"Just fix it in post..."

I am a new editor. I'm not the greatest editor known to man, but I want to get better and I am trying to improve my skills. (I do want to try to be the greatest editor :D)


That being said...

If I hear one more person on a no-budget indie production say: "Oh, we can just fix it in post," I swear! :angry:

End of rant.


-- spinner :cool:
 
I know!!!

Geez! Plus they don't know how much time it can take to fix something that they could have done correctly in the field!


-- spinner :cool:
 
I had an actor once who kept spouting that out as a joke. "Hey guys, let's make that our slogan on set."

Afte nobody laughed the next 10 or so times he got the idea haha.
 
so, over the last few weeks Iv listened to all the podcast from American Cinematographer Mag.
(http://ww.theasc.com/ac_magazine/podcasts.php)

Id say in at least 2 out of 3 interviews FIX IT IN POST is used. There are some compelling justifications for saying "Fix it in post." For example, If you can save 2 hours of camera lighting\flagging setup time becuase of one stupid hot spot on a background element , then yeah, when each hour is $30,000 of expense, Fix It In Post IS the right answer.

I think that still scales to small productions too. If you can avoid having to change your setup simply becuase some small problem that CAN be fixed in post, then it makes sense.

So I will continue to say "Fix It In Post" but because Im doing the post, I know what I can and cant fix..
 
You'll love this one.

Person A - "I don't have enough light."

Person B - "We'll just boost the exposure in post."

Person A - "Did we bring more lights?"

Person B - "Of course we did, but we're almost done. We'll fix it in post!"

Person A - "If I take the lens off, maybe I'll gain 2 stops."

Person B - "You have a bad attitude!"
 
Id say in at least 2 out of 3 interviews FIX IT IN POST is used. There are some compelling justifications for saying "Fix it in post." For example, If you can save 2 hours of camera lighting\flagging setup time becuase of one stupid hot spot on a background element , then yeah, when each hour is $30,000 of expense, Fix It In Post IS the right answer.

....no, I mean: if you move the camera to the left a little so the glare goes away, we won't have to fix it in post.


That didn't happen a lot, but I was thinking, you have the time and the wherewithal to do it correctly, do it correctly! Now, after the fact, it's kind of funny. When we were working on the project, not so much.


-- spinner :cool:
 
For me, it's what you do when there is no possible way to fix it on set or when the cost equation is going to pretty obviously work out as Wheat noted.

We do it much more for sound than image. You're recording outside and there is some noise you can't get rid off for example. At some point you say, OK, we're shooting this knowing we're going to have to ADR and foley the whole scene. We can't waste any more time trying to get a take with good sound. Filming The Island there was a night bands were practicing close enough to the set that you could hear them. We plied them with beer and kept them quiet for a while, but when they finally HAD to start practicing we literally just started shooting the film MOS, not even running audio other than the camera sound for a reference because we knew we'd have to foley and ADR the whole scene anyway.
 
I read the title of this thread as: "We're too lazy/overwhelmed/under-committed/poorly scheduled to do our jobs correctly on set." The shoot I was on last weekend allowed time (of course with ADs telling us to hurry up -- and rightly so) to correct glare in lockers across a hallway and to make sure we had enough light coming through a doorway to look "Right" in camera. The difference in the quality and perceived budget is amazing... don't short change yourselves and let yoru crew do their jobs...

If not, then why are you making films, don't you want a good product? Perhaps the line should be: "I just want to be able to say I'm a filmmaker."
 
Back
Top