime and figure out what went haywire.

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

I think, in this discussion above, "Editor" was referring to picture not sound? Correct me if I'm wrong. The OMF, to me, implied picture editor doing "their mix".

-J

Ahhh my bad. I was thinking they were cutting audio in logic or nuendo.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by ggegan

Charles,

For all the friends and co-workers we have in common, I'm really surprised we have never personally met or worked together, unless I'm just getting senile and can't remember - a distinct possibility. We'll have to get together for lunch or a drink sometime and figure out what went haywire.

Gary- I am working over at Advantage Audio right now..... the world seems to be shrinking....

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Gary- I am working over at Advantage Audio right now..... the world seems to be shrinking....

How funny! I was just over there for the first time last Tuesday, talking to Jim and Neil. Impressive little rooms and a lot of smiling faces on the people working there. I liked the fireplace on stage B. Made me feel like pouring a glass of wine, smoking a pipe and mixing in my pajamas and slippers.

BTW, they seem to be very tuned into the whole efficiency thing. Smart choices in gear and organization.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by ggegan

How funny! I was just over there for the first time last Tuesday, talking to Jim and Neil. Impressive little rooms and a lot of smiling faces on the people working there. I liked the fireplace on stage B. Made me feel like pouring a glass of wine, smoking a pipe and mixing in my pajamas and slippers.

BTW, they seem to be very tuned into the whole efficiency thing. Smart choices in gear and organization.

they are very good- I first worked with Jim and the crew on the Simpson's ride.... good place- and excellent business/ cmmon sense...

[smurfyou]

Originally Posted by philper

A last question is how you handle an editor who thinks (possibly with good reason) that they have essentially "mixed" the film already, and wants their mix used as the work goes on--including pans, levels, EQ and maybe even more complex signal processing?

I smile and nod, then get busy organizing their mess of a sequence and undoing whatever they've done. Unless the director/producer is really in love with what the editor did (happened to me a few weeks ago). I will use the guide track if something specific was trying to be accomplished. But I feel comfortable that I can set levels myself. And I don't need crappy fx from some free website, or worse something horribly cliche'd like that same stupid doppler truck horn (again unless the director really wants it).

Of course I'm on the wrong side of the country for serious feature work so I don't have much to offer in this thread. I do keep projects organized, and if working with separate reels in Pro Tools I keep the sessions the same track layout so they can be imported into a super session easily. As for undipped M&E's I still haven't found an easy way. Its a separate pass.

[Rick Sanchez]

A lot of great ideas. Though I rarely work on long form projects anymore, one thing I have seen as a trend is that picture editors are doing more and more of the audio work.

One thing that gets neglected in most of these discussions is education and as audio professionals, we should start to consider a mentoring and educational program for picture editors, directors and producers. Film schools are notorious to spending very little, if any, time on audio issues, overall workflow and budget balancing. That is all painfully obvious when you see how up and coming filmmakers leave virtually nothing in the budget for post, and the end project shows it.

It's always picture vs sound, which is absurd if you are making "talkies". The more knowledgeable our clients and co-workers are about audio for picture, the better off we will all be. Or...we can allow the downward spiral of quality, pay and the number of jobs to continue as it did in the music business over the last 30 years.