Jeff Wexler

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jeff Wexler

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Santa Monica, CA USA
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
  • About
    Jeffrey S. Wexler, CAS Host of jwsound Discussion Group
  1. I wouldn't say Coppola and Scorsese introduced much "new filmmaking approaches" except to the extent that they were both very much at the forefront of the whole independent filmmaking era. I would say that the increase in use of more and more practical locations rather than studio sound stages certainly was a factor --- the set, being a real room in a real building, produced challenges for all departments, but on many movies that were done outside the studio system, sound stages were not an option. Another factor, I believe, was more and more young people coming into the business with no personal experience with a boom, and assuming that use of a boom was something that was only done on big studio movies in Hollywood --- it was sort of a self-fulfilling thing since these young crew members found themselves, not on big studio movies but rather on lower budget, independent movies with no major studio. Lots of factors going on here --- I have only mentioned a few prominent ones.
  2. Thank you, Laurence, for the link top the wonderful article in L695 Quarterly that sites an earlier article on the history of the boom. I was going to extract some of that article and a picture or two for this topic but I felt that most people had already gotten all the information they needed and this topic had sort of run its course. I find it all totally fascinating, the history and all, maybe because I am old enough to have seen a lot of this stuff first hand.
  3. Yes, Philip, there was a mic boom made by Moviola (also Moviola made a camera dolly). I was looking for a picture before mentioning this but I wasn't able to find anything. Regarding the original post, Paramount had both Mole-Richardson and Fisher booms but the point I was trying to make to Viscount Omega is that use of a boom for the majority of shooting was standard procedure at the time Rosemary's Baby was made. I started out in 1970 and we used to carry a Fisher Boom on the truck on just about every movie. I can't really pin point the exact year when the Fisher began to fall out of favor, but somewhere around 1984 it became much more difficult to use the Fisher Boom so we pretty much gave up on having it with us all the time.
  4. I try and be a little bit more precise when discussing the equipment we use today and the gear that was used historically. I think it is a disservice to say "Fisher is like Kleenex" --- I do agree with you that this is probably the case but I would rather not participate in this perpetuation. Also, the word "perambulator" refers only to the wheeled base that both the Mole-Richardson and the Fisher booms used. Both Fisher and Mole-Richardson produced booms that did not have the perambulator wheeled base.
  5. I didn't say that every boom pictured in use was a Fisher. One of the exterior shots it does appear to be a Fisher.
  6. Some behind the scenes pictures confirm that Fisher Boom was in use, interior and exterior, and this is what I would expect for a studio feature film shooting in 1967. There was significant departures from traditional camera styles, more use of hand-held camera (often with un-blimped Arriflex as shown in one of the still photos) and for those scenes it is quite possible there was some ADR required to deal with camera noise. short fishpole with Electro-Voice microphone notice the boom behind the camera --- also on an exterior the boom, again un-blimped, hand-held camera --- noisy!
  7. Highly unlikely there was very much ADR in the movie. The majority of the interiors were shot on sound stages at Paramount and listening to the clips (thank you for that) it sounds very much like typical and traditional production sound work --- probably all boom mics on Fisher or Mole Richardson booms. The sets beautifully done by Dick Sylbert I'm sure were designed properly and of course built to accommodate both camera and sound. The perspective that is apparent as people walk away from or up to camera is what gives the dialog recording a sense of realism and honesty, things that are quite difficult to produce with ADR or mixing dialog that has been close miked with lavaliers. Please that you appreciate these things while listening to the dialog --- it is the sort of sound that most of us old guys used to be able to achieve relatively easily as most of the other movie-making procedures made it all possible.
  8. I think John B. nailed it! Having attended NAB almost every year for well over 30 years, I have certainly seen a lot of changes. It is so true that what used to be the primary reason, companies showing gear for the first time, often gear that will be years away from being shipping products, this aspect of the show has almost completely vanished. The social aspect has only increased, however, with the face-to-face interacton with the people being even more important now in the Internet/Social Media age. Being able to talk directly to the great people with the companies that produce all the great toys we use is wonderful --- and, as John B. has said, meeting up with so many people that during the year one interacts only online, this is why I go to NAB. Of course, the R.A.M.P.S./JWSOUND Party, always a great place to put this altogether.
  9. "What do you think about this? I think Sennheiser wants to retain their G3 customers preventing them to migrate to Zaxcom or Lectrosonics." I think the Sennheiser receiver is pretty amazing and quite an engineering accomplishment with support for every transmitter they make, both analog and digital. It is very expensive and is only useful, obviously, to those who are already into Sennheiser stuff, but it is doubtful that your typical G3, G4 user will be able to justify this purchase. For me, if I were going to go with Sennheiser wireless I would only be interested in their digital transmitters that are grossly over-priced and do not deliver on many key features and functions of my current digital wireless. I think the 9000 series transmitters are about $2700. each --- pretty steep.
  10. Thank you, Philip, you've been with us long enough to know that you have summed up exactly the original intention with the Want To Buy - Want To Sell section --- it was really meant to serve as a place where the people we already know (real names, real discussions, some common history) can find some gear they want to buy or sell something they no longer need. When it works, it works well, but it has had its fair share of problems over the years.
  11. First of all, nobody "buys something on JWSOUND" --- anybody that has made a purchase or has sold something that was posted in the Want To Buy - Want To Sell section of this DISCUSSION group, they are on their own. Any advice on how to deal with any problems associated with any transaction should be had as a discussion amongst those who have had experience, person to person, with transactions of this sort. JWSOUND, the site, has nothing to do with this since we are not a commerce or auction site, etc. Same goes for people who may have had problems getting payment or have purchased or offered stolen merchandise, etc. Maybe someone will chime in with some advice but again, it will not be advice offered by JWSOUND.
  12. +1 to Laurence for remembering that phrase. Remember also, "let's make a dance floor" for the dolly.
  13. Most all dolly "track" was built on the day with wood. Metal tube-type track wasn't really in use much until mid-1970s as I recall. Usually the dolly move was quiet with the wooden track not adding anything we couldn't deal with.
  14. I listened to "#2 the ZMT3 going thru QRX200 receiver (XR mode) into the Nomad, no lav, fader up" file and didn't really hear any significant noise floor. I'm not sure what's going on exactly with your setup.
  15. I love these carpool karaoke segments (and it looks like they are very popular with everyone) and the only thing that find myself thinking about from a technical standpoint is how much of them, if any, use stationary vehicle and greenscreen process. I am pretty sure whoever is shown driving is not actually driving the car (most probably towed) and I really think that some of them were done greenscreen process with some real driving (obviously exterior shots of the vehicle moving in traffic, also vehicle stopped and people getting in and out, stuff like that). Does anyone know if any of these have used process shooting?