I'm an editor now. Can I change directors in the future? Is it difficult?

Personally, I think it is easier for an editor to develop into a director than a photographer, because the editor is exposed to what the photographer has taken, and the editor will recreate what the director instructs the photographer to take according to his own ideas. It is reasonable to cut three points and seven points. What the director shoots can also understand how the director tells stories with the lens. Editors are actually telling stories with the camera and know when to slow down the camera. Knowing when to edit close-ups and when to use montage, but it's not enough to be a director and director. You need to know what kind of shots can be taken by photography, lighting, various shooting equipment, how these shots can say what you want to express, understand the audience's mind, how to maximize the script, exercise your own arrangements for the whole crew and so on. To do a slow exercise, try to direct a movie yourself first. This industry is getting deeper and deeper. Personally, I suggest that editing should be a major first. Editing is actually one of the director's exercises. Let the editor be the director you want to be, or you will accomplish nothing. Every time I watch a movie, I analyze the clips and try to think about how many shots I took. Practice determines everything. There are too many things to say, which can't be explained clearly in one or two sentences. Let's go