Survey: How long should editing take...

Fleshpainter wrote on 2/1/2004, 2:43 PM
The question is this: How many hours should it take to produce 1 finished minute of video. Not including shooting footage or rendering, just editing.
Obviously, this is going to be extreamly different for every type of job, which is the whole point of the survey. I keep getting these wannabe producers/dreamers who think it should take 2-3 hours to create a 30 minute MTV type program. It would take that long just to capture the footage if the efficiancy rate is 6:1. The survey begins when you hit the "capture" button and ends when you hit "render as:"
Anyways, my own numbers are: 20-30 hours per finished minute (HPFM) for a music video, 5-8 HPFM for a club/nightlife show, and 1-2 HPFM for trimming and assembling peoples home videos together into one coherent piece.

Comments

Randy Brown wrote on 2/1/2004, 2:54 PM
Too many variables for me to be able to narrow it down (to be of any help) like you have. For instance, I have shot, edited and printed to tape a 30 second TV spot in as little as a couple of hours but on the other hand I once took 2 full days to do another 30 second spot (lots of cuts and FX).
Sorry,
Randy
Fleshpainter wrote on 2/1/2004, 3:06 PM
Right... so that gives us a range of 2 to 30'ish HPFM.
mark2929 wrote on 2/3/2004, 2:23 AM
I would say each edit clip has to be thought out. Positioned. Maybe changed later on. Even refilming. To help a scene out. Then you may come across another idea, or a clip that negates the one you just put in.

After you have seen it ten times get some elses aproval. Because BY NOW your too familiar with it. It looks right cause you know what happens. I think after years of practice you start to know what will work and what wont. and you have to be constantly Working at it

Even then the editors that have and edge (Flair) will still be the best.

I think the best I could say is a Pro could weigh up some footage very rapidly. and do a fairly decent job

A work of Art however (My Opinion) Could take years.

Lanzaedit wrote on 2/3/2004, 6:35 AM
In general, about one hour per video minute.
Variables will vary your mileage.

John
cacher wrote on 2/3/2004, 7:14 AM
Wow! I am really shocked to learn this or maybe I've been doing things really wrong, but I can't see how a half an hour footage of grandma's birthday could take seven and a half days working 8 hours a day without a break to edit. I mean how many things can you do to it to you take 60 hours (assuming 2 hours per minute of video)? I really don't get it.
Jsnkc wrote on 2/3/2004, 7:38 AM
There's a big diffrence between "Professional" video editing and "consumer" video editing.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/3/2004, 8:19 AM
For me it all depends. I've taken about a week (of 8 hour days) working on one 4.5 monite highlight video. Then I "threw" the other 2 highlight videos together in a day total. The first video was for the football team which did really really good this year, and i was susposed to make that one really nice.

Of course there is stuff that i've done in a couple hours. It still looked nice too. All depends on the project and where I want to go with it (or where i'm susposed to go with it). There's been a couple times I get do far and then start all over because it doesn't "feel" right. :)

jetdv wrote on 2/3/2004, 8:30 AM
Until You're DONE.
mjroddy wrote on 2/3/2004, 9:42 AM
I edit mainly :30 spots for cable. Takes between 4 and 8 hours for a "basic" spot. Like others here, I've taken 16-32 hours for a more complicated concept.
I also edit "industrials" at home. Straight cuts and little effects take around 4-8/min and something that's actually exciting with effects are back to the 30hrs/finished min. Then, of course, in those industrials, you have to ask what part you're editing, the body where you have simple interviews or the call to action where you pack in all your excitement and effects.
hmmm... Hope this helps your survay.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/3/2004, 9:49 AM
Ed beat me to the punch. I was going to say "As long as it takes."

On one end of the spectrum, I edited a 96-minute piece in one day. It was pretty much talking heads from one camera position, just as the client requested. Cut off the heads and tails, splice it together. Add music and titles. Finished!

One the other end of the spectrum, I recently completed a 3-minute video that took me an entire week. Several of the clips were as short as three frames--one-tenth of a second. Very many cuts like that *really* slow things down!

J--
Trichome wrote on 2/3/2004, 11:56 AM
editing should take as much time as it needs.
The great thing about editing with Vegas, is that you can make changes almost as fast as you can think about them.
I know that I can do in a few hours with Vegas what would have taken me twice as long or longer in other NLE programs...
I try to bang out work fast for clients, give them what they want without charging them for the creative hours put into getting an effect or building presets. That I consider fun on my free time....
riredale wrote on 2/3/2004, 1:43 PM
In my experience, I've noticed that it's taken me about one month for each finished hour of video. My last project was 3 1/2 hours in length, and had motion menus (very labor-intensive), audio commentary tracks, and a "Bonus Features" section. Sure enough, it took almost four months before the final authored DVDs popped out the other end.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/3/2004, 3:22 PM
Does DVD authoring qualify as "editing"? I think not.

J--
je@on wrote on 2/3/2004, 4:01 PM
Excellent answer to a stupid question.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/3/2004, 4:25 PM
It takes as long as it takes is the best answer. How long it takes is relative you what you're editing, what corrections, effects you do, how experienced you are, how careful you check, how often you redo what you already fixed, how experienced you are with Vegas, which filters if any you use, what preprocessing, post, yada, yada, yada. As ou gain experience it goes faster. If you tell youself it should take X hours to do Y amount of footage, you're really just kidding yourself.

What I find critical is once you think you're finished, step away for at least a couple days. go do something else. Then take another look. Often you'llsee things differently. Like what you otherwise have missed, or left as 'good enough' because you may have been tired or sick of looking at the same footage. And you'll hopefully with experience also realize when you're starting to get into gilding tje lily mode and understand doing more will only make it worse, not better.
rwsjr wrote on 2/3/2004, 4:30 PM
I don't do this for a living but it could take as long as it takes to paint a masterpiece or as short as it takes for a Polaroid to develop. I guess it depends on what you want.
riredale wrote on 2/3/2004, 5:35 PM
VideoCurmudgeon:

I guess in the technical sense, "authoring" is a different step from "editing," but then so is "capturing" (getting the raw video into the PC). They are all processes that are needed to get the final result, and any DVD one rents from Blockbuster today can demonstrate that the menus, intro videos, transitions, commentary tracks, and bonus features are a part of the whole experience. For my most recent project, going from raw video on the tapes to the finished DVDs in the boxes pretty much took four months.

I'd like to think I was good, but maybe I'm just slow.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/3/2004, 6:42 PM
If it's art, it's never finished, just abandoned at a convenient point.
It all depends on what you're doing, of course.
the "My Way" project for Broadway that we did, took approximately 10 minutes per finished minute. 12 minutes.
My "Nii'Diin'schlii" music video took 5 weeks of tweaking, and I'm still very unhappy w/it. 4 minutes.
"Toubat" for PBS took nearly 2 years. 47 minutes.
Fleshpainter wrote on 2/4/2004, 1:00 AM
After showing these posts to the afore-mentioned wannabe producers, they are now seriously rethinking their financial numbers. I wanted to show them that I'm not just pulling these figures out of the air. They want a flashy/catchy quick paced look for a club/nightlife type audience, with the usual assortment of bells, whistles, and ribbons. The last project they tried to do used all local film students, (as free labor) had absolutely no direction, and even their own family members said that it was too horrible to critique.
Grazie wrote on 2/4/2004, 1:20 AM
Spot - I'm still laughing . . .2 years 47mins . . hah!

I recently signed off a 5 minuter - took at most 5 days. Then the client wanted more, liked the "rushes" of some other stuff, added another 1:30. So, finished with re-edit probably around 7 days for 6:30.

Now that you've indicated why you asked the question with some further reasons why you've asked it . . this has more to do with business planning and getting an handle on the whole workflow and business plan - now that is another "ball-game". But still requires a similar approach . .yeah? You may decide to ONLY do some types opf work AT this point in time. Then work up to other types of work when and how you can . .as I say this is Busines Plan planning . . . and yes, you do need some "rough-cut" figure to get an idea where exactly you want to go next . . Personally, I'm on the cusp of recognising if I should involve myeslf further with wedding videography . .no snobishness here . .it's just where I'm at at the moment and how will this type of 2nd cammie or even 1st cammie woork will develop me FURTHER down my road - yeah? I've also been approach and have this possible, in getting 2nd cammie qwwork AND editing the footage. I'm considering doing this for "a time" and then move on . . But these decisions have been made with a a very shoprt background of making a fistful of movies - yeah? And yes, having this and other Forums I lurk on have given me the type of confidence to go a little further . . each time I put my toe in this particular Ocean - yeah?

Sorry to ramble on . . but I know my thoughts aint that far away from others I've spoken with . .very very recently . .you know who you are . . .

Hope this helps,

Grazie