Recreating sound from the 40's

[RottenCarcass]

On a small indie project I'm involved in, there is a scene where the actors are supposed to be watching a film noir from the 40's. We'll be creating the film noir footage (2 min 10 seconds). There is some confusion about the dialogue sound. The question is can we just go ahead and record it like usual and then get the "old film noir from the 40's" sound by treating it in post, or do we have to start much earlier in the process during production. One complication: there likely isn't the budget to buy sound equipment from the 40's (I assume it would be expensive/hard to get), or time to learn it. So what can we do with modern equipment to simulate that sound, or do we just try to do it all in post? And would such post be very complicated (the budget is quite tiny and super expensive/complicated post is not realistic). Thank you!

[Constantin]

Leave it for post to deal with, but talk to them first about it.

[Christopher Mills]

did 1930s recently

http://vimeo.com/100231366

 

Just recorded clean mono signal, and let sound designer work with it.. She did a great job, and I can recommend her.

Christine McQuire at FirstPost

[RottenCarcass]

Thank you guys! That Octavia clip is very impressive. Is there a big difference in sound between 30's and 40's? The idea in our film noir clip is that the dialogue should be clearly understood, probably not quite as much hissing/popping etc., but I assume that's all easily figured in post. Thank you for the recomm, I'll pass it on!

[Mirror]

Why not record it as clean as possible and let post degrade the quality to what it would sound like in the forties?  Seems like the safe way to do it.

[RottenCarcass]

Right, that's what seems to be the consensus. The original idea was to do exactly that (get the 40's effect in post) but then one of the producers claimed that you must record it in a certain way too, because you can hear the difference and you can't make it up in post, so for example mic distance cannot be fully faked by echo/delay and room tone, and that the equipment had a certain profile of sound and blah, blah, and so on. So I decided to ask the question here and get back to them (btw. I agree that post is the easiest). Besides, I doubt anyone is alive who knows exactly how sound was gotten in the 40's (sure, the equipment can be tracked down, but not the production method, mic placement and so on).

[Jeff Wexler]

The approach should definitely be to record clean "modern" sound and produce the 1940's film-noir in post. That said, the person who mentioned the importance of utilizing certain equipment/technique in production does make a valid point (whether they know it or not). You do NOT need to use any vintage equipment but you do need to be aware of the techniques and procedures that were typically used in production when a film was shot in the 1940's. This is most relevant actually for the IMAGE --- if they are foolish enough to shoot with the camera in a STYLE that was not typical of the period, no matter how much they apply a "film-noir look" to it in post, it will not feel like a film-noir from the 1940's. Simple example, it would be extremely rare for there to be any hand-held camera work in that period so if they shoot it that way, with jerky hand held camera movement, it will never work. Regarding the dialog recording, virtually every scene used a microphone on a boom over the actor's heads. If you were to record dialog using a body worn electret lavaliere microphone, it would be difficult in post to give this the necessary character of an open mic on a boom. Lavs were typically never used in 1940 and for certain specialty shots the microphone that may have been hidden on the body bore little resemblance to the modern lavs we use in production today.

[Christopher Mills]

I disagree with your producer.  By the 1940s, recording technology was capable of decent recording of the human spoken voice, and the goal has always been to get the mic as close to the mouth of the actor as possible, and the pattern of the mic as on axis as possible.  Perambulator based booms helped with this.

The bulk of a studio film's production audio would have been on soundstages with crew who knew not to make any sounds while camera rolled.

After this, much would still be looped, in an acoustically treated space, and the music and effects mixed in as the answer print was created.

Now, I also think  that member Eric Toline would have a more thorough explanation of 'how it was done back in the era' from having met and learned his craft from people who actually worked on those type of projects.

 

after all this.. simple answer... clean mono track, limit the outside noises you record, and add hiss.

[jrd456]

They recorded sound optically and most of the original sound was pretty good.the sound had less low end and was a little peaky in the upper mid-range.

[Jeff Wexler]

They recorded sound optically and most of the original sound was pretty good.the sound had less low end and was a little peaky in the upper mid-range.

All things which can be very effectively introduced in post

[Philip Perkins]

I agree that a straightforward recording approach (no lav mics at all), with seasonings to taste in post, is the best way to go for sound.  One major difference between now and then that relates to sound is that actors SPOKE differently then--they all had some sort of theatrical training, and spoke very clearly.   No mumblers, no "scream when I feel like it", no head on the chest delivery or delivery away from mics.  They hit their marks, they spoke their lines, exactly.

 

philp

[RottenCarcass]

Thank you again! No question, we are acutely aware of shooting style, lighting, manner of delivery and especially manner of speaking (kind of a clipped way), cadences and word emphasis (not to mention, careful to keep the vocabulary and idiom 40's appropriate for New York - the actors were provided with tapes and video of performances from noir films to study carefully).

 

On mics - good point about no lavs. The shooting will be both interior and exterior and an extremely good point is that they used to shoot almost all interiors on soundstages... this is slightly worrisome, because the sets didn't have ceilings, and how do we recreate that sound when we are shooting interiors which have ceilings?

[jrd456]

I agree that a straightforward recording approach (no lav mics at all), with seasonings to taste in post, is the best way to go for sound.  One major difference between now and then that relates to sound is that actors SPOKE differently then--they all had some sort of theatrical training, and spoke very clearly.   No mumblers, no "scream when I feel like it", no head on the chest delivery or delivery away from mics.  They hit their marks, they spoke their lines, exactly.

 

philp

 

Sound was still very much respected and they took the time to make sure the sound was as good as it could be.Just previous to this,sound basically ran the set and still had a lot of power.

 

                                                                                         J.D.

[Mirror]

They looped a lot back then. Ask your producer if that's what he wants.

[Constantin]

Many exteriors were also shot interior.

Also, when outside you'll have to eliminate all modern noises, such as planes, even more than on a normal production

[tonetripper]

Actors also projected so the mic could be 2 or more feet away and translate

[VASI]

BTW

 

These things are solved before the production starts.

AKA the production must hire post production first.

[ninjafreddan]

I agree that a straightforward recording approach (no lav mics at all), with seasonings to taste in post, is the best way to go for sound.  One major difference between now and then that relates to sound is that actors SPOKE differently then--they all had some sort of theatrical training, and spoke very clearly.   No mumblers, no "scream when I feel like it", no head on the chest delivery or delivery away from mics.  They hit their marks, they spoke their lines, exactly.

 

+1   :-)

 

Send the actors to a vocal coach....straight back, chest forward, project your voice! :-)

 

As for the sound, fix it in post with Speakerphone 2.

 

 

Cheers

Fred

 

PS. I guess we can thank actors like Marlon Brando for introducing mumbling as an artistic expression...DS

[studiomprd]

rotten: " The question is can we just go ahead and record it like usual and then get the "old film noir from the 40's" sound by treating it in post,"

yes.

 

" or do we have to start much earlier in the process during production. "

no

 

" One complication: there likely isn't the budget to buy sound equipment from the 40's (I assume it would be expensive/hard to get), or time to learn it. "  " a small indie project I'm involved in, "

potential unreasonable expectations, but ...

" we do with modern equipment to simulate that sound, or do we just try to do it all in post? And would such post be very complicated (the budget is quite tiny and super expensive/complicated post is not realistic). "

it is an unreasonable post expectation!

 

fortunately, it may not be that complicated in post..

" and how do we recreate that sound when we are shooting interiors which have ceilings? "

as if it would be noticeable..?

be careful as sometimes less is more when it comes to tweaking

 

BTW: this is parallel to a thread about sound in 1999.

 

" one of the producers claimed that you must record it in a certain way too, because you can hear the difference and you can't make it up in post, "

beware: this so-called producer is out of hi9s/her league already.

 

" I doubt anyone is alive who knows exactly how sound was gotten in the 40's (sure, the equipment can be tracked down, but not the production method, mic placement and so on). "

that would be incorrect.

 

JW: " You do NOT need to use any vintage equipment "

that is correct, in fact I have done several period pieces in which the o/c vintage equipment props were fitted with modern "guts"  (for both sound and picture!)

Edited October 24, 2014 by studiomprd

[Jay Rose]

You didn't make clear how the modern actors were watching the movie. If it's in a theater, there's a big difference between today's rooms and what might have been a vintage-movie-only restoration from the 40s. (Not to mention if they're watching on TV. Or on a laptop. Or on their phones...)

 

Leave that, of course, to post. 

 

There was a difference in booming distances back then, but trying to recreate that distance might be practical only if you're on a stage. Ambient, absorption, and cubic feet come into play...

 

And I'm not sure they had hypercardioids for their giant booms (let alone guns). RCA was selling "uniaxial" mics for boom use. But again, what you can do here depends on where you're shooting.

[macrecorder]

The biggest difference to my mind, is not in the recording, but in the acting and speaking. Having the right 40's style script with the kind of enunciation of the actors of the period, then combined with the eq curves of the time, and maybe some hiss and crackle, will go a long way to getting the desired effect.

[Jeff Wexler]

I agree with macrecorder and others who have pointed out that it is a matter of style that is going to sell the point. 

[RottenCarcass]

Thanks again! To answer a few questions: the setup is in a nutshell - old building in Los Angeles, new tenant (action is happening today) is redoing the floor, a film reel is found under the floorboard, has it transferred to tape, finds something odd, apparently it's him and his friends, acting in a film noir from the 40's... except they're right here and everyone is in their 20's. He invites his friends and they watch the tape on a large screen TV, only slightly over 2 minutes is available that's legible. 

 

So, we have the old building - the building we're going to be shooting in is a 1928 Spanish bungalow in Hollywood, and we'll be shooting both inside and in the courtyard. 

 

I got back to the producer and told him I consulted with some sound people and we'll do it in post - and I hope he doesn't see this - but he's, uhm, let's be diplomatic "ornery" and he says "the sound person you consulted is some kid who has no idea how things were done in the old days" and he wants us to go to "a real professional"... I didn't tell him about this board, because I don't want to burn any bridges. For now, the proposal is that he gets a couple of his friends to do some quick scene and I'll just record on my normal equipment and take it to a post house and see if they can do it "40's sound", and if yes, he'll go along with my plan to do it all in post. My fear is that he'll latch onto stuff that has nothing to do with the recording, but to do with the delivery and he'll blame the recording and pronounce it a failure. I'm tearing my hair out here.

[VASI]

Does the actors; performing (acting) like 40's? Because the producer need an actor who played in 40's to get the real perfomance.

[RottenCarcass]

Well, no, I doubt it. I mean, they're just his friends, I don't think they studied how people performed in the 40's. This is supposed to be the test. My hope is that he sees that they are not actors and focuses exclusively on the quality of the sound.