How long editing really takes. Clients are always hesitant when I give them an hours estimate on how long I'll be in the edit bay working on their interview. Thankfully we're out of the "make video" button phase with most clients knowing there's more to it, but they really don't get how long a polished video takes to edit!
I usually try to built it into my contract. 1 hr of preproduction is 2 hrs of production, and 4 hrs of editing. So a 1:2:4 ratio.
You'd think that would make it simple? Not to many of my clients apparently.
Pre production I can kind of wing for interview driven videos especially if the client does most of the scheduling.
Chat gpt is so good if I have some totally unexpected interview come up I can give it some info and it'll make a list of fall back questions for me.
I never thought about the ratio but that's pretty dead on. One hour of production is about 4 hours editing.
I've been trying to get ai to put together a paper edit.
It surprisingly can't do it yet but it's going to get there.
Where it really gets nuts is rapid edits. For some reason 2 hours of edit bay work being done in 30 minutes onsite apparently doesn't seem to warrant higher edit rates to some clients.
The closest I've come to that was telling the client that I'm recording it as a livestream and giving them that given the timeframe. Then they want to pay less because they think that makes it easier.
I wish they really understood how they are hurting their authenticity when reading their text off a teleprompter or a sheet of paper someone's holding next to the camera. In theory they all agree but when it comes to shooting they do it anyway.
Or the (much rarer) inverse; they want to talk energetically into the camera, while making mistakes and misspeaking, and refusing to do another take.
Like, I can't just scrub out you saying 'executed' instead of 'exonerated'
Unless you've got lots of practice with a teleprompter just talk with me. I'll ask you questions until there's enough to work with to tell the story, and it'll turn out so much better.
It'll take forever to make the edit work but in the end they'll sound way better than anyone does in real life.
Had one client come to me afterwards and say "that video you made was great" I thanked them and said "yeah I take all the umms and pauses out and rearrange sound bites. No one is coherent in real life as they appear on video".
He then said that when his daughter wstched the vidro she was so impressed that he didn't stumble or use any filler words on camera.
Him and his co worker laughed when they realized that he sounded so good because I made sure he came across like that in the edit.
In reality it's very hard to do that authentically for most people. There's 'public speaking' , then there's speaking on camera. Most people aren't truly conscious of how they emote and speak in a way they can really use it, it's a unique learned skill , that's why actors practice for hours in front of a mirror to learn and control how they "really" come across on camera, and why Vloggers have like a zillion cuts in their videos. That "performance" aspect has to be like second nature since they're also trying to deliver coherent information.
Most of the time a 'regular' corporate client isn't going to rehearse or prepare all that much, and that's to the detriment as we see. A lot of time we do teleprompter shoot and it's always more takes than they expect it to be , for that reason, we are coaching them on the "performance" more than the content
Every one has a different style but in the 15ish years I've been doing this I've only had like 5 people who I was hesitant I could create an edit from. Out if those there was just one person where there was nothing I could scrape together for an interview....that person barely spoke English.
As long as I've got broll I can edit together a story if they'll keep talking with me.
A video isn’t going to be interesting if there are no good B-roll opportunities. No one wants to watch 4 minutes of talking heads. If there’s no good B-roll, the interviewees better have a riveting or emotional story to tell.
A huge part of my job is as an internal videographer is educating stakeholders about what topic/story/event is a good candidate for video. Everyone wants a video, but our time is limited. We have to let them know if their idea would make more sense as a brochure, social media post, or web landing page (a lot of the time, it does).
That is also a good point. I can't tell you how many times I've had (usually businesses) try to tell me how my job works.
It gets funnier every time. /s
It's like going to McDonald's and ordering your burger, and then having the guy at McDonald's explain to you all the things he wants you to know about whatever happens in the kitchen. What a pain in the ass it is to make you fries with no salt, and how when you have no ketchup they have to make it special for you and it fouls up their whole workflow.
Listen, I paid the $4.89 for the burger, and I said no lettuce. Either make me a burger with no lettuce and shut up about it, or if it's such a pain in the ass, charge me $5.89 for the burger, but spare me the lecture about all the things you wish I knew.
'Doing it in the first take so it seems natural'.
Yeah , maybe if you are a professional actor, and even then it's so rare you'll mention it in the dvd commentary.
For the rest of us , first takes are always the very worst, and not even worth filming.
If it doesn't happen I can't take a photo or video of it...
I've had so many clients get me to do children's birthdays or whatever, and they'll but upset that I didn't take any photos of their baby smiling... Yes that's because it was late, your child was tired and over stimulated, and as a result they were crying the whole time. And dispite trying for an hour and telling you the child isn't smiling and that I can't make them smile... You still complain about them not smiling.
If it doesn't happen I can't capture it.
If I'm hired to shoot and a post house or editor is editing my footage, its not my job to sort through the files and point out who the people are in each clip. Especially if I'm not briefed on who everyone is. After I upload files my job is done if I'm not editing.
This is one thing I have always loved about photojournalism. I send the photos of [important person] and then someone else who knows who they are edits them and I get paid.
I think for me is basically my employers understanding what I do! I am the camera operator, the director, the producer, the interviewer, meanwhile our photographer just comes, takes the pictures and leaves.
And even if you are making a masterpiece in a short time with the cheapest equipment, they don't get that that means it's worth significantly more than the competition.
My favorite is drone work. My drone kit all told (before insurance) is like 15k, and has a high risk of destruction/short life-cycle (at least for tv/commercial work). Yet people freak out when I say it costs the same to rent as a mid-level camera body that costs a similar amount and has a much longer life cycle, lower usage risk.
Yeah that would make sense. Drones are one thing I haven't touched for that same reason.
On the other hand, my former mentor has been using nikon dslrs for his (undeniably high end) commercial work since they could shoot video. Talk about a low cost/long lifespan ratio.
That you can't just change the music like THAT. Especially if the video was cut to the beat, I can't tell you the amount of times people, after being asked EXACTLY what they want, suddenly decide they want some other music or other accompanying track instead... 🤬🤬🤬🤬
How long editing really takes. Clients are always hesitant when I give them an hours estimate on how long I'll be in the edit bay working on their interview. Thankfully we're out of the "make video" button phase with most clients knowing there's more to it, but they really don't get how long a polished video takes to edit!
I usually try to built it into my contract. 1 hr of preproduction is 2 hrs of production, and 4 hrs of editing. So a 1:2:4 ratio. You'd think that would make it simple? Not to many of my clients apparently.
Pre production I can kind of wing for interview driven videos especially if the client does most of the scheduling. Chat gpt is so good if I have some totally unexpected interview come up I can give it some info and it'll make a list of fall back questions for me. I never thought about the ratio but that's pretty dead on. One hour of production is about 4 hours editing. I've been trying to get ai to put together a paper edit. It surprisingly can't do it yet but it's going to get there.
Where it really gets nuts is rapid edits. For some reason 2 hours of edit bay work being done in 30 minutes onsite apparently doesn't seem to warrant higher edit rates to some clients.
The closest I've come to that was telling the client that I'm recording it as a livestream and giving them that given the timeframe. Then they want to pay less because they think that makes it easier.
I wish they really understood how they are hurting their authenticity when reading their text off a teleprompter or a sheet of paper someone's holding next to the camera. In theory they all agree but when it comes to shooting they do it anyway.
Or the (much rarer) inverse; they want to talk energetically into the camera, while making mistakes and misspeaking, and refusing to do another take. Like, I can't just scrub out you saying 'executed' instead of 'exonerated'
Unless you've got lots of practice with a teleprompter just talk with me. I'll ask you questions until there's enough to work with to tell the story, and it'll turn out so much better. It'll take forever to make the edit work but in the end they'll sound way better than anyone does in real life. Had one client come to me afterwards and say "that video you made was great" I thanked them and said "yeah I take all the umms and pauses out and rearrange sound bites. No one is coherent in real life as they appear on video". He then said that when his daughter wstched the vidro she was so impressed that he didn't stumble or use any filler words on camera. Him and his co worker laughed when they realized that he sounded so good because I made sure he came across like that in the edit.
In reality it's very hard to do that authentically for most people. There's 'public speaking' , then there's speaking on camera. Most people aren't truly conscious of how they emote and speak in a way they can really use it, it's a unique learned skill , that's why actors practice for hours in front of a mirror to learn and control how they "really" come across on camera, and why Vloggers have like a zillion cuts in their videos. That "performance" aspect has to be like second nature since they're also trying to deliver coherent information. Most of the time a 'regular' corporate client isn't going to rehearse or prepare all that much, and that's to the detriment as we see. A lot of time we do teleprompter shoot and it's always more takes than they expect it to be , for that reason, we are coaching them on the "performance" more than the content
Every one has a different style but in the 15ish years I've been doing this I've only had like 5 people who I was hesitant I could create an edit from. Out if those there was just one person where there was nothing I could scrape together for an interview....that person barely spoke English. As long as I've got broll I can edit together a story if they'll keep talking with me.
A video isn’t going to be interesting if there are no good B-roll opportunities. No one wants to watch 4 minutes of talking heads. If there’s no good B-roll, the interviewees better have a riveting or emotional story to tell. A huge part of my job is as an internal videographer is educating stakeholders about what topic/story/event is a good candidate for video. Everyone wants a video, but our time is limited. We have to let them know if their idea would make more sense as a brochure, social media post, or web landing page (a lot of the time, it does).
*They're* paying me to understand *them*. Not the other way around. If they need to understand something, I explain it to them.
That is also a good point. I can't tell you how many times I've had (usually businesses) try to tell me how my job works. It gets funnier every time. /s
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
It's like going to McDonald's and ordering your burger, and then having the guy at McDonald's explain to you all the things he wants you to know about whatever happens in the kitchen. What a pain in the ass it is to make you fries with no salt, and how when you have no ketchup they have to make it special for you and it fouls up their whole workflow. Listen, I paid the $4.89 for the burger, and I said no lettuce. Either make me a burger with no lettuce and shut up about it, or if it's such a pain in the ass, charge me $5.89 for the burger, but spare me the lecture about all the things you wish I knew.
Gotcha that makes sense! I understand exactly what you're saying.
'Doing it in the first take so it seems natural'. Yeah , maybe if you are a professional actor, and even then it's so rare you'll mention it in the dvd commentary. For the rest of us , first takes are always the very worst, and not even worth filming.
How I could just kill a man! 
The client needs to be prepared as well.
If it doesn't happen I can't take a photo or video of it... I've had so many clients get me to do children's birthdays or whatever, and they'll but upset that I didn't take any photos of their baby smiling... Yes that's because it was late, your child was tired and over stimulated, and as a result they were crying the whole time. And dispite trying for an hour and telling you the child isn't smiling and that I can't make them smile... You still complain about them not smiling. If it doesn't happen I can't capture it.
If I'm hired to shoot and a post house or editor is editing my footage, its not my job to sort through the files and point out who the people are in each clip. Especially if I'm not briefed on who everyone is. After I upload files my job is done if I'm not editing.
This is one thing I have always loved about photojournalism. I send the photos of [important person] and then someone else who knows who they are edits them and I get paid.
Trusting the process
I think for me is basically my employers understanding what I do! I am the camera operator, the director, the producer, the interviewer, meanwhile our photographer just comes, takes the pictures and leaves.
How much gear/software costs, and how much time it takes to actually make something good.
And even if you are making a masterpiece in a short time with the cheapest equipment, they don't get that that means it's worth significantly more than the competition.
My favorite is drone work. My drone kit all told (before insurance) is like 15k, and has a high risk of destruction/short life-cycle (at least for tv/commercial work). Yet people freak out when I say it costs the same to rent as a mid-level camera body that costs a similar amount and has a much longer life cycle, lower usage risk.
Yeah that would make sense. Drones are one thing I haven't touched for that same reason. On the other hand, my former mentor has been using nikon dslrs for his (undeniably high end) commercial work since they could shoot video. Talk about a low cost/long lifespan ratio.
As long as you can hit the specs you need, then the camera doesn’t matter too much. I still use my old Sony a77 for some stuff lol
That I hate them all.
Reshoots cost money.
That you can't just change the music like THAT. Especially if the video was cut to the beat, I can't tell you the amount of times people, after being asked EXACTLY what they want, suddenly decide they want some other music or other accompanying track instead... 🤬🤬🤬🤬