hollywood editting

[Ckulakov]

How are most hollywood features shot on film edited? Do they shoot the shots on film then transfer it to digital so they can edit it on the computer in post prod. and then transfer it back to film to be played at the movie theatrea.

Or do they shoot it on film and manually edit the film stocks and then play it in the movies.

 

AND finally what type of cameras are used on big live telivision casts?

 

Thank You in Advance

[Mark Allen]

Most hollywood movies are being edited digitally in AVID, Final Cut Pro, or Lightworks and then a cut list is created and that is used to assemble the negative.

 

More and more common is to use the cut list now to capture in the negative to computer and do what is called a Digitial intermediate where you can perform more precise and ellaborate color correction.

 

Some lower budget movies are telecine'ing to HD and then doing an online on HD, then blowing up to 35mm if necessary.

[Michael Nash]

AND finally what type of cameras are used on big live telivision casts?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are too many cameras in use to list, but for the most part you're talking about broadcast-level video cameras with 2/3" chips. Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami, and Thompson are the major manufacturers. Broadcast cameras represent the top of the line for standard definition, and tend to cost in the $50,000 USD range, depending on how they're configured.

[Michael Most]

Most hollywood movies are being edited digitally in AVID, Final Cut Pro, or Lightworks and then a cut list is created and that is used to assemble the negative.

 

I would amend that to say that at least 90% (if not more) of studio releases are cut on Avid systems. Final Cut and Lightworks are used on only a very small percentage of major pictures.

[Keith Mottram]

I would amend that to say that at least 90% (if not more) of studio releases are cut on Avid systems. Final Cut and Lightworks are used on only a very small percentage of major pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would agree, I think every oscar nominated film this year in the editing catagory was edited on Avid. But I think a change is in the air- witness the fact that Avid just bought Pinacle Systems. There are now a number of editors who openly choose FCP (Walter Murch, Coen Brothers amongst others). Having recently returned to editing on Avid (Adrenaline HD) I was left distinctively unimpressed. I'm mystified to why more dont make the change. Of course on the Indy scene FCP use is rife. Now with Xsan challenging Avid Unity I cant think of any reasons to edit on Avid- you can even now edit multicam on FCP.

 

Keith

[Boone Hudgins]

The Aviator was edited on Lightworks.

[drew_town]

Each version of FCP takes leaps and bounds to catch up with Avid. 4 and HD were significant improvements over 3 and so on. FCP is all I've ever used so I can't compare it to Avid. If you've got the idea to take up editing, you'd be better off tackling both Avid and FCP.

[Mark Allen]

I think every oscar nominated film this year in the editing catagory was edited on Avid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't assume that unless you are sure. Final Cut has been widely adopted.

 

I know that 2004 Academy Award nominated Cold Mountain was edited on Final Cut (Standing up none the less. Walter Murch likes to stand as he edits.) People I'm sure would assume otherwise.

 

Times they are - a - changin.

 

Anybody remember the Laser Disc system. Was it cyberframe? Wow. That was nuts. A roomfull of laser discs (which were one time burns).

[Keith Mottram]

I wouldn't assume that unless you are sure.  Final Cut has been widely adopted.

 

I know that 2004 Academy Award nominated Cold Mountain was edited on Final Cut (Standing up none the less.  Walter Murch likes to stand as he edits.)  People I'm sure would assume otherwise.

 

Times they are - a - changin.

 

Anybody remember the Laser Disc system.  Was it cyberframe?  Wow.  That was nuts.  A roomfull of laser discs (which were one time burns).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

key words 'i think'. as Boone said the Aviator was edited on Lightworks. And unless I am mad I also mentioned Walter Murch. The laser disc system you mentioned in EditDroid, which was made by Lucas Film. A large preportion of this technology- in its later incarnation as Ediflex went into the initial development of Avid.

[Mark Allen]

And unless I am mad I also mentioned Walter Murch.  The laser disc system you mentioned in EditDroid, which was made by Lucas Film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right! I missed your mention of Murch - sorry about that. I must have been blinded by my FCP evangelism. :)

 

This laser disk system I was thinking of wasn't the edit droid actually, but probably functioned the same. I think it was a local company's solution. I searched the net, but since this was before the public use of the internet, there aren't any links. That was an interesting time, my brother actually worked as a programmer on a Coppolla funded editng system which was never released (he later became one of the Quicktime pioneers at Apple.)

 

Thinking back on that era, it reminds me of the HD/35mm discussions that rage on today. It took a long long time before most everyone adopted cutting digitally - but what it mostly took was the technology to be ready and offer more advantages and no limitations.

[Michael Most]

I wouldn't assume that unless you are sure.  Final Cut has been widely adopted.

 

Final Cut has been widely adopted by consumers and do-it-yourselfers, as well as some television stations. It has not been widely adopted by high end professional editors doing studio motion pictures, nor has it been widely adopted by network television program editors, for numerous reasons. "Holllywood" (whatever that means) editing is still completely dominated by Avid, regardless of whatever hype you might be hearing elsewhere.

[David Frank]

And the fact of the matter is that there is no real killer reason why everyone should switch over to Avid anyway. If you have an infrastructure built around Avid and it works fine, why switch?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think that's a real shame, considering Avid's gear isn't actually all that, well, er, good. Soon to go the way of the SGI, I fear.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

It's weird, but back in 1995 you'd have thought Lightworks was the future! Everything from Batman Forever to Space Precinct had invested in the system- then again this was back when the latest James Bond film (Goldeneye) was still being cut on a Steenbeck, and even the follow up (Tomorrow Never Dies) was immediately blitzed by Avid.

 

Does Michael Kahn really still do everything old school like the press states? I have heard rumours that he got Avid out for Tomb Raider 2 and AI, no idea how much truth is in those...

[Saul Pincus]

Hi,

 

I think that's a real shame, considering Avid's gear isn't actually all that, well, er, good. Soon to go the way of the SGI, I fear.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Other than Lightworks, Avid's interface has it hands down over Final Cut for dramatic work. Forget about producers and production managers. Many, many editors believe this, and it's one reason Avid remains popular.

 

They will almost all tell you that the single greatest flaw with Final Cut (even version 4.5 HD) is still it's trim tool - and that based on a comfortable workflow, they would rather use Avid.

 

Saul.

[Sam Wells]

I think one of Coppola's systems was the prototype for Montage Picture Processor.

8 or more Betamax (max not cam) decks talking to each other at once, very scary NLE

:blink: :D

 

-Sam

[Keith Mottram]

Final Cut has been widely adopted by consumers and do-it-yourselfers, as well as some television stations. It has not been widely adopted by high end professional editors doing studio motion pictures, nor has it been widely adopted by network television program editors, for numerous reasons. "Holllywood" (whatever that means) editing is still completely dominated by Avid, regardless of whatever hype you might be hearing elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You cant expect Avid to lose its domination overnight, but I think when you have major shows such as Scrubs being edited on FCP and studio pictures such as Cold Mountain (Walter Murch has also stated that he plans to edit Jarhead on FCP as well) edited on FCP then a change can be said to be afoot. It has taken a few years for FCP to get to a legitimate standard, prior to version 4 I refused to do a pro job on it, but now it is a damn good editor. I get very bored of editors moaning about the interface etc. Yes improvements can be made but there are a number of reason why I prefer FCP to Avid. The dinosaurs will take time to convert, but then again how long did it take for Avid itself to be adopted. Finally the real hold up for FCP was the fact that from a workflow point of view it suffered from a lack of networking tool and Avid Unity is essential to alot of productions. Xsan though is superior and will be instrumental to increasing FCP's high end user base. Also in my opinion Adrenaline is 30 grand's worth of marketing not 30 grands worth of product and if you go up to a higher end Avid this goes up ridiculously. Of course you still have to have a support contract as it's got more bugs in it than my back garden. Seriously why people still bang on about Avid is a mystery- then again two years ago I would have been one of them.

 

keith