Nota: to me it remains a mystery, why Red, instead of cutting an orage in 1/2, ...snip
Motion imagery, (I really hate the term video) is going through the same changes as still photographers.
Still photographers went from artists, lighting experts (gaffers) camera operators (they actually do run a camera) to processors, effects artists, retouchers and some areas of pre press of image prep.
Not by choice, but by budget. If there had been a monotised business model for labs, retouchers and a new field of effects artists been possible, photographers would have shot digital like film, hand it over and never look back. It was like that at the start of digital capture, but economic pressure compressed it down to the photographer in most cases.
Some still work this way where they shoot and leave, but most of those have gone by the wayside, unless they shoot retail for one large account that has in-house post produciton.
Now you see the same thing with motion. Who's the director, camera operator.? In entertainment it's usually multiple people, but in advertising, especially web video, the camera operator can be the director, sometimes part time producer, sometimes the gaffer.
Depends on budget and web video where most of what most of us shoot, is a strange one to price because it flies in the face on convention because there is no media buy. In other words traditional advertising like Television and Print Media there was x number of dollars spent on media, so a set percentage of that went into image production. That model still exists but it gets smaller and more compressed every day.
If the web ever finds a way to actually charge real media rates equal to print (preferably broadcast) you'll see the budgets rise.
No when it comes to editors, most independent filmmakers can edit to some extent, some better than others, but for long form or multiple projects a director/camera operator/dp cannot work on set and edit if they have a busy schedule.
Our studio took the risk to go in house with adding editorial. Every busy model is different.
Now to my original point. Everything has changed and editors that 6 years ago refused to color anything are now asked to be some kind of colorists and do some effects.
When you attend a seminar on any NLE, effects or coloring software the questions are always the same (so are the answers). First question, how many here do the editorial . . . 85% of the hands are raised. Second question, how many here use FCP 7 . . . (70% of hands are raised).
third, How many do their own coloring . . . 60% of hands are raised, fourth, how many do their coloring in the NLE and another 60% of hands are raised, how many in apple color 20% of hands are raised, how many do their own coloring in Di-Vinci . . . 4% of hands are raised how many color in AE, 15% of hands are raised.
So you'd think colorists would be swamped, but as I mentioned the color and transfer house I previously used 5 years ago was well funded, had a huge 4 story building, could show you real time coloring on line so you didn't have to sit in the booth, and we're full service all the way down to transcoding and conforming for tape, film, digital play, etc. They were also about $5,000 per 8 hour day.
Then they went to a suite of offices in a rented building, now their colorists are working at home calling for business.
So since every image video or still, usually needs some work (especially at the rate of speed we work on set), that means somebody is doing it and everyone does it differently. Some in the NLE, some in third party software, some just ship it to the client and wash their hands of the whole process.
The correct way to do it is to first edit the story, lock the edit and send an EDL or xml file or the master clips to a colorists, have them colored and effected properly, put back into the edit then transfer out to the desired media.
That's the correct way, but not how it really works today as everyone is squeezed to wear multiple hats. As the producer you usually work from a bottom line so you can choose to hire and use any number of specialists you want, the issue is if you do, is their a profit?
Back to your original question about RED upping their software to NLE, coloring and transcoding. I don't think that will ever happen and if I was RED I'd never do it. They're a camera maker and all Red CineX needs to do is produce the equivalent of One light dailies for client review and in some cases for editors to start working, because there are too many post production models to compete with. Some editors only work or care to work in 2k, some find that overkill, some want 4k/5k editing, coloring and output, some want it all.
Fred, what you want is standards and in digital if motion imagery follows stills there never will be exact standards until we get to final delivery. Try to run a Hasselblad file in C-1, or a Nikon file in Phocus. Only third party processors attempt to handle all files and really only adobe covers everything.
I think you want a moving lightroom and I probably think Adobe feels they have that covered in After Effects, the problem is lightroom is easy to learn, After Effects takes a long time.