Getting giddy over today's toys could risk HD problems tomorrow

The most profound change in post-production over the last five years has been the proliferation of powerful, yet low-cost editing tools. Aggressive moves in development by Adobe, Apple, Avid and others have combined with remarkable advances in hard drive, graphics processing unit, codec, and mobile technologies to shift the landscape of how we post any given project. Not surprisingly, many productions have been seduced by the opportunities made possible by these new breed editing tools, most notably the reduction in cost and acceleration of schedules in what is sometimes still sensibly called the 'offline' edit.

But, as the complexity of HD continues to climb from a bedrock of obscurity, misinformation and outright myth, a good number of productions will find that they have been lured into false expectations when it comes to the actual utility of these tools. As such, without careful implementation, the painful creative and budgetary expenses caused by depending too heavily on new editing tools will allow the hd colossus to effectively wipe them out from many workflows.

This perspective may seem a bit alarmist coming from a post house, but it is important to consider that which has led us to such a critical point: an arms race. In an era of fevered competition, software and hardware manufacturers have, of course, all vied for our attention. Each has its own brand of well-polished, mountebank hype, making us keenly aware of the benefits of working with its newfangled editing wares. Loving the work as we do, we turn giddy at the pioneering prospect of new gear and new approaches and are transformed into an easy audience of sophomoric believers. And so begins trouble.

Too infrequent is the production that investigates the costs of working with these new editing tools beyond the simple expense of buying the toys themselves. At their best, next gen tools certainly have the potential to help us tell better stories and, as the brass of every responsible production company will insist, tell them more lucratively. But, at their worst, they further complicate the already cumbersome mechanics of filmmaking, adding another layer that has to be managed and paid for, either creatively or financially.

Some examples of creative expense: using editing tools on set can provide shoot-day rough cuts or pre-visualization, giving a level of insurance to a project involving expensive visual effects set-ups. But at what point does the technical minutiae of field editing, especially that of HD, make the director lazy with camera pre-planning, keep his attention from performance and result in schedule delays? At what point does field editing subvert story? Prominent film editor Walter Murch contends that the full potential of footage cannot be explored and the best story told unless the editor is isolated from the mania of production and its political, as well as logistical, preconceptions.

It is in these situations that a production should associate a creative cost with the decision to include post within a shooting schedule. Just because a new editing rig can be inexpensively brought to set, does not necessarily make it the best creative method for the project. And when strong logic requires editing tools in the field, it should be asked if the budget can accommodate a post supervisor (or staff) that can both minimize the unwelcome footprint that technology can leave on technique, as well as keep the editor locked away to carefully consider the story that actually made it through production unscathed.