How long does it take to complete a feature in post?

I’m not sure if this goes to the Post Production or this category but since it’s more bout NLE and Color work, I thought this might be a good fit. So let’s just leave it at that.

I attended a film group in SoCal last night who is [kind of] known for some of his editing and color grading work of feature films - usually they’re romcom and drama genre. I won’t mention names. He talked about the freelance editor and colorist and how they usually approach working on projects. I took notes when he started talking about how long it would take to cut and grade a 120 minute feature length film.

For an average, no VFX, straightforward 120 minute independent feature film, this are some metrics he said for the major parts of the post production process.

1. Media management (Review, tagging, marking) - 20-22 hrs
2. Rough cut - 30-35 hrs
3. Edit and Finishing - 40 hrs
4. Audio Design and Edit - 40 hrs
5. Color Correction (primary) - 60-80 hrs
6. Color Grading (secondary) - 60 hrs
7. Titling and credits - didn’t have a hard number but factor another 20 hrs.

This numbers assume there are around 650 original source clips, no in camera metadata, and there is only 1 editor and colorist working on the project. No compositing of any sort except for transitions. All clips, both audio and video, are slated with waveform and not timecode.

It looks to me that it will take about 220 hours give or take a few hours to complete the film, or about 27.5 [8 hour] days. If you worked on feature films as an editor, colorist, or both, is this low or high based on your experience?

Umm… twice as long to grade as to edit? I don’t think so. To me the number of hours allotted here to editing is very low. But I’m an indie editor so I can’t say for sure that this schedule isn’t what happens for romcoms with a decent budget.

IMHO this impossible to say.

If you do your own film, you are probably way faster than with a micro managing director breathing down your neck, while changing his opinions and decisions every 5 minutes (you can tell I have ben there).

Also it really depends on how well it is shot.

Do you just edit/color or spend most of your time fixing errors, lack of vision and sloppy work?

For an average, no VFX, straightforward 120 minute independent feature film, this are some metrics he said for the major parts of the post production process.

1. Media management (Review, tagging, marking) - 20-22 hrs
2. Rough cut - 30-35 hrs
3. Edit and Finishing - 40 hrs
4. Audio Design and Edit - 40 hrs
5. Color Correction (primary) - 60-80 hrs
6. Color Grading (secondary) - 60 hrs
7. Titling and credits - didn’t have a hard number but factor another 20 hrs.

For editing, I think this estimate is much too short. Realistically, I think you'd be lucky to do 1 finished minute per day; assuming a 120-minute film, that would be 120 days just for editing. And I know of many features who've gone 4-5-6 months, even for non-studio features. Then there are test screenings, re-editing, notes from producers and distributors, all stuff requiring multiple changes. And I've seen even film title sequences that took weeks to finalize and get approved.

As for color: we generally don't have the time for two 60-hour passes on a feature, not at the indie level. But I would say that we generally budget about 7-8 days (10 hours each) to finish the feature. If there are complications and changes, it can easily go to 90-100 hours. I have had feature films that went far longer: Dances with Wolves went 3 months (easily 200 hours per version, and there were multiple versions), Star Wars went 6 weeks (of many 12-hour days), and Return of the Jedi went at least that long. Die Hard took me a month. Basically, the bigger the film, the bigger the schedule, the higher the budget, plus much more pressure for all concerned.

But I think 80-100 hours is a reasonable schedule for indie color. Longer if you have to do a trim pass in a theater and multiple home video versions. For feature remastering (from film scans), the client typically asks for about a 5-6 day limit, which would be about 50 hours, give or take. A lot depends on the complexity of the material involved.

It looks to me that it will take about 220 hours give or take a few hours to complete the film, or about 27.5 [8 hour] days. If you worked on feature films as an editor, colorist, or both, is this low or high based on your experience?

I think you should times that by 2 or 3. So, 3 months for regular editing. If there are visual FX, masks, and other image manipulation, you'll need to allow more time for that.

Though I've edited several indie features, like THESE here, I take much longer than that, as it's not my regular job, and more of a spare time hobby.

Most recently, I was given 7K to shoot a bigfoot feature in 8 days. There was a lot of post work because we were in the mountains and the daylight would run out. I would add rays of sunlight, etc. The costume was 4 days behind, so I had to shoot actors, then add bigfoot to the shots later, which made post much longer.

LogRangers.jpg (66.75 KiB) Viewed 958 times

LogComposite.jpg (54.61 KiB) Viewed 958 times

Do you just edit/color or spend most of your time fixing errors, lack of vision and sloppy work?

A lot of that, at indie level! In my case, it's not lack of vision, but rather huge compromises. For example: We were allowed to shoot with these police cars, in Las Vegas, but we couldn't take them up to the forest. Guess, who has to fix that?

CopCarsLot.jpg (78.46 KiB) Viewed 949 times

CopCarsComposite.jpg (101.3 KiB) Viewed 949 times

Yes, it takes a lot of time.

Thank you for everyone sharing their thoughts and experiences here. The reason why I posted and ask this because I thought I was pretty slow with my work and effort after attending that presentation. Like some of you, I only do indie shorts and features. And it takes me more than (at least) double the time suggested by the presenter at that meeting and quietly, I was getting worried that I was taking a lot of time or just slow at my work. I don't have the luxury with my clients to do a 90 day (3-4 month) feature project (editing and grading) but from my personal experience, it usually takes about 60-70 days from soup to nuts in Indie post work (edit, sound, grading, no VFX), more on the 60 days sometimes a bit less as I have a process of cutting to the chase with the clients (directors, DP, producers) very early on and getting them involved in some of the early material management, or helping them keep good assets and log shots. I'm not saying I didn't have very difficult clients, some sloppy work, and directors who changes their mind every time they're behind me, but having directed several [indie] films myself, I have learned how to communicate with them (lol). Anyway, I feel more confident that my timeline is closer to the ballpark as you all, and I can sleep better.

Do you just edit/color or spend most of your time fixing errors, lack of vision and sloppy work?

A lot of that, at indie level! In my case, it's not lack of vision, but rather huge compromises. For example: We were allowed to shoot with these police cars, in Las Vegas, but we couldn't take them up to the forest. Guess, who has to fix that?

Yes, it takes a lot of time.

Wow! That's a lot of work Mike. I've outsourced the VFX part as it is a grueling process, especially with situations like you've shared here. I had to fix booms appearing in shots, compromising using really bad takes and making it work because there were no good takes, and the director insist it has to be there (his way or highway) - actually I walked away on one of these classic situations. I completely know what you're taking about.

For an average, no VFX, straightforward 120 minute independent feature film, this are some metrics he said for the major parts of the post production process.

1. Media management (Review, tagging, marking) - 20-22 hrs
2. Rough cut - 30-35 hrs
3. Edit and Finishing - 40 hrs
4. Audio Design and Edit - 40 hrs
5. Color Correction (primary) - 60-80 hrs
6. Color Grading (secondary) - 60 hrs
7. Titling and credits - didn’t have a hard number but factor another 20 hrs.

For editing, I think this estimate is much too short. Realistically, I think you'd be lucky to do 1 finished minute per day; assuming a 120-minute film, that would be 120 days just for editing. And I know of many features who've gone 4-5-6 months, even for non-studio features. Then there are test screenings, re-editing, notes from producers and distributors, all stuff requiring multiple changes. And I've seen even film title sequences that took weeks to finalize and get approved.

As for color: we generally don't have the time for two 60-hour passes on a feature, not at the indie level. But I would say that we generally budget about 7-8 days (10 hours each) to finish the feature. If there are complications and changes, it can easily go to 90-100 hours. I have had feature films that went far longer: Dances with Wolves went 3 months (easily 200 hours per version, and there were multiple versions), Star Wars went 6 weeks (of many 12-hour days), and Return of the Jedi went at least that long. Die Hard took me a month. Basically, the bigger the film, the bigger the schedule, the higher the budget, plus much more pressure for all concerned.

But I think 80-100 hours is a reasonable schedule for indie color. Longer if you have to do a trim pass in a theater and multiple home video versions. For feature remastering (from film scans), the client typically asks for about a 5-6 day limit, which would be about 50 hours, give or take. A lot depends on the complexity of the material involved.

Always great advice from Marc. I'm keeping some of these in my notebook.

There is no way you can cut a feature length project in a couple of weeks. A couple of months at the minimum.

for a budgted for an indie feature:
22 weeks from start of post production -to- handoff to sound and picture finish
14 weeks from handoff to Qc
6 weeks from Qc to end of deliverables
42 weeks all up, could take longer, rarely shorter

MoW's are much faster

There is no way you can cut a feature length project in a couple of weeks. A couple of months at the minimum.

The presenter had it at about 27 days, or about a month’s worth, not a couple of weeks but I agree that’s still too aggressive of a schedule for me.

There is no way you can cut a feature length project in a couple of weeks. A couple of months at the minimum.

100% agree. Although... I have absolutely seen 1-hour TV shows cut in 10 days. But they were frantic, sometimes with multiple teams working on different scenes simultaneously, and everybody fell over dead exhausted at the end.

But then I've seen documentaries that took ten years to edit. Not an exaggeration. I think a full year is pretty standard for a lot of documentary features.

MoW's are much faster

Yeah, I've worked on made-for-TV movies where they were cutting as the show was being shot, so basically the whole film was finished in editing about 1 week after production wrap. And we were doing final color the week after that. A lot depends on how tight the edit was, how many changes they expect, what their budget is, and what their schedule is. TV is usually based on such a tight schedule, there's no way to avoid hitting the finish line by a certain date, and that's a driving force. (And reason to panic and drink heavily.)

But then I've seen documentaries that took ten years to edit. Not an exaggeration. I think a full year is pretty standard for a lot of documentary features.

Wow!

For the documentary series I do as we speak, I got about a week for each 55 min. segment - editing and color (plus some FX).

But then I've seen documentaries that took ten years to edit. Not an exaggeration. I think a full year is pretty standard for a lot of documentary features.

Wow!

For the documentary series I do as we speak, I got about a week for each 55 min. segment - editing and color (plus some FX).

Frank, how's the booze these days? Now that sound’s brutal. So, researching the presenter’s background, he has been working on made for TV romcoms and daytime drama films for Hallmark. There may be that expectation when working with made for TV flicks.

I talked with several editors in the aisle at NAB a few years back and it was a fascinating group. One real long form A-E, who had worked on a couple notable films, a couple TV "studio" editors, and a TV station news editor.

The long form guy was blown away at how fast the TV studio editors needed to finish an ep. Couldn't imagine working that fast.

The news editor was stunned at being allowed weeks or months, when all he ever got was an hour, tops ... and only then on a huge story.

But then the talk moved to how many assets they were typically dealing with. They long form guy said oh, normally at least a thousand or two ... sometimes, three or four thousand...

And everyone else just stared at him in shock.

So I'm thinking the person quoted by the OP is, as just commented, involved primarily in TV ep production where they 1) never have 20 takes of every angle (all 3-6 angles ... ) of every scene ... and 2) probably never have over a hundred total assets.

I look through long form project people talking, whether DP, lighting, costuming/sets, directors, editors, sound/fx/color/graphics ... and am amazed at the massive information and assets they must track simultaneously... constantly.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

well....

a lot of times it come down to: "how much money do you have?"

A Star wars movie can do online/coloring/delivery for months, an indie feature might only have 3 days for color (24 hours)...

for drama, I would like for color 2 weeks, or at least 5 days.... but that is just color....

well.... a lot of times it come down to: "how much money do you have?"

In many cases, we've told low-budget clients, "well, realistically we'd love to have 10 days to do your feature, and it would cost X dollars. But if you only have Y dollars, then we'll work with you and do the best job we possibly can for that rate."

But I've had them say, "oh, if you're going to short-change us on the hours, then we'll go somewhere else."

I could get egotistical and say, "10 days with a moron who charges you $3000 won't be as good as 3 days with me charging me for slightly more money." But I just smile sadly and wave goodbye, and tell them, "please, don't hesitate to call if your next project has a higher budget for post."

The short answer is that there is not a simple answer, due to every job being different. Every job gets an individual quote for resources, based on the job's requirements. The most wasted time is always the producer/director being unable to make efficient decisions.

So I'm thinking the person quoted by the OP is, as just commented, involved primarily in TV ep production where they 1) never have 20 takes of every angle (all 3-6 angles ... ) of every scene ... and 2) probably never have over a hundred total assets.

Since I'm that person ...

Actually I do all sorts of projects from feature films to commercials and TV documentaries.
Have a look if you want: https://sites.google.com/view/frankglencairn/home

As I said, this is a 4 part series with 55 minutes per show - yes of course it is for TV.

Regarding the complexity of this project:
Those "high glossy" documentaries we are doing, tend to have more than 3 angles, and way more than 100 assets per show, it's pretty much shot like a movie (kind of our trademark).

But since I'm also on set the whole time, I already have a pretty good idea of the shots I want to use, before I even sit down in front of Resolve.

And yeah, being part of the whole production, not just color/editing is quite a luxury, but also saves a lot of time in editing.

You are a master, then. I, personally, am a lousy editor if rated by speed. And am always amazed watching someone with such craft mastery at work.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

You are a master, then. I, personally, am a lousy editor if rated by speed. And am always amazed watching someone with such craft mastery at work.

Well...

doing this for more than 30 years now sure helps with the speed

...
1. Media management (Review, tagging, marking) - 20-22 hrs
2. Rough cut - 30-35 hrs
3. Edit and Finishing - 40 hrs
4. Audio Design and Edit - 40 hrs
5. Color Correction (primary) - 60-80 hrs
6. Color Grading (secondary) - 60 hrs
7. Titling and credits - didn’t have a hard number but factor another 20 hrs.

...

In my last project (four episodes for TV with interviews and multicam musician's performance, 35 min each episode) I've spent four days only to manage the media from three cameras and a drone, without sound guy (so the audio was on one of the camera), no timecode, no notes about anithing.
I've done edit, color, basic VFX in less than a month, but some days I've done from 7am to 11pm and more.
The broadcaster is delaying the programming so the director asked me to make some minor tweaks of the editing.
Can it be done in such a short time? Yes, but it will never be at its best. No way.