Home / Blog

A Discussion on Tape, Tapeless and Shooting Ratios

By Scott Simmons   /   Mar 27, 2011
There’s a great post over at the blog Little Frog in Hi Def prompting a discussion that needs to be had, about an issue that everyone in post-production is surely experiencing right now. As film and tape have given way to tapeless formats, we’re seeing a lot (often a whole lot) more footage come in with jobs demanding those cuts be made within the same turnaround time (or maybe less) as we had for smaller jobs in the past. As for budgets, those are almost always less today than they were just a few years ago. This forces the real issue here: How can anyone properly edit a job with more footage in the same amount of time as before? Or even less time than you had previously? No one wants to turn down paying jobs and good clients or lose those same clients by giving the job less attention than it deserves. You also want to be able to get home at a decent hour and see your family (or your friends). Plus there’s always that kid with Final Cut Pro who doesn’t have a family who’s willing to do any job for any amount of money. Quite a dilemma indeed. The curator of Little Frog in High Def is Shane Ross, a “Broadcast Television editor, husband, father of three” who lives and works in Los Angeles. Rather than trying to write up something new on the subject I asked Shane if I could repost his blog post in the hopes that, with our wide readership, would generate some discussion on this topic. There’s already some good discussion going over at Shane’s original post, so be sure and read those as well. To me, it’s been great to see thoughts on this issue from producers and directors as well as editors. Here’s the LFHD post TAPE & TAPELESS…AND SHOOTING RATIOS reposted, in its entirety, with the permission of the author:
I have worked on a couple shows that were shot on film. The shows I worked on were shot on Super 16mm, and it was, and still is, an expensive process. The film stock isn’t cheap (although cheaper than some tape formats), but then you need to add into that the film processing and telecine to tape. And we wouldn’t receive the footage for the day’s shoot until the following day, when we needed time to capture it. So the editor might see the footage perhaps two days later, or in the afternoon of the next day, depending on the edit bay situation. And, because it was an expensive process, the shooting ratio was small. On average you might see between two and six takes, depending on how good the actors and crew were in getting the shot just right. Once they got the shot, they might shoot a safety…but there’d be plenty of takes that might have flubs, or something bad happening, but they still print because part of the take was good. If something went wrong, they’d shoot more. But, regardless, the shooting ratio was pretty low. And because it was low, the amount of time needed to review the footage, and produce a rough cut, was relatively short. A week for a rough cut was totally doable…on a 30 min show. 60 min shows have more time…two weeks, or 12 days.
Then came tape….and more recently, tapeless. Now the shooting format was cheaper. And because of this, directors are shooting more…A LOT more. And shooting longer takes. Sometimes getting two to seven takes in ONE “take.” Meaning that they don’t stop and re-slate, they just say “RESET…let’s take it from the top” and don’t stop the tape and roll again. That is fine, we can subclip or add markers/locators to separate them. But what this is really starting to do is make the amount of footage that the editor has to look at and deal with, increase ten-fold. Yet, and this is the clincher…we have the SAME AMOUNT OF TIME to sort through the footage and present a rough cut. That’s right. The shooting ratio jumps to ten times the amount we used to get…but the time allotted to cut this footage remains the same. I have an editor friend who is dealing with this right now. On Even Stevens, we’d have perhaps 3 hours of footage for the 22:42 min show. But he is on another Disney Channel show where he regularly sees six to 8 hours of footage…multiple takes buried in one roll. This takes time to sort through. Producers and networks want the best take used in the show. Well, this requires that the editors actually watch all the footage…and then compare all the takes. Several times. We need to see the subtle differences that make one take better than the other. Comparing 3-4 takes is a bit quicker than looking at 10-12 takes. It takes time. But the big problem is, we aren’t given any additional time to do this. And on shows that are Union, you can’t work longer hours to do this. Well, not on the books anyway. Yet, we are expected to take the extra time to do this. But that brings us to the overall issue of dealing with lots of footage, and the expectations producers/networks have in terms of our work schedule. To many, what we do is mysterious enough. But many people don’t seem to grasp that when an editor is given 80 hours of footage, we need time to look at everything. If we work 8 hour days, we need two weeks (40 hours a week) to review the footage. Given a 50 hour week (10 hour days…which is more of the norm), that is a week and a half…8 days. The problem is that producers want to see results after a week. They want to see some sort of cut…a string out, a rough cut. Something. So we have to start building the cut the instant we watch the footage. And what this has me doing is cutting something, finding a better take later, replacing what I edited, getting that to work. Then, oh dear, the second half of yet a later cut was better than the one I have, but the one I have has a better first half. But, great, the continuity is off, so I can’t make that work. My cutting can end up being more haphazard. The message here to producers… who I doubt read this blog so they won’t get the message… is “please give us time.” If you want a quality project, please give us time to review the footage. If you don’t have it in the budget to do that, please shoot less. Well, this won’t work out well in the documentary world, because they shoot what they shoot. But in the “reality” world where there are multiple takes (yes, there are), and in the narrative world… you need to note that the more you shoot, the longer it takes us to sort through the haystack to find the needle. So please keep that in mind. This is why the cut we turned in wasn’t as good as it could have been. Or the one that we did deliver… that cut that was really really good…we worked 24, 48 hours straight to make it that way. Or we worked multiple 16 hour days. That seems to be the expectation lately. That we put in the long long hours required to produce the cut that they expect us to produce in the short amount of time they give us. This, my lovely wife, is why I was working late all week long, and got home long after you were asleep. And why I am cranky when I get up at 6 am to help with the kids. And sleep until noon on Sunday.

18 Comments

Categories: Blog
Tags: ,

  • Tim Fender

    Sadly, this is all too real. Add in the joy of syncing (even with PluralEyes) and you find 75% of your energy going towards just getting the footage organized enough to where you can compare takes. Fortunately, the deadlines remain the same!

  • http://www.lfhd.net Shane Ross

    Picture us like sculptors. It used to be that the directors/producers gave us a stone that was roughly in the shape they wanted. Say, a guy on a horse. And it would be nearly the size they wanted. And it was up to us to chisel away at it and bring out what they wanted. Add a little of our creativity here, their creativity there. And when we were done, there wasn’t a lot of rubble left behind.

    Now we are given a square block about 10 times the size we need, and said “make something of this. A guy on a horse. But we aren’t sure how we want him to be posed, so maybe chisel away at this part first…and if we don’t like it, chisel over there.” And we have the same deadline.

  • Thomas A. Beaver

    AMEN!!!

  • http://www.bfv.com bill matthiesen

    The discussion about new technology rarely talks about how it affects the creative process. Does it make things easier, does it make them harder? It usually comes down to trade-offs. You’re talking about time — which is one aspect. But there’s also the creative process itself. Does a particular technology help or hinder creativity, working with the client, etc.? Choosing to adopt a particular technological “improvement” opens up a whole can of worms — so people need to think beyond just the shiny bells and whistles of a new gadget. Those of us who started in 16mm & 35mm film have seen a zillion wonderful new gizmos crash and burn. So we’re a little more cautious about our commitments to particular tools. And if your client was actually paying by the hour, rather than at a flat rate, they might have a financial incentive to work more efficiently.

  • toron stganymede

    … there are no absolutes in art – there is no “best” take – only the one that matches the artist’s vision – chaplin did 500 takes for the “flower” scene in city lights to get that right one – he edited from a projected negative to save money – cassavetes shot so many takes he couldn’t make up a movie out of them – they could be re-montaged into 13 and a half different films – sooooo – those thunder gods are dysfunctional – they don’t know what they want – you have to take the bull by the horns and show them – they’ll love you for it – be guided by your inner light and rapid fire – fast flash choices – don’t agonize over that shit they just shot – leave early and get over to the buena-vista for a good irish coffe – be early for the happy hour – slainte . . .

  • http://web.me.com/mkrupnick/PixelLabs/Hardware.htm Michael Krupnick

    Once again technology is abused by the lazy and art (and every true artist) suffers. Anyone who can plunk down a couple $K thinks they know about editing, and a cubicle in a rented office space is suddenly an edit bay. Borscht!
    Time manipulation is what editors do. And that TAKES time. Yeah, the effect is magic at the end, but the prep is everything. The rabbit comes out of the hat in an instant, but feeding it and stuffing it in takes a helluva lot longer. Speaking of prep: if the director is burying us in gazillions of takes, he/she is clueless. That’s not a need for an editor – it calls for a therapist.

  • Tom Olsen

    Remember when people rehearsed first then the camera rolled? Those were the days…

  • http://www.myrcvideo.com Rob Constantine

    Right on! I’ve been there too with event videos..going through miles of a client’s footage for golden moments..with them expecting it in three days…. I Haven’t worked on a network show yet, but I have seen blooper shows on TV with young actors flubbing lines over and over while old pros like Peter Falk nail them on every take.
    IMHO the root cause of all of these TV show takes is lack of stage experience by the actors.

  • Richard Thompson

    There’s an interesting commentary at http://proaudioreview.com/article/35272 which fits in with this theme. The writer wonders if the removal of “pressure” inhibits performance, etc., in the music world. He has some interesting thoughts.

  • http://www.steveoakley.net Steve Oakley

    no one is sitting thru all that material times several cameras. you just go to the last 2 takes, or maybe look at script notes if there are any and use the marked “good” takes. I don’t need a million options in editing, just one that works. no cut is “best” once it works, you are now into shades of gray, personal taste ( or lack of :( ) and which way the wind blows. the only time you go to other takes is if you need somethng thats not in the “good” take like the actors start freelancing the scene and only do some great line once, but the rest of the take stinks. so great, lift out that one line, move it into the good edit, and go on.

  • http://www.bfv.com bill matthiesen

    The other thing is that if you have to edit your own footage, you quickly become humbled. It’s much easier to be disassociated from this if you’re just handing off footage to someone else — it just becomes “their” problem. But generals never have “enough” soldiers going into battle. And so it’s no surprise that videographers also overshoot like there’s no tomorrow. We over-eat, we drive too fast, etc. So unless there are some limits, this is what people normally do. The limit can be the cost of film, or the labor of wading through all this junk to find the good stuff, or paying what it costs for each hour of editing time for someone else to wade through it. But a very important part of art is knowing when to stop — when to stop painting, when to stop writing, when to stop shooting, etc. Eventually you just run out of time or money — and then it’s “done.” But surprise, surprise — not everyone is really an artist. So knowing when to stop doesn’t just come naturally to many.

  • http://www.davideocompany.com Peter Stassa

    I am lucky to be able to survive by editing stuff I have shot or supervised. I hate dealing with “surprise” footage, especially when it arrives without a script, any production notes, or broken timecode. I’ve logged a ton of raw footage in my life (most, but not all of it, in the pre-NLE days, or when digital storage was limited), and it takes time…even when I was the shooter. (Hard to mark takes when you’re running and gunning solo.). But when I have the luxury of directing a crew, I take plenty of notes and we always try to stop and start the tape-based cameras between takes, since most current NLE’s will read that stop/start signal from the tape and automatically break a full tape capture into individual scenes. (Almost like what ends up in the bin when you transfer a flash card full of clips.) And when I cannot be on site, I instruct my camera ops and directors to do the same…whenever possbile. I have been toying with the idea of telling “take-happy” clients that I will add a surcharge if the amount of raw footage they insist on shooting exceeds what I consider a “normal” amount. I just have to figure out what “normal” should be!

  • http://www.aidemsolutions.com Derek Lau

    I’ve seen it from both sides… dealing with people who shoot a ton of footy and give you no direction and a tight deadline. You spend 50 hours making a rough edit and they tell you to change the whole thing, biting your tongue – you wish they gave you more direction in the beginning.

    Agreeing with Steve O – I think have a good footage “logger” marking the good takes and un-useable takes can be very helpful… that way you don’t have to watch every second of footage if you are in a time crunch.

    Normally its one way or the other… I have producers that hand me very detailed timecode notes and I can almost punch in within a second or two the in and out points, and sometimes I get way to much footage, lots of it bad, with no direction on how to sculpt the masterpiece…

    I have never cut film, started with DVCAM tape & Mini DV, but I know people definitely do keep the camera’s rolling with the tapeless formats, I even have footage of people discussing shots and what to shoot for 1,2,5 even 10 minutes… if you plan on working with the producer/director again – tell them about it and tell them to log the footage on location at the shoot…. possibly even review the logging notes and mark what they remember is good, and what can be skipped over…

  • Curtis

    Sounds like amateur-hour or a bunch of interns out shooting. My shooting ratio hasn’t changed since going tapeless.

  • Bob Woodhead

    As Derek & Peter say, a script supervisor or the like marking up take notes can completely remove the burden of massive rushes. I really enjoy editing those projects, as not only can I quickly work through the edit knowing I’m using the best takes, but also have more options (ie, takes) & time to tweak scenes.

    That said, if I get a pile o’ footy without notes, the post goes one of two ways: If it’s an hourly billing, I smile all the way to the bank and say nice things to the producer. If it’s a flat rate for post & wading through an unusual amount of footage wasn’t accounted for, I hand back the entire thing as burn-in Quicktimes and tell them to get back to me with logs. That may lose the client, but then that’s a client I don’t want. It’s also the best way to train a producer to do it right the first time.

    Bottom line – logging takes is part of working professionally.

  • Bm

    It’s the sign of the times.
    It started with Comic book Artists complaining about how Photoshop technology was making their jobs redundant. Next, are the old school story board artists. And let us not forget the clay sculptors who were outsourced to a faster format…”digital modeling”.
    As unfortunate as it is, each and every field has to maintain the skills necessary to keep up with our Digital evolution.

    Darwinism of the entertainment industry 101: If you are not willing to change, the under-paid Intern will be more than willing to take over your duties.

  • http://jeffdevuono.com Jeff DeVuono

    Actually, if the producers hired directors who were actually qualified to direct, which means understanding the entire process of the how a TV show is made (“work flow” included), editors would be able to find the best takes and get home in time to see the show they edited. But that would mean the producers would need to be qualified to know what qualifies a person to be hired as a director.

  • Sebastian

    What the digital revolution has done is create a group of amatuers. Either they are amatuers with the format or they amatuers in the process. When I got into this business it was the end of quad tape the beginning of 1″ and betacam. While I welcome the digital revolution which could be a time saver, its no excuse to abandon the process that has work well for 80 to 90 years. Above the line has no understanding of the technology and runs around like a college filmmaker. The process does not or should not change. When I read that the director gives you a 10 to12 min clips & in between takes while discussing what to do on the next take shows no experience whatsoever. Since producers and directors act like gods or kings and say make it so and break the laws of physics when they have no understanding of physics. The time has come to make them understand there is PRICE to their ignorance of convience. Post-production facilities need to charge for this lack of experience its the most effective way to for them to understand they need to perform like professionals or go back to making college films. We do have a life outside of what we do as well. As for the kid with FCP, he will either learn the hard way or he’ll cheapen the industry as whole. Film and video has been democratize so now you will have amatuers in the mix. They way I see it pros will migrate towards pros and the inexperience will be inexperienced. Skilled editors need to stick to their guns even if the job goes out the door. Because its a headache nobody wants.