Sound is everyone's responsibility

[elliotkelly]

As a dialog editor I really appreciate all the efforts done by every one in production in order to get the best sound possible on location. They really do their best everyday to provide us with decent material to work with in post.

However, very frequently the results are not satisfactory, not as a fault of the sound department directly, but because some of the other departments are not conscious of the huge impact they make. Just as a boom op, whose work includes the effort to stay out of frame, everyone else shoud also do their best to make a positive impact in the recorded sound, be it keeping quiet on set, choosing better locations, or thinking on mic placement when designing costumes.

I believe we should have a meeting with the crew to discuss this, so I would really appreciate if you can give me some general ideas on what things can be done by other departments to benefit the quality of the sound we get.

[Martin Jelovsek]

I usually send the production this link ... 

 

http://filmsound.org/production-sound/openletter.htm

 

Regards

Martin

[RPSharman]

Poorly trained directors are the biggest problem, and 1st ADs who will afford a DP ample time for minuscule details, but won't afford us the time to make the difference between good and bad sound.

The directors refuse to understand the problems, and in my experience, post sound people are not inclined to complain to the directors or producers. They just fix it the best they can. Nobody likes a complainer. And without the details as to the problems we faced on set, we do appreciate not being complained about.

But I'd say that the single most detriment to quality sound is the use of two or more cameras with one of them being too wide to allow a boom in the room. That's not just frame lines, but also allowing grips to place flags and shape lights to prevent shadows.

[ProSound]

1st ADs who will afford a DP ample time for minuscule details, but won't afford us the time to make the difference between good and bad sound.

 

This is the #1 problem we have and especially on lower budget projects with only a 2 person sound team while camera is fully staffed. 

[studiomprd]

ellio: " give me some general ideas on what things can be done by other departments to benefit the quality of the sound we get. "

you are preaching to the choir here, and while there are so many things, unfortunately the production sound department comes off as whiners.

For many years I have been teaching my production sound classes, whose students don't want to become sound crew --they all want to be directors, DP's, and editors-- about how their decisions affect sound, and how the sound crew needs the cooperation of everyone on the set, and more.  Unfortunately, that isn't what they want to hear.

I direct them to "the letter", and point out examples with every other department -- wardrobe, makeup/hair, transpo, G-E, camera, props, etc. etc. and they don't get it; they don't want to hear it.

[elliotkelly]

Martin, that letter was exactly what I was looking for.

 

I will translate it to Spanish and pass it to everyone here.

[VASI]

Time for plan B; Michael. The hard speech.

[pkautzsch]

the production sound department comes off as whiners.

It's a matter of wording, and of speaking up at the right moment.

 

students don't want to become sound crew --they all want to be directors, DP's, and editors-- about how their decisions affect sound, and how the sound crew needs the cooperation of everyone on the set, and more.  Unfortunately, that isn't what they want to hear.

Good sound, and inter-department cooperation, can't be taught in classes. It needs to be taught on their shoots.

They are going to listen when they are facing the consequences in reality.

[syncsound]

Another issue to consider is the budgetary impact. Sometimes they won't wait on that plan/train/automobile, because they have to make their day to stay under the production budget, with the assumption that it will be fixed in post. We know that this cost isn't being eliminated, merely transferred from the production budget to the post budget. If post can communicate the real cost impacts of poor quality production sound, then you may have a better chance at effecting change.

[RPSharman]

The fact they'll wait for another light, but not for a plane to clear is just an example of how DPs have everyone convinced they are king. It's probably easier and faster these days to add a shadow or a highlight in color timing, which they'll be doing anyway, than it is to fix bad sound.

We were in the middle of a scene, at 9pm before Thanksgiving, when the DP decided he needed to relight an actor who had already been covered for the first half of the scene (before "ad break"). Took him 15 minutes. The 1st AD then asked if we needed to reshoot the first part, due to the lighting change. The DP said, "No. The difference is imperceivable."

This is when I realized it was all bullshit. The whole crew was waiting to go home for a long weekend with their families, and this is what the DP decided to do. If I had required 15 minutes to make a scene boomable vs. needing to be on a lav - a difference that would arguably be noticeable, I wouldn't have been given it. Not a chance.

We need to reassert our value. Post needs to explain how performance on a lav is lost in post, as efforts and breaths are often trimmed out along with clothing noise. We need to show how ADR performances don't feel real, and how lavs don't allow for freedom of movement. They are a tool, not a money saver.

But mostly they need to trust us when we ask for something, and we need to only ask for things when it matters.

Rant over. Sorry.

[Christian Spaeth]

I agree to Robert's last sentence. what we most need to do is try to earn the director's trust. Once we have that, they will listen to us. This is a process that is complicated, involves lots of psychology and communication skills, and especially tactics. When is it necessary to take a stand, and when is it better not to.

[Jay Rose]

in my experience, post sound people are not inclined to complain to the directors or producers

 

 

1) Why bother? They can't go back and re-shoot. Many of us -do- point out opportunities for better sound on weekly shows and other repeating projects, but not on one-offs. 

 

2) To whom? Our time with director and producer is limited.  It's not like we're (gasp) picture editors.

 

 

On one project, I was sitting in the mixing theater with the producer during a particularly dicey scene, next to a surf-filled seashore, where the wireless sounded harsh and thin. Like, very cheap radios. And the mic positions sounded much less than optimal, considering the location and winter wardrobe... there were plenty of places where the mic could have been closer.

 

I pointed out what was obvious to those of us who were trying to fix it. 

 

Producer's response:  "I shot that scene with a local sound guy I picked up for $250 a day, including kit!" 

He was actually proud of that.

[studiomprd]

pk: " It needs to be taught on their shoots.

They are going to listen when they are facing the consequences in reality. ''

from your keyboard to their ears...

if only...

on their shoots, they already know everything, and besides they have no time, and the consequences are not evident until after the shoot is over...

 

RPS: " The DP said, "No. The difference is imperceivable." " this would be funny if it weren't, sadly, so true. (and so frequent!)

[Constantin]

Directors will quite possibly only start to value good production sound when they have had to ADR a scene which then didn't sound as emotional (or great, or whatever) as the original due to adverse conditions and subsequently bad production sound. Then, maybe, there is a chance.

However, as some have said, this is also a budgetary issues and producers only care about that. Since they almost always assume that everything is fixable in post, and they think that's always cheaper. And it quite possibly is, but it will never be better or as good as good production sound.

I am dreaming of a day when I don't have to say something like: "considering all the circumstances, it sounds pretty good". Instead, I'll say "it sounds good".

[Philip Perkins]

These days I agree that a newb director will probably only ever come to understand the value of supporting their sound dept. (as opposed to taking an adversarial stance) after they've been burned, probably badly and probably more than once.  There are a few of these folks that come out of a BG where they understand about audio, but production sound is so easy to ignore on the set that even they can get sucked into the Rogue AD "what have to make our day" mindset.   Remember, Mr. or Ms. Director, that hustling AD will NOT be there with you in post…they are mostly married to checking off their shot list, and on short jobs especially often care not much at all about the quality of what's being recorded.

 

philp

[pkautzsch]

pk: " It needs to be taught on their shoots.

They are going to listen when they are facing the consequences in reality. ''

from your keyboard to their ears...

if only...

on their shoots, they already know everything, and besides they have no time, and the consequences are not evident until after the shoot is over...

I've done my share of student shoots. More than enough. And I think I've succeeded in educating at least some of them.

You need to point it out to them, play it back to them, through proper closed headphones at higher level. Even if they have no time. They need to make time.

You need to force them to wear their comteks during shooting. (Yes!)

But first of all, you have to make sure they see you as their allies, not enemies. Show respect for their story and their work, even if in absolute terms it doesn't deserve any. Psychology...

Once they wear cans, they will listen.

 

These days I agree that a newb director will probably only ever come to understand the value of supporting their sound dept. (as opposed to taking an adversarial stance) after they've been burned, probably badly and probably more than once.

The trouble is that the "director" type of personality usually doesn't seek the fault with themselves.

They usually won't say "our soundie was right, next time we won't shoot next to the highway".

What they will say is "our soundie was bad, he didn't get that highway out".

When this happens a few times, they finally come to the (wrong, but seemingly logical) conclusion that location sound always is bad and therefore doesn't need attention.

[Constantin]

What they will say is "our soundie was bad, he didn't get that highway out".

When this happens a few times, they finally come to the (wrong, but seemingly logical) conclusion that location sound always is bad and therefore doesn't need attention.

If they said that, they'd be really stupid. I don't think I have ever met anyone this dumb.

I don't think such directors would blame the sound dept., usually what I have experienced is that the circumstances get blamed. "There's nothing we could do about this", "we had to find a new location at the very last minute", "we have to shoot here, it look great", "when we were first here we all thought it was really quiet" (of course sound wasn't invited).

[pampasound]

For all the above reasons, i have decided early in my career to stick with documentary, corporate work as much as i can. Of course, i am still pretty new to the game and i am not yet in a position where i can just do that, but when i can, i choose not to deal with huge crews. 

 

After all, like one of my mentors says, you can't change 60 years of history. Seems like DPs have been the kings since the early days and is not about to change anytime soon... 

[studiomprd]

constantine: " If they said that, they'd be really stupid. "

yep, and so many of the wanna' bee's are that stupid.

and blaming the circumstances is mostly a cop out...