Jump to content

Why Is Sound So Hard?


Marc Wielage

Recommended Posts

I hesitate to even bring this up, but this recent conversation on the RedUser Group was so sad and funny, I wanted to share it here:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?109349-Why-is-sound-still-like-this

 

The short version of the story (50 messages and climbing) is the guy asks:

 

Coming out of a big production with two and three cameras for every scene I'm now drowning in the complexity of editing.

 

Now I'm wondering why there still isn't a good option for working with sound. Why isn't cameras able to include good audio handling? Enable a large quantity of audio tracks and a high fidelity? The audio professionals on set are still recording to an external device and we still need to sync in post. Now, this "should" work fine, but it never does, people miss to sync the timecodes on set, there are technical hiccups etc. etc. 

 

So why can't we get a better sound workflow for productions? A sound recorder that doesn't record sound at all, instead a high quality transmitter for recording sound in camera and a camera that records the sound in high fidelity with many audio channels? It enables you to edit directly on set, with the files that are going to be used throughout post production with AAF exports for sound editors instead of relinking.

 

Why are we still using clappers with a clapping function? You just need the info written. It's a bulky stone age way of working with film production. Shoot - edit - final output for VFX, sound editing & grade. Let assistant editors sort out the footage, not spend their time solving issues created on set because of stress and pressure.

 

I don't know why this isn't changing for larger productions?

 

 

Now I should know better, but I dived in and essentially said: "hire good people and this won't be a problem." I also said that sound syncing is very easy; recording on set is hard. I also pointed out the difficulties of trying to record all audio in camera because of the lack of easy monitoring and level adjustment, and the risk of sound issues within all cameras. And I cited what the real problems for sound are on set, including the everyday issues we all know too well. 

 

I may have come off as flippant and condescending to the guy, but my essential argument was the standard, "you have to have Realistic Expectations when you have no money." It also eventually came out that he was trying to shoot with multiple Red cameras, apparently not all of them were genlocked and correctly synced to external timecode, he never did a workflow test, and he waited until after the 5-week shoot was completed before trying to start syncing, and he's running into trouble and endless hours of drudgery in sound syncing in editorial. I know what that's like, and I'm sympathetic to a point. 

 

My observation: you have to start syncing the day after shooting (or sooner), or else you'll never know if there's any serious issues -- bad files, bad timecode, bad reference, bad levels... the possibilities are endless. The filmmaker is under the impression that technology could solve all these problems for him, including what he feels is the waste of time in slating and syncing. My feeling is that all these traditions are necessary and fairly simple, and that much of his labor and pain could have been eliminated simply by hiring better people or at least asking post the right questions prior to shooting. And of course, the need to not try to do it all yourself, even if you have very little money. 

 

I see sad stories in the low-budget world like this all the time, but this one really struck me because the guy was clearly in a lot of pain and sees sound as the enemy. We know it's not. There are a few interesting comments in the thread from people (including me, the loudmouth) who tell the guy that most of his problems boil down to logistics, people, and money, and the solutions are not necessarily based in technology. I've worked on all kinds of no-budget, low-budget, medium-budget, and high-budget problems where similar solutions kept the wheels turning. But there is no automatic switch for making these things work by magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I hesitate to say it... but I'm gonna...

The real answer to the guy is, "As long as you stay as ignorant about sound as you currently are, you're going to continue to have problems -- no matter where and how your sound is recorded."

Marc, I feel confident you made some good points but I'm not optimistic that he heard them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, why is film so much hard work? Can't we just have the computer set up a camera, and some actors, and film them?

 

Seriously (some food for thought):

With devices like PIX 240 or similar, it is possible to record HD picture and high-quality multitrack sound. Heck, it was possible with Betacam machines ("multitrack" meaning four tracks, three more than a mono Nagra). And I think there are certain daily soaps working that way (although just recording a mix, and working in their own studio exclusively).

In ENG, sound usually is recorded to camera only.

Maybe these workflows are where that guy in the other forum got the idea from.

 

Using this workflow in "feature" film, especially low-budget as that guy wants to, rises some issues.

It would have to be determined who's responsible if something goes wrong between mixer and recorder, or between camera and recorder.

It requires a cabled connection between camera and recorder, as wireless HD video isn't that reliable yet. Cam ops often hate being cabled to anything - especially in low-budget "handheld camera" style. In studio work it's not that much of an issue.

It requires a cabled connection between sound mixer and recorder, or lots of reliable high-quality wireless channels if ISOs are requested. Especially in low-budget surroundings, we might not get that one rehearsal we need to make a good mix, or there is a lot of improvised dialog - therefore they will want ISOs.

And surely lots more of issues to be solved, and workflow tested, before shooting starts.

 

He could also just test their conventional double-system workflow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could pose similar questions about the picture workflow.  With all these cameras that are glorified computers, why can't they record perfectly color balanced pictures without needing any matching or color grading in post.  Once you get a color "look" you like you should be able to bake in that look to all cameras wirelessly so they all apply the same color correction.   And with file based cameras they could be triggered by those wireless mic transmitters to start recording 6 frames before each line of dialogue and stop 5 frames after the end of each line..  Then all you would have to do is throw those files on the timeline and viola.. Instant edited movie.   No expensive edit suites or color correction suites or Editors to employ.  And we can use those robotic camera peds they have in network TV  to position the cameras automatically.  No director needed either.  Just scan in the script and storyboard and instant movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is always a certain percentage of filmmakers who are enraged by the complexities and problems of getting good sound on location, who feel that production sound people are running a racket and are witholding some secret info that if made public would remove the need to have sound people, their fussy expensive equipment and their negative attitudes on the set.  There is also a percentage of filmmakers who are observant enough to understand that while most location sound isn't rocket surgery, there is an art to it and that experience and preparation are the keys to that art.  And then there is the rest, somewhere in between, mostly just wanting the rates to be lower and to not hear complaints from anyone.  The Red User OP is just the latest digital filmmaker who is outraged that he can't just buy something, plug it in, turn it on and have all his sound issues go away.   Life and filmmaking will disabuse him of this attitude soon enough, or just spit him out of the business altogether.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much of this "problem" comes from the deep seated assumption that there can always be technological solutions, usually involving some new piece of gear (or software), and this is just not the case. When there is an expectation for the outcome (good sound like they have heard in other productions) but very little understanding of how it was achieved, there is always the hope that someone or some company will come up with that DEVICE that will give them what they want. Sure, the camera can give you a 4K image but will that image ever really be part of a great movie? Countless times I have said at seminars and workshops, a good conversation with the Director and the DP, with an understanding of what it is we want to achieve, will do so much more for the soundtrack than any piece of equipment I can show up with. Additionally, once understanding what it is we want to achieve, there has to be a commitment to put in place those practices and procedures which will lead to success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 what Jeff said.

 

Sometimes when I'm battling traffic, crew talking, crew moving, generators, noisy ballasts, air handlers, airplanes, lawn mowers, marching bands, and last minute production changes without any advanced warning accompanied by unrealistic expectations, I sometimes wonder the same thing, "Why is sound so hard?" 

 

If the questioner who inspired this thread ever finds the magic box that solves all of sound's issues, kindly have him send one my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<You could pose similar questions about the picture workflow. >

 

Oh man, Mr Goodin! You question the picture makers?? I can bet maybe only 10 out of a 100 can even speak four sentences with clarity on their workflows. Most of them will go 'i know what i want it to look like, and that's what is important...' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Coming out of a big production with two and three cameras for every scene I'm now drowning in the complexity of editing.

 

 

 

"Big Production." "Two and three cameras for every scene."

 

Well, there's your problem. Either they blew all their money on a camera department sized to re-stage the Ben-Hur chariot race, or, more likely, they got a handful of kids to "volunteer" their Red packages. This is what happens when you beg, borrow and steal to get a pro camera department on your amateur set, but not a pro sound department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they got a handful of kids to "volunteer" their Red packages. 

More and More I am encountering 2-3 kids with Red Scarlets with no accessories and no idea but think they have the best camera ever. When I try to explain the limitations of the camera system all they talk about is how the RED has a chip that has no noise and produces the best picture quality. Recently I was on a multi camera shoot that each RED has a different firmware on it. One of them was having timecode issues and of course they were blaming me I showed them it was the camera they asked me why it was happening and I told them cause it isn't a Alexi. I then got an earful about how much more they can do with the RED. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc, and others, your responses are all so much more measured and respectful than what I was thinking reading that post.

 

"What, are you stupid or something? Are you serious?" That's all I could think of.

 

I started doing this the middle of last year, and I'm so thankful all of you here are so knowledgeable to read, especially when reading that post. Yeesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could pose similar questions about the picture workflow.  With all these cameras that are glorified computers, why can't they record perfectly color balanced pictures without needing any matching or color grading in post.  Once you get a color "look" you like you should be able to bake in that look to all cameras wirelessly so they all apply the same color correction. 

 

I'll go ya one better: let's get rid of all cameras, all sets, all lighting, and the entire crew, and just do the entire show as motion-captured CGI! No actors... except for the voices. And I'm sure there'll eventually be a voice synthesis program for that. So you'll have an entire legion of filmmakers who are just 35-year-old guys sitting in their parents' basements, creating entire films on their laptops. Very bad films.

 

 

+1 both Courtney and Philip.

The complainant obviously doesn't know enough to even have an inkling how little he knows.

 
Even worse: he doesn't realize the vast universe of what he doesn't know! When I was in my 20s, I was sure I knew all there was to know about film and television. After more than 40 years, now I have a very good idea of all the things I don't know. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red is a cult that these fanboys have bought into, and get outraged when their film doesn't come out like the advertising promised. They think just having a Red means they are 'cinematographers' and don't need old school stuff like experienced crews or technical knowledge. 4k is the mantra, 4k 4k 4k 4k FY (which is what it eventually sounds like)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find is amazing is that even with all the issues soundwise with DSLR's. I have seen a DP achieve (to my inexpeirenced eyes) the same quality of picture as the RED. Sure DSLR's arnt "4K" but does that really matter if what's in the frame is out of focus, or color looks horrible, etc. all 4K says to me is that their inexperience is just in a larger format and takes longer to render.

This is why when I try to explain sound equipment to those filmakers willing to listen I like to relate things like mics to lenses and mic position to focus and the mix to the whole frame. At least this way they can in someway understand to some extent why I reccomend different equipment for different situations.

If it's too sunny, you have to change the ISO on the camera or get shades, bounce boards, etc, if a location is windy or too much reverb there has to be equipment that deals with the environment.

This way I feel they start to undertand that there isn't one piece of equipment that will solve all their problems and give them something to relate to which, I feel always helps things run smoothly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red is a cult that these fanboys have bought into, and get outraged when their film doesn't come out like the advertising promised. They think just having a Red means they are 'cinematographers' and don't need old school stuff like experienced crews or technical knowledge. 4k is the mantra, 4k 4k 4k 4k FY (which is what it eventually sounds like)

 

Mac, you're thinking of this guy:

 

My Mom bought me a RED camera so now I'm a DP.

https://www.facebook.com/dpredwizard

 

His posts and videos a few years ago were pretty damn funny.

 

 

But I've made my peace with RED cameras… mainly because --most of the time-- these days, the picture people and producers I work with know the limitations. The Fanbois I ignore as much as possible.

 

Marc, thanks for trolling reduser (and representing!) so the rest of us don't have to (as much).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4k is the mantra, 4k 4k 4k 4k FY (which is what it eventually sounds like)

 

That's so yesterday! The new Epic Dragon chip is 6K! That must be 50% better than 4K.

 

 

What I find is amazing is that even with all the issues soundwise with DSLR's. I have seen a DP achieve (to my inexpeirenced eyes) the same quality of picture as the RED. Sure DSLR's arnt "4K" but does that really matter if what's in the frame is out of focus, or color looks horrible, etc. all 4K says to me is that their inexperience is just in a larger format and takes longer to render.

 

Naaaa, the render times for 4K aren't that bad. DLSR's are still toy cameras -- you can see the picture start to fall apart when you try to push them too far in color correction. Under ideal circumstances, they're not terrible. Real 10-bit pictures from Red, Alexa, Sony, and (sometimes) Canon actually hold up pretty well. The thing the Red people get antsy about is the amount of work going to Alexa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...