Scratch Tracks Wrongly Used In Final Edit

[Hotfoot]

This is an issue that I've been hearing about (in UK), particularly in commercials.  A lo-rent scratch track is sent to camera, often via radio link, ew300 etc, to facilitate a quick off-line edit; and this audio ends up making it through to the final edit. We supply the files to the DIT, but they never get looked at. I recently heard about a case whereby the scratch track was actually sent off to be cleaned up by a post-facility. The repercussions of this are immediately obvious. More importantly, the poor sound mixer is made to be the scapegoat, even if he later points out the problem.

 

What can be done about this? So many jobs are completed every day. Even if 1% of these result in this confusion, it is an issue. 

 

Any suggestions?

 

I have begun making sure that I inform the Production Manager on every job, but it is all too easy for this to happen, given an oversight, or a lapse of memory.

 

HF

[studiomprd]

" the poor sound mixer is made to be the scapegoat, even if he later points out the problem. "

this is one reason I always suggest providing  the best possible "scratch tracks"

 

" inform the Production Manager on every job, "

wrong person(s)... production managers are not typically involved in post production...

 

We discuss this issue constantly, but the bottom line is that we provide the client what they want, and from there it is up to the client what happens, as we are done and gone...

" if 1% of these result in this confusion, "

it is not necessarily confusion...

We can mention, suggest, recommend, etc. until we are dehydrated, but often the path of least efforts and or costs gets followed; and if the client wants audio recorded to a media, it is our job to get the best possible audio recorded onto that media, even if we consider it unsuitable media.

 

BTW: I'd argue with the title of the thread:  wrongly used ?? 

They may not have been the best option, but they are a resource...

keep in mind that without specific information the sceanario could have been that money and or time ran out... or any of dozens of other excuses reasons...

Edited November 27, 2013 by studiomprd

[John Blankenship]

Lacking a good connection with post, you really have two main options: Either send much worse scratch tracks to camera, or better ones. If desperate, you could go so far as to mix in a bit of time code with the camera audio (note: a Red sometimes does that for you anyway).

[Hotfoot]

" the poor sound mixer is made to be the scapegoat, even if he later points out the problem. "

this is one reason I always suggest providing  the best possible "scratch tracks"

 

This only compounds the issue.

 

" inform the Production Manager on every job, "

wrong person(s)... production managers are not typically involved in post production...

 

Here in UK, the Commercial Producer (to whom I assume you refer), defers anything like this to the Production Manger, as the Producer is too busy dealing with the client and the agency. The grey area lies between the Production Manager and the Producer, it seems. 

 

We discuss this issue constantly, but the bottom line is that we provide the client what they want, and from there it is up to the client what happens, as we are done and gone...

 

The client doesn't understand technical issues.

 

" if 1% of these result in this confusion, "

it is not necessarily confusion...

We can mention, suggest, recommend, etc. until we are dehydrated, but often the path of least efforts and or costs gets followed; and if the client wants audio recorded to a media, it is our job to get the best possible audio recorded onto that media, even if we consider it unsuitable media.

 

I agree with this, but the problem remains unresolved. As a sound mixer, it is nigh-on impossible to chase up these issues days after the event, when we may be working on something else, or multiple projects. If we do chase them up, the issue is often misunderstood. 

I appreciate answers like these, but they don't really resolve the issue. I was wondering if anyone had any concrete methods to obliterate the problem, on the day of the shoot.

[studiomprd]

" This only compounds the issue. "

of course, it's up to you...

" the Commercial Producer (to whom I assume you refer), "

no.  The PM is in charge of the production phase, not the post production phase.

you probably need to be in communications with post production...

" The client doesn't understand technical issues. "

wrong "client",  I mean the client who hires the crew, often a production company, hired by the agenbcy, hired by "the client" you are referring to.

 

" I was wondering if anyone had any concrete methods to obliterate the problem, on the day of the shoot. "

I'm not certain I agree that there is a problem, but if so then back to the suggestion you didn't like: provide the best possible quality to all the media recording.  After the gig, move on.

[Philip Perkins]

You can only do what you can do.  A wireless ref track is a pretty standard thing (unless the camera geniuses blow it off for their own reasons), it's a sensible thing to have.  If the editors are too lazy or clueless to get the right audio track up then there isn't much you can do about it.  If the audio post people have any clue they might think it was weird that a full-up production with a decent budget would have such crappy sound and ask after the whereabouts of the master audio files, esp if there is only a single channel recorded on the camera.  

 

philp

[studiomprd]

" would have such crappy sound "

and of course it might not be crappy sound...

[Hotfoot]

You can only do what you can do.  A wireless ref track is a pretty standard thing (unless the camera geniuses blow it off for their own reasons), it's a sensible thing to have.  If the editors are too lazy or clueless to get the right audio track up then there isn't much you can do about it.  If the audio post people have any clue they might think it was weird that a full-up production with a decent budget would have such crappy sound and ask after the whereabouts of the master audio files, esp if there is only a single channel recorded on the camera.  

Thanks, Phillip. It's the human element which gives rise to these complaints. I suppose I wanted to throw it out there, and find how others have dealt with it. So in that sense, it's not really a technical question, rather one about how to make a point heard in a system which doesn't cater for it.

 

I have been discussing the possibility of emailing edit houses about it. Early days, though.

 

Thanks

[Hotfoot]

" This only compounds the issue. "

of course, it's up to you...

" the Commercial Producer (to whom I assume you refer), "

no.  The PM is in charge of the production phase, not the post production phase.

you probably need to be in communications with post production...

" The client doesn't understand technical issues. "

wrong "client",  I mean the client who hires the crew, often a production company, hired by the agenbcy, hired by "the client" you are referring to.

 

" I was wondering if anyone had any concrete methods to obliterate the problem, on the day of the shoot. "

I'm not certain I agree that there is a problem, but if so then back to the suggestion you didn't like: provide the best possible quality to all the media recording.  After the gig, move on.

How does one record  the 'best possible quality' to a radio receiver strapped to an Alexa on a technocrane , or a steadicam rig, via a radio link into a 5-pin xlr, or worse? Your notion is all very well, but often unachievable in practice. I think you are being unfair, and overlooking the reality of what is achievable at short notice. 

[studiomprd]

" the possibility of emailing edit houses about it. "

maybe there is an idea there...

find out where the project is going for post, and send them a copy of the sound reports...

of course they will, in the end, be doing what they are instructed and paid to do...

 

" How does one record  the 'best possible media' to a radio receiver strapped to an Alexa on a technocrane "

this is done all the time. (it could even be wired to the camcorder on the technocrane!)

I feel you may be over dramatizing the issue...

[Hotfoot]

" the possibility of emailing edit houses about it. "

maybe there is an idea there...

find out where the project is going for post, and send them a copy of the sound reports...

of course they will, in the end, be doing what they are instructed and paid to do...

 

" How does one record  the 'best possible media' to a radio receiver strapped to an Alexa on a technocrane "

this is done all the time. (it could even be wired to the camcorder on the technocrane!)

I feel you may be over dramatizing the issue...

Your inability to empathise with the issue as a result of not having it doesn't help.  I have worked on many, many productions, and the vast majority of them have no issues. I was referring to a minority of cases in which problems arise. 

Your answers are all well and jolly, but do not help in the discussion.

 

Thanks anyway.

[afewmoreyears]

I prefer to provide the LOWEST quality scratch to the camera..(Alexa)... Actually, I prefer to treat it as a film camera and provide nothing... We do this often... but when asked for a track one is delivered... at a REALLY low level... from a Comtek... By the time they bring it up, it sucks... and there is no way they will want to use that when really nice tracks are waiting to be used.... It's all you can do... People are lazy sometimes and will use that track if it is usable (to the editor)...  What do they care...?  Many fantastic and caring Editors.... and some that are not so....

[Mazzwon]

I've had this issue before with projects. There's nothing more embarrassing than hearing it in the final mix.

[Glen Trew]

For what It's worth, on nearly all of the digital video productions I've worked on in the last several years, I did not send sound to the camera at all. In that regard, the camera was treated like a film camera with timecode.

 

I prefer it that way, the camera dept preferred it that way, and so did post. The only exception I recall was a few years ago when when the director wanted to start editing immediately after wrap without having to sync the double system tracks.

 

I'm not saying the everyone should work like this, I'm just saying that if you think it's a good idea, it's not unusual and you are in good company.

 

GT

[Constantin]

I'm with Senator on this. Have as good a scratch track as possible. This is exactly the reason why we have high quality wireless systems. The Lectro and Zaxcom receivers are clearly built with a camera in mind, or at least with a camera in mind as well. Put one of them on the camera and the quality is as good as it gets on the camera, except for a cabled link of course, which is another possibility. No worries then about a scratch track that gets used. Many if the commercials I work on... when I work on them the post dept hasn't even been hired, yet

[RPSharman]

I refuse to send a "scratch" track.

I either send a high quality feed, or nothing at all.

99% of the time, it's nothing at all.

I team up with DP, who doesn't want more stuff attached or plugged in to his camera. I tell them it'll cost more. I tell them it doesn't make sense to receive a mix to camera when step one in editorial process is to sync audio.

I've never had a production say, "Do it anyway". The only time I have run a feed is via a cable to an Alexa on a commercial using one boom.

Robert

[afewmoreyears]

I'm with Senator on this. Have as good a scratch track as possible. This is exactly the reason why we have high quality wireless systems. The Lectro and Zaxcom receivers are clearly built with a camera in mind, or at least with a camera in mind as well. Put one of them on the camera and the quality is as good as it gets on the camera, except for a cabled link of course, which is another possibility. No worries then about a scratch track that gets used. Many if the commercials I work on... when I work on them the post dept hasn't even been hired, yet

Problem is the DP seldom if EVER wants a receiver on their camera... A Lectro receiver on an Alexa...  That would not fly for one second over here...   No way, no how....  As I said, I prefer to never send audio too the camera at all...  same as Robert.....

[Philip Perkins]

I would prefer to not send any audio to a video camera ever.  That does not describe the wishes of the majority of producers I work for. They want audio to the camera because they want to hear something when they play back the audio files in the field, and because it makes auto-syncing (ie PluralEyes) go better/faster with inexperienced editors.  Even if they didn't have good reasons for doing this I'd have to do it anyhow since they asked for it.  Mono mid-fi is a good compromise.  If the camera dept has convinced the producer not to have audio to the cam then I'm down.  But folks, there is a reason why the Alexa, among others, has an audio recording section--because the people who were likely to buy the camera insisted on it.  I assume you guys who generally do not send audio to the cam would do so if you were asked to....right?

 

philp

[Jaymz]

Happens all the time. Among other things....

 

Editing not taking place with ISO's sycn'd which screws the audio post team.

 

Inexperienced editors summing boom and lav tracks together resulting in horrendous phasing.

[John Steigerwald]

I'm thinking I'm just gonna start putting a bandpass filter on the cam send set from 800Hz to about 2.5k.

 

Great for quick cuts, useless for final product. 

 

You would think...

[Marc Wielage]

Doh, this is a horrible problem. I've always sent an email out to the producer at wrap with the PDF sound report that says, "please tell your editor that the sound on camera is just a scratch track, and I recommend using just track 1 as the mix track from the sound files supplied to your D.I.T." or words to that effect. But I know in a couple of cases, the scratch track did wind up getting used anyway, simply because the editor or assistant editor was too lazy to sync them up.

 

I generally try to send them a wireless hop from a Lectro SR, and while I don't like the additional conversion and processing, it actually doesn't sound bad at all. I'd always, always rather they sync up the WAV files. And I get that camera people don't want more boxes on their rigs, and I'm willing to work that way. 

 

The trend on more and more productions seems to be "timecode jam box only" and no wireless sound hop, at least for the scripted stuff I work on. Eh, one less source for trouble. 

[Constantin]

Problem is the DP seldom if EVER wants a receiver on their camera... A Lectro receiver on an Alexa... That would not fly for one second over here... No way, no how.... As I said, I prefer to never send audio too the camera at all... same as Robert.....

Well, I don't push for it. I do whatever they tell me. If the DP doesn't like it, it's up to him/her to take it up with the producer, and for the profucer to take it up with the agency who are usually the ones who want sound on playback. In any case, it's not my fight. Often on commercials, they have a separate video recorder and I'll send sound to it, for playback. But I have sent it to the Alexa, too, of course. Plenty of space on that thing for a receiver. These days, I tend to use an ERX2TCD for this. One small box with decent enough sound and TC. Usually, everyone is happy with that.

[Hotfoot]

The OP wasn't about how to send audio and TC to a camera, but what can be done to prevent scratch tracks being passed from pillar to post right up to and including the final product.

[Constantin]

The OP wasn't about how to send audio and TC to a camera, but what can be done to prevent scratch tracks being passed from pillar to post right up to and including the final product.

Yes, and that discussion naturally leads to the question of the quality and necessity or lack thereof of the scratch. One solution to your problem, as was pointed out, is to either use a better quality scratch, or to attempt to avoid the scratch altogether. So all this is relevant.

[pkautzsch]

+1 to the approach to send camera either good sound or no sound.

If there is sound on the camera, chances are someone will use it, because of inexperience, laziness, or plain stupidity.

For decades, all we gave to post was a mix on one or two tracks. On analogue tape, or 16 bits DAT. So why not in a C300 video file?