[kranke155]

I work professionally in commercials. You literally wrote the very solid counter argument into your own comment.

For interviews, this saves hundreds of hours. Giant amounts of social content are now interview-like, including podcasts.

Your argument makes little sense to me. For narrative editing, this is a minor help. For interview-like content it cuts work by 30-70% maybe. its probably a gamechanger.

[l33tbro]

So you are satisfied with work where you have not watched all of the material? Fine if that works for you, but I would not think I'd have done a good job.

If something has compiled some great selects for me, I only have material based on what is said. But I don't know how it is said - which to me is everything. Yes, this goes for podcasts too. What I make just won't be as good as if I'd have taken the time to go through everything.

I even notice this with things like NBA highlights. It's clear the editor (or bot) never watched the game. There were moments in it that are interesting and significant. Even small incidents that are actually clutch to the outcome of the match. But it is clear they've quickly compiled all of the goals and bashed out something mediocre which does not tell the story.

[kranke155]

I don’t care whether I’m satisfied - I care whether the client is. And does this get me faster to it? Probably yes.

In a narrative film or a project of my own I’d care. In a project for hire under a tight deadline?

Why would I? The delivery is the delivery. That’s how commercials go, at least. Clients dont ask - have you seen every bit of footage - they ask - is it ready for deadline.

[l33tbro]

It makes things more convenient for you. I'm not arguing against that. And, yes, you may have a satisfied client. But the work will not be as interesting, because you have not comprehended all of the ingested material. That is my only point. I'm not sure why this is so upsetting?

[kranke155]

Its not. I’m happy we had this conversation. I respect your attention to detail and fastidiousness.