"Be more courageous when it comes to taking financial risks.
Own your enterprise."
Neil Sadwelkar isn't talking to venture capitalists or tech founders. He's talking to film editors—the people who've spent decades thinking of themselves as service providers in someone else's story. And he's telling them that mindset will kill them.
In an industry being reshaped by YouTube, TikTok, and streaming platforms, Sadwelkar sees a fork in the road. One path leads to obsolescence: editors waiting to be hired, paid less for doing more, squeezed by producers who don't understand why cutting takes months when influencers do it in a day. The other path requires something editors have historically avoided: thinking like creative entrepreneurs.
"The work has grown tenfold; the money hasn't moved," Sadwelkar observes. Modern shoots generate 60 to 100 hours of footage for a two-hour feature—double what was standard a decade ago. Yet the editing process hasn't evolved to match this data explosion. Producers perceive editing as slow and overcomplicated. Directors micromanage every cut. The creative trust that once defined editor-filmmaker relationships has eroded.
But here's where Sadwelkar diverges from typical industry complaints: He thinks automation is the solution, not the threat.
He's currently developing an app to automate the mechanical stages of editing—shot naming, sequencing, rush organization, metadata tagging. "Feature films and series are very linear," he explains. "The process before creativity begins can easily be automated." The idea isn't to replace editors but to free them from drudgery so they can focus on what machines can't do: emotional rhythm, instinctive cuts, the accidental moments that create magic.
This vision challenges both traditionalists who fear technology and futurists who think AI will simply replace human editors. Sadwelkar is arguing for a third way: humans and machines handling what they're actually good at. "The mechanical side of editing can be automated—but the intuitive side must be reclaimed," he insists.
The urgency comes from a fundamental shift in who edits and how. "Because of YouTube and TikTok, the person talking is also editing," Sadwelkar notes. The traditional separation of roles—director, cinematographer, editor—is collapsing. The new filmmaker is a hybrid being: the director who edits, the vlogger who tells stories in real-time. Instinct and personality now shape edits more than formal training.
Classical editors once defined cinema's grammar, controlling the industry's visual language. Sadwelkar predicts that stronghold will be disrupted by editing collectives—"teams of boys and girls" using AI-assisted workflows to deliver edit options faster than traditional post-production houses. The question for established editors isn't whether this disruption will happen, but whether they'll adapt or be replaced.
Yet Sadwelkar's deepest concern isn't technological—it's cultural. "If the director can't let go, there is very little spontaneity left in editing." Overdirection, micromanagement, and fear of imperfection are killing the discovery process that once made post-production transformative. "Sometimes things are meant to be good enough, not perfect," he argues. Perfectionism is sterilizing cinema.
This is where his message becomes relevant beyond just editing. In every creative field, perfectionism enabled by endless digital iteration has replaced the productive constraints that forced decisive choices. When you can endlessly revise, you often lose the spontaneity that made the work alive in the first place.
"The essence of filmmaking is lost when we lose spontaneity," Sadwelkar warns. The accidental cut. The instinctive rhythm. The unplanned moment that created emotion. These weren't happy accidents—they were the art form itself, emerging from limitations and trust.
His solution requires both technological embrace and philosophical shift. Let AI handle metadata and assembly. Let humans handle rhythm, mood, and feeling. But also: let directors trust editors again. Let editors own their creative capital rather than waiting to be hired. Let "good enough" sometimes be the goal, because perfect is often the enemy of alive.
For young professionals entering creative industries, Sadwelkar's framework offers a roadmap through disruption. Don't fear automation—use it to eliminate what shouldn't require human judgment. Don't cling to traditional role definitions—embrace hybridity. Don't wait for permission—own your enterprise. And critically: don't let the infinite possibilities of digital tools seduce you into believing perfection is achievable or even desirable.
The future editor, in Sadwelkar's vision, is a creative technologist—half artist, half coder. Editing apps will generate multiple permutations automatically. Editors will choose and refine rather than construct from scratch. Post-production will become collaborative and fluid, with small hybrid teams instead of rigid hierarchies.
The question, as he frames it, isn't "Will editing survive automation?" but "What kind of art will emerge when editors stop being machines?"
It's a question with implications far beyond post-production. As AI reshapes every creative field, the professionals who thrive won't be those who compete with algorithms on algorithmic terms. They'll be those who reclaim the messy, intuitive, spontaneous elements that machines can't replicate—and have the courage to own their enterprise while doing it.
Neil Sadwelkar is building an app to automate the mechanical.
But his real project is restoring the human.
Also Read
.png)
Rajneel Kumar
Arguably one of the most influential men in the world of Lights & Camera - This legend is more than just a technician; He is an artist.
Dhritiman Mukherjee
Curiosity may have killed the cat, but Dhritiman was there to document it. An explorer with the DNA for discovery makes him the ultimate.
Kalpesh Damani
Perceived reality, Designed consciousness. She is a master at her craft but leads with the heart of a gentle soul - keeping her ethos always at core.