When Should You Contact An Editor?

I don't think there's really a need to hire an editor until you've reached post production. I can think of a number of benefits, but every one of them boils down to expediency, which you've already mentioned is not an issue.

Are there issues that an editor might see during filming? Sure, but a capable director should see mostly the same things. If the production is also being filmed with no time-constraints, then I could see how an editors input could be useful. But in the real world, there is no film production that doesn't have time-constraints, and since the editor isn't there, they don't know the daily challenges that the production crew is facing, and so really can't comment on how things should be done.

In addition to your director, your editor also needs to communicate well with your DP, your colorist, and your audio post.

Audio post begins after your editor delivers a locked edit. Ideally, the people who work on audio post vs. production audio should be different people. Those are two closely related art-forms, but they're nevertheless entirely different skills. Sure, one person could do all of it, but if you're able to, wouldn't you want to hire someone who is particularly skilled at one specific job?

In the ideal world, you'd lock in as many crew as possible in pre. Indeed, it would be very difficult to budget for post crew's rates and packages if you didn't have them locked in beforehand.

It is also good for the Director and other HODs to chat to key post personnel in order to understand what is and isn't achievable. VFX guys can tell the Director exactly what can and can't be done within budget. The Director can chat to the sound guys about the sort of soundscape that's wanted, and the sound post guys can then advise the on-set PSM as to what sort of things they need.
It's good for your DP to chat to your editor about shooting formats and ratios and any potential issues in the pipeline. It's also good for your VFX guys and DP to chat about exactly what they need (or for them to be on set when you're shooting to ensure they have what they need).
It also means you can drop off drives on a daily basis to the Editor who can start logging footage and working on the film. I've also had the case where the Editor has started to compile a rough-cut during principal photography, and flagged certain pickup shots that we were then able to get during our principal photography, saving us a pick-up day (of course there were still pick-up days).

It can work bringing on your post crew once you've finished principal photography, but IMO it's better to bring on at least key roles in pre.

HowTheyDoThat said:

When this process begins, at what point does an audio mixer/sound person enter the story?

Click to expand...

The Sound Designer is usually brought on board during the early stages of Pre-Production or even during Development. Lo/No budget filmmakers and many types of TV programs tend not to bring any post sound people onboard until Post-Production actually starts, although as Jax mentioned, they will be booked in pre-production. The PSM (Production Sound Mixer) is usually brought onboard during the latter stages of Pre-Production.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Does the person mixing/fixing the audio need to have ever been on the set.

Click to expand...

No, it is extremely rare for a post sound editor or re-recording mixer to ever visit the set. The Sound Designer will at times though.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Can an audio recorder mix sound, as a general rule (obv some can)

Click to expand...

I take it when you say audio recorder you mean the PSM and by mix sound you mean pre-mixing/final mixing (the role of re-recording mixer)? If so, the answer is no, never. Completely different equipment, requirements and completely different techniques and skill-set. I can't think of any roles in the audio world which are as different as PSM and Re-Recording Mixer. Having said this, it does sometimes happen on no budget amateur productions, nowhere else though.

G

it very much depends on the skillset of your editor and how much you appreciate the opinion. a friend of mine is a great editor and he allways has lots of ideas how to shoot a scene, so i am allways happy to have him on board as early as possible. a good dop and a good editor is key to a great production, that you as a director can spend as much time with your actors as possible and don't need to worry about anything else.
i often see directors with the attitude that the editor is just the guy who can handle the software. usually these are the directors who are producing the worst crap. the more input you get from your devisions the better it is. at least in my opinion.

the latest moment that your editor joints the team should be when you start shooting, that you can see your first rough cuts while you are shooting. this is very benefitial.

never ever treat your editor like kind of a technician, if you think your editing skills are better then your editor skills then you either have the wrong editor or you are just mental, when you have found the guy that you trust you will definately want him as early as possible.

It is also good for the Director and other HODs to chat to key post personnel in order to understand what is and isn't achievable.

Click to expand...

^This.

Jax nailed most of the benefits of bringing an editor in early with the exception that an editor can help you cull some shots that an inexperienced director has on the shot list that won't ever get used in the edit.

At TheKraut said, don't treat your editor as only a technician. An editor is one of the more important crew.

Failing to use the storytelling and shot building strengths of the editor is often an error. Bringing them on to a project only during post production ensures you fail to make use of some of their experience.

In retrospect, I suppose I should've prefaced my statements with the fact (for those who don't already know) that I am not a working professional in this field. Others who've commented here are, and that of course should influence someone's decision on which advice to follow.

I will point out, however, that I chose my words carefully when I said:

Cracker Funk said:

I don't think there's really a need to hire an editor until you've reached post production.

Click to expand...

I emphasized "need" to point out that, although there are definitely benefits to hiring an editor while in preproduction, it is not a necessity.

The aforementioned pros who've commented in this thread are correct to point out the benefits, and have done so in much greater detail than I could've mustered. Nevertheless, if there is some extenuating circumstance that makes it exceedingly difficult to hire an editor in preproduction, that shouldn't stop you from moving into production without one. Is this ideal? No, but you can still get things done, and I can attest to this from personal experience.

Cracker, you're right. You don't NEED to hire an editor until you've reached post production. There are lots and lots of productions that do it like this.

I do agree with you 100% it's not a necessity.

It usually comes down to budget and time limitations.

Thanks.

I should have been more specific. When working on a short. That probably has some impact on the decision.

I recall reading where Schoonmaker would not visit the set, but she was cutting as they shot. So this helped them see how it was shaping, which is valuable. But that's for a large production. In a short, you won't have the amount of material, so I'm guessing it's not necessary for them to be on set. Perhaps look over a shot list?


---

This was a second question...if the PSM could also function as the sound editor in post.

I was curious because it would limit the crew. It seems the consensus is no (or ideally, no)

Here is a short I watched recently (the director made a film I liked A Teacher) and this was her earlier effort.

http://vimeo.com/channels/staffpicks/73707486

Crew and Cast

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2041506/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

the short was o.k., and I didn't notice anything poor about the sound.

When I looked at the crew credits I saw 3 for sound:

2 sound editors
1 boom op/sound mixer

----
one of the sound editors also did the film editing. The sound seemed fine to me, but it might be off for people more versed in the subtleties.

If you're dealing with a small budget (around 5k, for arguments sake) and don't have a budget for a huge crew...how vital would separate sound people (PSM and Post Mixer).

I did note, that in her feature, the director did have separate people. She even said in an interview that she was not sure she was happy with her finished film until the final sound mix was done and she saw the result.


thanks again everyone.

I should have been more specific. When working on a short. That probably has some impact on the decision.

I recall reading where Schoonmaker would not visit the set, but she was cutting as they shot. So this helped them see how it was shaping, which is valuable. But that's for a large production. In a short, you won't have the amount of material, so I'm guessing it's not necessary for them to be on set. Perhaps look over a shot list?

Click to expand...

It depends. If getting it right the first time is important, the more important it is in getting the editor in early. It's also not necessary. If you have an experienced editor, your films quality is likely to increase if the editor's input is brought in during pre-production, and editing while production is happening (if a longer than a couple of days shoot)

This was a second question...if the PSM could also function as the sound editor in post.

I was curious because it would limit the crew. It seems the consensus is no (or ideally, no)

If you're dealing with a small budget (around 5k, for arguments sake) and don't have a budget for a huge crew...how vital would separate sound people (PSM and Post Mixer).

Click to expand...

I'm guessing your thought process is a little off on this. Hopefully this will help you make your own decision:

On a short (or even features) you have tasks/jobs in which you need people to fulfill those duties and tasks. If one person is capable of doing multiple duties concurrently, then you have a decision. Since you're talking a production role and a post production role, so long as you're not doing post while production is happening, either way should be fine. Just to note: You're often paying people per day/hour. Unless you can get a all-encompassing deal it'll come down to both the individual and the required workflow. Sometimes the best for the project is different people, sometimes it's the same person. For example, I do PSM but I generally refuse to do post sound. I'm currently pretty bad at post sound. Your mileage may differ.

HowTheyDoThat said:

When I looked at the crew credits I saw 3 for sound:

2 sound editors
1 boom op/sound mixer

Click to expand...

OK, I think I see where the confusion lies! In traditional professional filmmaking, the dialogue of each actor (or of each mic type) would be recorded on to a separate track of a 4 or more track recorder. At the end of the day's filming the film would be rushed to the lab to be developed so that the Director and others could view these "dailies". You cannot put four tracks of audio on a film or video though, so someone would create a rough mix of all the actors' dialogue tracks. This would be done using routing from the field mixer in real-time (at the same time as the dialogue was being recorded) and would not include audio processing of any kind, beyond just very rough balancing. This person is called the Production Sound Mixer (or PSM or sometimes even just Sound Mixer). This production sound mix was used just just for checking what had been captured, it never formed any part of the film's final mix. The role of the PSM is not quite the same these days, because with digital workflows a production sound mix is usually not needed. So today, even though they are still called PSMs (sometimes Sound Mixers), this is just the title used for the person in charge of setting the recording levels and actually operating the recording device/s. The chances are that they're not actually doing any mixing at all, even though their job title implies that's all they're doing! On lo/no budget productions it's not uncommon for the boom operator to also act as PSM and this is certainly how I'm interpreting the quoted credit. The person/s doing the film's (final) mix is called a Re-recording Mixer or sometimes in other countries a Dubbing Mixer (never a Sound Mixer!). No one is listed as Re-recording Mixer though, so it could have been anyone, probably the Editor or maybe even the Director (it might even have been the Boom Op/Sound Mixer).

HowTheyDoThat said:

The sound seemed fine to me, but it might be off for people more versed in the subtleties.

Click to expand...

It does sound fine, on laptop speakers. Anything better than laptop speakers though and problems start to show up. If this were screened in an actual cinema (on a cinema sound system) it would sound terrible. Probably no more terrible than most of the other amateur shorts though and probably better than some! This is a bit hypothetical though because this sound mix could not be played in an actual cinema.

Do you have some reasonable quality headphones? If so, give the film another listen and you'll notice balancing issues, poor/no perspective, poor positioning/movement, inappropriate sound effects, distortion in places and a few other problems.

HowTheyDoThat said:

If you're dealing with a small budget (around 5k, for arguments sake) and don't have a budget for a huge crew...how vital would separate sound people (PSM and Post Mixer).

Click to expand...

That depends on what it's for and what quality you're after. In every case I can think of where you're spending 5k you'd want a PSM and a Re-recording Mixer (separate people). In most cases, a PSM who knew anything about sound would refuse the role of Re-recording Mixer anyway. In some cases, even with just a 5k budget, you wouldn't have much choice but to hire an actual professional Re-recording Mixer (even if just for some tweaking)!

G

thanks again!

re-the shorts sound
I don't have good headphones, so I couldn't pick up anything. When it showed (I think it showed at SXSW) would it have been a case of using a different sound mix?

the dialogue of each actor (or of each mic type) would be recorded on to a separate track of a 4 or more track recorder.

I'm unclear on this part. When you're recording a shot, using boom, that's recording a single sound source, yes? If you have each actor mic'd up, then there are multiple feeds, but is this common?

For example here are three stills---I imagine these could all be filmed with a boom mic and you would have one sound feed? Or is this not the way it would/could be filmed?

(the actual shots have camera movement, but for arguments sake suppose it was a static shot)

http://p1cdn01.thewrap.com/images/f...main_image/screenshot2013-06-20at102714am.png

http://static.rogerebert.com/redact...ptiness-of-los-angeles/heat_pacino_deniro.jpg

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/filmdispenser/assets/2014/01/vlcsnap-2014-01-18-09h14m58s179.png


I would imagine that one "feed" would make the final re-recording mix easier. Unless the shot called for lavaliers, wouldn't a boom be preferable? Maybe the multiple mics help with isolating dialogue from background noise?

In my experience, observing the sound guys (from the camera dept) and from the amount of times I've had an AD tell me we're waiting on an actor being miced up, it seems very common for actors to be miced up wirelessly as well as being boomed, all recording to separate tracks.

The soundies here will elaborate though, I'm sure.

is this common?

Click to expand...

Yes, fairly common. For me, it's a rarity to only have boom these days.

would make the final re-recording mix easier

Click to expand...

Easier sure. But what you're describing is similar to saying, "Isn't it easier on the editor if we don't get coverage, that way, they won't need to cut". There's a logic to it, but it removes the options that can be used to make your film a better film. Sound is a little different to the video example, but not too far off.

Preproduction.

An editor and Vfx person should help the director and AD plan the shot list and work on set to make sure you have the right footage for post, especially on amateur films. In big budget films, a Vfx director works with the director to get the right shots from preproduction through post.

The problem I've had in my own films is finding experienced crew people who know what the right shots are. Unless you are using very experienced help with a great demo reel, you may run into the same headache. Budget has a lot to do with the level of help who will work with you.

HowTheyDoThat said:

re-the shorts sound
I don't have good headphones, so I couldn't pick up anything. When it showed (I think it showed at SXSW) would it have been a case of using a different sound mix?

Click to expand...

I don't know the audio specs for SXSW so I have no idea, especially as no one is credited on IMDB for the re-recodrding.

HowTheyDoThat said:

I'm unclear on this part. When you're recording a shot, using boom, that's recording a single sound source, yes?

Click to expand...

Yes.

HowTheyDoThat said:

If you have each actor mic'd up, then there are multiple feeds ...

Click to expand...

Correct again.

HowTheyDoThat said:

but is this common?

Click to expand...

It's not common, it's absolutely standard procedure!! I can't remember the last time I didn't get a polywav with boom + lavs ... We're talking years here, not months! I understand that most no budget/amateur filmmakers just record with a boom mic because decent reliable wireless lavs are expensive and multi-track field recorders are also relatively expensive.

HowTheyDoThat said:

For example here are three stills---I imagine these could all be filmed with a boom mic and you would have one sound feed? Or is this not the way it would/could be filmed?

Click to expand...

If they were filmed recently (the last decade or so), they would all be recorded with at least 1 boom + lavs for each actor. ADR is time consuming, difficult, generally of inferior artistic/expressive quality, no one likes doing it and to top it all, it's expensive! Given the choice (a clean recording), the boom mic would be chosen over the lav probably 90% of the time or more. However lavs are always used, due to that other 10% of the time and even if they only occasionally avoid the necessity for ADR, it's still more than worth it!

HowTheyDoThat said:

I would imagine that one "feed" would make the final re-recording mix easier.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really make much difference to the re-recording mixer, or rather it does but not because you've got an extra channel of dialogue to mix. Bare in mind that even a relatively simple low budget drama will normally have 200 or so channels of sound and a blockbuster may have over a thousand, so an extra channel of dialogue is not a big deal! But in practise, even with several lav channels + boom, it's not actually going to make any difference to the channel count the re-recording mixer has to deal with because it's going to be arranged into the same number of channels by the Dialogue Editor anyway. So it obviously makes a big difference to the choice a Dialogue Editor has when editing but little/no difference as far as what gets submitted to the Re-recording Mixer.

G

great. thanks again for your responses everyone.