TheBlimp Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Hello all, seeking for a little advice on reality stuff: I'm currently editing a documentary I shot over the course of the last 1.5 yrs., my first own project with funding, we had a little team, but I also had to do some one-man-band stuff, with the result of: either sound or picture are good, haha - but I'm positive about the coverage, 35 hrs of logged material, Interview transcripts are done, currently in the very early editing stages of the "easier" scenes. Getting along decently. One of my headaches is, of course... sound. But this time the other way around, as in: On the shorts I usually do audio post for, I try and go by the book (namely Purcell's) as much as I can. Splitting tracks, room tone bridges, stem mixing, etc. But I'm wondering to which degree I should/have the need for/or even the luxury of getting down into such detail with a rather rough 1h doco. Rough in the sense of - we have 3 former homeless guys visiting their old spots in the woods, drinking and stumbling, doing a lot of talking, and we won't try and polish it up or bring it down to easily consumable level by putting string sections underneath and have a voice of god narrative. Mainly, I'm looking for a decent workflow when getting to the audio post - I'm a bit afraid I might otherwise lose to much time over it, e.g. by fixing things that would be considered no good in a scenic movie, but maybe would be considered perfectly fine in a reality doco. What should I consider "good enough"? I even considered judging dialogue by listening to the edited scenes over a set of old TV speakers, and if it's, erhm... okay, just to live with it, move on and only do minimal sweetening later on. How do you experienced guys go about reality doco sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesper Magnusson Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't have an abundance of experience in the area, but you can get away with a more "rough" sound in a doc then on a fictional film. The first and most important thing to look at is of course the dialogue - it must be intelligible. I did some dialogue editing for a simple doc and there was actually quite a lot to be done - correcting words, removing disturbances etc (it's a lot harder to do without those alternate takes!). You may also want to hide sounds that reveal the film team. After that, ambiance, FX etc can be used just like on a fictional film to enhance the meaning and feeling of each scene. The degree to which you fix and add to the original tracks must be judged by you, set against how raw and "real" your doc should be. The more you fix, the more you're tampering with the reality that you caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd say that there should be no difference in workflow at all. The only thing that's different is the fact that theres only one take of the lines. All the other things; fx, ambiance, foley, ADR are just as in any other film. That other thing about keeping it real or whatever, that's up to you. A real good sound mix is fake but you can't hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Good points re. the "reality" considerations from both of you - I mean, how much does one need to alter the original material to give it verisimilitude - in a medium that doesn't capture reality anyway. Ethical questions arise. Excuse the bad joke. I guess editing one's own material is both a blessing and a curse. Advantage is, I know the stuff inside out, and so far it's been easy to find the bits and pieces for a scene, but on the other hand I'm prone to not to seeing the woods for the trees - hmmm. Normally I do audio post for other people who just drop me a locked edit, and I have to sort it all out. This time, I can select material that I consider good enough, with hopefully not too much emphasis on audio (still, in some scenes the audio is more important than the picture - sorry, cinematographers), which should save me plenty time in audio post, as I already know what will be an easy fix or not. Hm, how would you go about dialogue edits / splitting to tracks? I think that if I it sounds okay enough/coherent, I needn't do it as meticulously as with scenic material, example - I can't/mustn't be bothered by minor room tone changes as I usually would. And maybe only do track splits when I have to, e.g. have to EQ one speaker in a longer take. But I guess I'll find out soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Approach it the same way you do picture: What tells the story? What engages the viewer? Avoid elements that yank the viewer out of the story. Sound has all the same attributes as picture: perspective, point-of-view, focus, etc., and just like picture, these are all tools for telling a story well. What "style" is best for a given project is a subjective thing, but sound and picture should work together to engage the viewer with whatever that style is in order to tell a compelling story. One of my mantras: "What tells the story?" It serves well whether writing, directing, editing, or cutting sound. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 ... This time, I can select material that I consider good enough, with hopefully not too much emphasis on audio... ...I think that if I it sounds okay enough/coherent, I needn't do it as meticulously as with scenic material, example - I can't/mustn't be bothered by minor room tone changes as I usually would... Take my greener perspective with a grain of salt Fuzz, but I don't agree with the level of commitment in these statements. As you stated, we're not talking about reality, but representations; documentary film is still film. If like JB states you're still telling a story, then your sound should be given the same level of attention and commitment as your picture, irrespective of form. I just finished the sound edit on a documentary about ex-felons; beautiful tear-jerking stories of crushing heart-break and absolute human triumph. These people were vulnerable and bared their lives and emotions to a doc crew and the world, and NYC mixer Josh Isaac recorded their voices magnificently (the human voice on a well-placed hyper is something that takes my breath away)...I owed these subjects and the crew something. Splitting tracks IMHO shouldn't even be on the table as a time-saving or form-unnecessary consideration for sacrifice... we owe it. Best, Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't see why you would be more careful with dramatic audio than with doco stuff. I mostly do doco post, and in many ways it is harder than dramatic work. In drama the dialog is usually more carefully recorded and edited, in doco, esp verite, the filmmaker may have been hanging on for dear life, and the audio is what it is--no ADR possible. I generally put most of effort on a doc into the dialog--probably 70% of the post time is spent just trying to get the dialog to play smoothly, with as few distractions as possible. This is necessary not only for story and for "keeping the audience in the movie", but for meeting the TV network long-term average dialog level standards required of anything broadcast anymore. I look at the dialog as the "foundation" of the edifice I'm building--and if it is level and smooth and passes whatever level standard you are working under then you are free to add other sounds, bring up your music etc and do other creative things with the track. Audiences make no distinction between audio for docs and audio for drama, and while people vitally interested in the subject may "stay with" a film that sounds bad (esp on TV), no one else will. Good luck--keep that Purcell book handy! phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Thanks for the great input! I really don't mean to treat the audio stepmotherly, as I'm much too attached to it, and one of my goals during shoot was to make a doco with a "deep" soundtrack - or, at least, the best I could do, haha. I have about 30 hrs of wild sound alone. What I mean to say is: If there's a plane overhead, I'll have to live with it, as long as dialogue is intelligible and important things are said. Different from a scenic shoot. If I need to do a picture cut in the effing middle of a car pass-by, I'll mask it as good as I can. Things that would make me normally call for a cut during a scenic shoot. If one of the protagonists is mumbling away unintelligibly, because he's drunk out of his mind, missing three front teeth and and no native speaker... so be it, because it's important as is. We shot in super noisy locations, under freeway bridges, industrial terrains, but I think I got myself covered well enough regarding dialogue quality. I showed some raw footage around got asked how we got such clear audio, considered the circumstances. I really don't know... I made my boom op point the mic in the right direction? No super wide dialogue shots in 16:9? Haha. But the aforementioned things I have to live with - it's all first takes and for picture edit I'm only choosing material where dialogue is "good enough" - but it may as well be I'm just in over my head by trying to walk the line between reality show style and a more sophisticated approach. Maybe I can upload a rough cut of a scene in the near future and get some input based on what's really there, instead of me just blabbering away. Back to work. Further wild discussions highly appreciated! And please excuse if I tend to express myself clumsily, as this is not my mother tongue. Cheers, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Wow, great thread! I just want to thank you guys for posting here -- it reiterates my thinking and intent when it comes to dialog acquisition. Documentary... scripted... regardless... you're telling a story - moment by moment -- each moment has the potential to either draw the viewer in deeper, or disengage. A producer for whom I am currently mixing told me a couple of days ago that he read two quotes (questions) on a blackboard for which he would have gladly paid his entire tuition: What does the audience know? What does the audience expect? This may pertain to scripted forms a little more than documentary, but not much more -- we're still telling a story. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 When I do documentaries (and short films/features as well) in post, I try to separate every character to a unique track... This is because it makes eqing a bit easier. If the audio is BAD however, I don't do it... I just salvage what can be saved. And, come to think of it, that's the way I do with all projects. If I find the dialog in a scene recorded on a doc to be "good enough" yet the bg noise of said dialog is pretty loud, like in a street, I will first try and "reproduce" the original ambience, just to be able to have nicer fades in n out of the recorded material. IMO its much harder to hear cuts of such material if the background is separated. Either that or no to very little level riding.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I think that if you're going to be editing anything that you've shot, be it sound, video or still photos, it's important to get outside opinions from people you trust while you're editing. The thing about editing your own stuff is that you often "see" or "hear" the effort that went into producing the thing in addition to the actual work-on-the-screen. I've always found it easier to edit someone else's work just because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 One of my mantras: "What tells the story?" It serves well whether writing, directing, editing, or cutting sound.. You've asked a huge question that requires a very evolved answer. My suggestion would be to read "In the blink of an eye" by Walter Murtch. A quick read that will help you on your project. Best of luck and hard work will be necessary to do it well. Enjoy. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 You've asked a huge question that requires a very evolved answer. My suggestion would be to read "In the blink of an eye" by Walter Murtch. A quick read that will help you on your project. Best of luck and hard work will be necessary to do it well. Enjoy. +1 for Mr. Murch's slim, but meaningful, tome. http://www.amazon.co...blink+of+an+eye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Yup, great book. I like his take on things. Emotion, story... then the rest. Cut on change of idea or emotion. A movie is like a dream. Etc. Maybe I should pin the six rules behind my monitors - sometimes I get hung up in detail and forget about more important things. We'll see, I don't expect the movie to be a hit, I'll consider it a success if we make it to one or two small festivals at all, but I'll sure be doing my best. I have friends and colleagues who are more into the visual side of things than me and they all offered their help, which will sure come in handy to get fresh feedback from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 The usual flow for docs around here is the pix editor does the first mix in FCP/Avid, because at that point they're still refining the story and showing it to small test audiences / funders / etc. They acknowledge the track is rough. Then they pass an OMF to audio post, where it gets split according to character or mic or background noise or whatever else will make sense for the mix... the same as with narrative films and tv shows. With one BIG exception: Docs don't have a shooting script or multiple takes. This has two results. - Sometimes, the editor or producer will call me ahead of time to ask whether I can make an edit or noise reduction on a critical line work in post, and possibly predo just that clip. Otherwise, they have to reconsider how the story is told. Audio tools (and monitoring and skill set) are a lot better than what an pix editor has available. - Sometimes (actually often) the editor will pass me an edit that sounds incredibly clunky to my ear. Editor and producer have gotten used to it, but it bothers me and I think will hurt the movie. So I re-edit using phonemes from elsewhere. If I can't find the pieces, I'll ask for a transcript of the original and then ask for a couple of clips that might not be on the OMF, just so I can get the necessary syllables. If it think a slightly different wording will work better and it's during a cutaway, I'll try to sell that to the producer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 When I worked as a sound editor on Fear Factor and Hell's Kitchen, we approached the shows just like anything else. We did full on sound design, effects, BGs, foley, and very extensive dialogue editorial. We wouldn't necessarily give each character their own track, but rather have a different track for the type of shot...basically close up, mid, and wide, and then put the appropriate dialogue on the appropriate track, and then create an aux track for effects like mild reverb, or things to smooth out the rough dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted August 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 Wow, great input, thanks a lot! - Sometimes, the editor or producer will call me ahead of time to ask whether I can make an edit or noise reduction on a critical line work in post, and possibly predo just that clip. Otherwise, they have to reconsider how the story is told. Audio tools (and monitoring and skill set) are a lot better than what an pix editor has available. - Sometimes (actually often) the editor will pass me an edit that sounds incredibly clunky to my ear. Editor and producer have gotten used to it, but it bothers me and I think will hurt the movie. So I re-edit using phonemes from elsewhere. If I can't find the pieces, I'll ask for a transcript of the original and then ask for a couple of clips that might not be on the OMF, just so I can get the necessary syllables. If it think a slightly different wording will work better and it's during a cutaway, I'll try to sell that to the producer. Yes, that's what I sometimes have to do - when in doubt, I look at the audio spearately, forget about picture and see if if there's spare material for smoothing with editing and/or whether it can be NRed good enough. Slows the picture editing down a lot, but I will have a good time when it comes to audio post, I guess When I worked as a sound editor on Fear Factor and Hell's Kitchen, we approached the shows just like anything else. We did full on sound design, effects, BGs, foley, and very extensive dialogue editorial. We wouldn't necessarily give each character their own track, but rather have a different track for the type of shot...basically close up, mid, and wide, and then put the appropriate dialogue on the appropriate track, and then create an aux track for effects like mild reverb, or things to smooth out the rough dialogue. Track splitting for type of shot: Genius! Where appropriate, it should be a real timesaver. Picture edit is getting along, but every so often I fee there's no way to make a smooth thing out of what at this stage looks like fragmented mess. Think i need a break. Will dig through the forum a bit. Have a good one, everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 Fuzzy, I don't know if doc production is different in other areas or different sized budgets. The jobs I do (small theatrical and network, for prodn companies in LA and Boston) are flexible enough that I can talk to the director or producer directly about possible changes, if they'll help the story. In a more stratified traditional production this might not be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted August 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 Hm yes I can imagine smaller projects having a more flexible workflow. It might as well be that I'm trying to be too flexible, haha, since I'm doing this mainly as a one man gig and I sometimes don't know which hat I'm wearing at the moment... the producers in me keeps giving orders to the director and the dialog editor is sitting in the same room telling the picture editor which takes must be used, but the colorist is concerned about the blown out highlights of the scene with the great dialogue. Next project will be considerably smaller, shot to script. I'll be a happy fella when this is done. Phew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted August 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Update: Media management in FCP sucks big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunkleFish Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 We do docs and our typical work flow parallels what Jay Rose said. While we're editing, if we think something might not work sound wise, we'll get in touch with our post sound guy and see if they think it's fixable/workable on their end. Same thing with finishing a film visually. If we like a shot but think it's too grainy/shaky/etc, we check with our finisher to see if it's fixable. There's editing tricks for getting away with sound/visual issues too. For example, a shaky close up of a guy talking with airplane noise in the background typically wouldn't be ideal, unless you identified the environment they were in with something like an establishing shot, and if that establishing shot was a shot of that guy riding a horse down a runway with a plane taking off behind him, the following shaky close-up wouldn't be an issue. What's up with FCP's media manager? I switched from Avid to FCP, FCP back to Avid after FCPx was released, and now I'm looking really closely at switching to Premiere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlimp Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Hey Dunkle, thanks for the advice! The workflow you described is good - I guess it's just me wearing all these hats which causes my troubles/distractions, haha. I'm more in the flow right now, as in: it doesn't take me so long anymire to make a decision whether this or that can be saved. I lost a job or two over raising my location sound rates, but hey, I can spend more time on the documentary this way - developing some routine with the picture edit... better. About FCPs media management: Linking, re-linking, losing Motion renders upon consolidating, the usual stuff. I know my way around, but sometimes it's just a drag. As if you need more brainpower for the workarounds than the actual editing. Ah well. The new Premiere looks pretty good - but I'll stick with FCP and see where the pro editors in my area will be heading, where it seems like a 50/50 between Media Composer and Premiere right now. I guess by the end of next year we'll know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Waldron Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Update: Media management in FCP sucks big time. LOL.. YES! If you aren't careful, files will end up all over the place, sometimes in the previous projects folder. Some renders and misc. files end up in generic folders. You will find out when moving the project to another computer.....1/4 of it will be missing. FCsemiP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 " FCP " FCsP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.