Post-Production

Vishaal Desai, I don't know of any specifically, but I hope that someone in my network can give you some suggestions. Have you checked out the Hollylist website? I know they post internships sometimes.

Vishaal Desai Good luck. Don't give up.

Paid or unpaid? Paid internships are very hard to impossible in post-strike Hollywood.

Thank you! Stephen Van Vuuren I'm okay with unpaid since it's for class credit!

Ashley Renee Smith Thank you for the suggestion!

Robert Kiesling I'm starting to see a few good memes on Facebook and Threads that equate AI and Chat GPT to theft from a creator's pockets. That seems to be a more apt description.

"A call to reassert the irreplaceable value of human touch in storytelling, to blend technology with creativity in a way that enhances rather than erases the human element."- I think this is it exactly, Robert Kiesling! I think that the tech is advancing very quickly right now and it's stirring up a lot of anxiety, for good and obvious reasons. But I do think that with so much focus on it right now, the next few years will be about figuring out how to utilize the tools of AI advancements without losing the human side of the storytelling process. People, especially creators, are still and always will be necessary for true creation. For invention. We just need to figure out the balance of it all and the next few years will likely come with a LOT of trial and error as we do so.

I don't see any use of AI to make actual edits beyond tools for non-editors to edit industrial or video content, honestly edit jobs that I stopped doing years ago and have nothing to do with storytelling. Even though I use all sorts of AI tools for various things, I can't imagine being mildly interested in AI editing for me. I edit to express myself. I don't see AI taking over those tasks for most creatives as not creative self-expression fun, it's such a part of the life on an artist. And right now, I see zero evidence that AI is able to do anything but mimic and remix, often when problematic results. But by god I can't wait for AI roto to be perfect. I would love to never manually roto again.

Maurice Vaughan , there are many ways to do this, I've done several of them. The most basic is split screen. Same actor, keep camera locked off and lighting and everything visual the same. The run the scene with actor playing both versions (or more). As long as they don't touch each other directly, it's easy to do the split in post, no special skills needed. Most of Phoebe and Ursula on Friends was done this way with a body double used for over the shoulder OOF shots. If they have to cross in front or behind each other, that's typically a rotoscope operation. If you make it short and limited (no hair, contrasting colors), it's a quick VFX shot. Add a motion-controlled camera to allow for dynamic camera movements (Michael Keaton's Multiplicity movie was one of the first to do this large scale). If you want characters to truly interact - kiss, fight, etc. then it quickly gets complicated and expensive and can involve 3D CGI, costumes, digital body doubles, face and/or head replacements etc. With all of this, the key is working with a experienced DP, production designer and VFX person who will want precise storyboards of the shot/scenes.

Thanks for the in-depth answer, Stephen Van Vuuren! Which method do you think is cheapest? Split screen?

Maurice Vaughan for sure, split screen is zero cost other than time.

Ok, thanks, Stephen Van Vuuren. I'm glad the split screen option is zero cost (besides time) because I can write my short script and still pitch it to indie producers and directors.

Wow! Thanks for sharing that information, Stephen Van Vuuren!

The only people I know working steadily in those type of positions work for a company that provides a range of post-services for clients. Most of those typically hire from within, so the best approach is to research companies and apply for any position there, even if it's not editor. Most senior editors starts elsewhere. Assistant editor jobs in Hollywood do exist but almost always start off internships as a post or edit PA. Finally, work that reel and make sure it's exceptional, get as much feedback as possible on it.

Facebook groups - I see folks looking for editors every day!

I have made over $50k on upwork as a video editor. Mostly in the educational sector. Micro-niche is the word. Have recently gained ground doing Promotional Videos and Sizzle Reels for Entertainment companies. Corporate IT and Small Businesses.

AI is trying to eat everyone alive.

I have a written script with two awards, seeking an agent or manager. Can anyone advise me where to look.

Nice stuff! I like completely reprocessing stock elements especially aerials, heavy grades, change frame rates (extreme slow motion) etc.

Thanks a lot, Stephen!

Actually, I've never done this before, I usually work on static images, but recently decided to try my luts on some poor stock videos. Surprisingly, they translate pretty well, the only problem is that with such a radical color grading, the slightest compression artifacts suddenly start to manifest themselves, loading the image with some subtle flickering. I should probably think about using some RAW footage instead, or stock up on those noise-reduction solutions for this kind of stuff, lol.

Thanks for sharing, Karen "Kay" Ross!

I'm using Resolve's Color Management as of now. I've been learning about ACES but not ready to use it on paid work. Mostly because when issues arise, it's much easier to troubleshoot Resolve than ACES. ACES certainly is a requirement for some work with VFX narrative post-production pipelines. But personally, for the one-person shop, I think Resolve's offers a more robust, simpler approach at this point in time. But I don't pretend to be a serious export. Color is part of my work but I don't consider myself a top expert in color.

INTERESTING

Oooh! I actually really enjoyed the editing in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Karen "Kay" Ross! They managed to pack in a lot of action and relationship development in a short amount of time, but it didn't feel rushed or overwhelming. It was grounded and believable.

This question was one of the most vitriolic debates our local film group back in the "listserv" days of post 2000 ever had. The basic underlying question has to to the fundamental belief of is there is such thing as "objectivity" in film (let's forget all other media for now). There is a group that believes such objective filmmaking is at least theoretically possible. There is another group (which includes me) that believes the act of pointing a camera, setting an exposure, framing a shot, deciding when to start and stop a camera is inherently a subjective act that can NEVER be accomplished objectively. Add the process of selecting a take and editing it to another and it's the furthest possible thing from objectivity by any reasonable definition of that word. However, despite, this the other camp will die fighting for the belief that some films are "more objective" or "less subjective" than others. They don't understand my camp beliefs all filmmaking to be 100% subjective by the fundamental process of filming and editing. The intent or goal or moral values of the filmmaker are irrelevant. I do believe looking at even the most famous documentary films, even those that accomplished much good, there would fail every true test of objectivity. But there is also an implication in this that subjectivity is somehow less than objectivity. I would argue that is is precisely because film and cinema offer potentially the most powerful emotional medium that we have and thus the one that can most effect change. Objectivity has it's use in science and perhaps legal or other arenas. To return to your question, all filming and editing is manipulation by it's very nature. It's a contract that should be consensual. The only problem I have is those that argue that their film is actual objective. It's not, it can never be. Like all consent, as long as both audience and filmmaker are fully aware and committed to the this contract of subjectivity, all is good.

I think genre plays a hand. I totally agree with Stephen - it's the nature of editing. But when actors, directors and editors aim for a scene, using the footage in the most potent way is the social contract. When editing a news interview or a doc on a subject that deserves reverence or respect, then keeping things as close to authentic should be the goal. Back in my reality TV days many years ago... all the footage was in play to deliver entertainment to the audience and the participants signed on for that - and I always felt the audience did too. So like may things, not sure its absolute. The moral compass of the project plays a hand.

There’s a reason many best picture winners also win best editing. Editing makes the movie.

100% agreed Mike Boas How are you, my friend? Long time!

I haven’t gone anywhere… still posting regularly here, just maybe in different lounges?

Editing IS the movie. Otherwise you just have "footage".

Agree - all of prep and production is really to get the legos into the edit room where a film really coms together (or gets fixed, or re-shot). Editing is the key.

Thanks for the share, Suzanne Bronson - have an awesome meetup!

Very informative! Thank you!

This is so smart and right on. Thanks for the share, Ashley Renee Smith!