Versioning your edits has to make sense.
While churning through editorial ideas, make as many versions as necessary, but above all, stay organized. At the end of the day, keep all of your old “failed” versions in an “NG Edits” folder. This not only reduces clutter but helps when you have to describe to someone over the phone where the current version is and what it is named. Even better, if you are NOT available to reach, someone could easily notice which is the current version and alternates simply by looking at your bins. There’s also another benefit: even though FCP has a project backup system, sometimes you can be caught in a situation where you accidentally delete a version that was good, saved the project, and the most recent backup version doesn’t include the version you just deleted. Sometimes having versions in your “NG Edits” folder can save the day.
Video Demo: Versioning edits so they make sense
Another habit I have is, at the end of the day before I quit and go home, I duplicate the version I last worked on, advance the version number on it, and “NG Edits” the original. For you, this is solely a CYA maneuver so that when you come in the next day with some new marvelous ideas you had while in the shower, you have a backup version of your starting point. Why? Because I have seen it happen where I’ve gone nuts making some drastic revisions on something and then CRASH! I re-open the project and there are no more UNDO levels to recede back to if I decide the revisions were no good. Sure you could open an archived version of the project, but having last night’s edit in your back pocket is a lot easier. Plus, if you are collaborating with anyone else, you should have a record of where you left off before someone else took over.
On a side note, I think it’s worth mentioning that editors sometimes take their editing desk position very personally, meaning that it is a territory they feel should be defending against outside invaders. I understand this completely, especially since the MOST annoying thing in the world for me, as an editor, is being asked to look at someone else’s cut who got access to the footage before I did. Implicit in this is the “commodification” of my skills as merely being the button pusher towards someone else’s idea. (I refuse to look at anyone else’s cut prior to doing my own. You become irreparably poisoned).
Editors, however, work in a world with other people. I believe that other people should respect your position as a creative resource, but that you should permit people to have access to your work so that the discourse can continue. There are degrees of comfort within this idea, and editors span the spectrum from being total partners, sometimes handing over the mouse to a client, to those who literally put physical barriers in the room (i.e., furniture) to keep clients as far away from them as possible.
Back to versioning. As mentioned before, every version you create must have a distinct numerical version associated with it, and I don’t care if it goes up to a million. The goal here is to absolutely, positively prevent confusion and misunderstanding. Even if there is the tiniest change made to a “version 5″ that everyone has seen, for example, you must procede to the next number, “version 6″. The exception to this would be if you had a :30 second spot with an identical alternate version that has a different logo tag or perhaps the word “new”. In this case, I would name a sequence “Tide Unscented-Vers. 6a/New” and “Tide Unscented-Vers. 6b/Non-New”. The basis of this is rooted in what takes place when various people in the project hierarchy serve as gatekeepers to the next level higher among the client structure. If a busy boss client looks at “Tide Unscented-Vers. 6a/New”, then asks to change something innocuous like making a letter capitalized, the next version they receive had better be named something different than what they just saw. They simply cannot keep track of the all the goings-on beneath them to know which version is which, except through some sort of distinction.
An argument that fits into this debate is the idea that a high-level client (sometimes referred to as the “big client” versus an underling, AKA the “little client”) might only want to see a rough cut for the first time as “Version 1″, meaning that as far as versions are concerned, all versions leading up to the client-appropriate version don’t count, literally. I have had producers feel uncomfortable about sending the client a DVD, tape or online video titled, “Tide Unscented-Vers. 16″ as if there were 15 prior version that he/she did not get to view. I understand this. Some clients are like that. I try, however, to emphasize that a number is just a number. The iterations have no substantial basis other than reference to other variations. If you can sell this idea, great. If not, you may have to create an extra column in your Edits bin that “translates” that YOUR version 16 is the CLIENT’S version 1. This is a pain, but I have had to do it.
Another method of versioning pertaining to client review is the “star system” (thank you Tony Siggia, wherever you are). When I was an assistant editor doing TV commercials, the method that was taught to me was that if the rough cut had the editor’s approval, it was named with one star at the end. If it was ad agency approved, it was given two stars; client approved, three stars. This helped the editor and me distinguish which versions are in play and approved to a certain degree. There a myriad of ways you can do something similar via colors or bin column comments, but the basic idea is a sound one.
Last, as I had mentioned before, DO NOT name something “final” or “master” if it is not really final or a master. No exceptions. If something is labeled “final” and then becomes “not final” for some reason, then delete the word “final” from the name. You should always assume that someone else may need to pickup where you left off because of an emergency, or someone may need a dub after hours and will depend on your project organizing skills to prevent confusion.