Jump to content

Overlapping dialog


Izen Ears

Recommended Posts

  Okay I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I still don't have an answer.  If you have a scene with a scripted overlap, or else the actors improv or their delivery overlaps, is it okay if you've got everyone on-mic? 

  Obviously in a wide shot you want them to overlap since they're all on screen, but in a clean or dirty single is it okay?  I'm only talking if you are able to get them both on a good, on-axis sounding track.

  I've placed Sankens on the outside of clothes in the sweet spot (center chest) for off-screen lines that may overlap, or even better a second boom for the off-screen lines.  I figure it's okay to let actors overlap as long as I have them both on a good sounding mic.  (A not-perfect sounding concealed lav doesn't count, I only let them overlap if I have a super clean track for the off-screener.)

  I know the standard is 'no overlapping on singles' but what about Curb Your Enthusiasm?  I mean that show is *all* overlap (also all lavs by the sound of it!).

  I've had actors and directors thank me for not fussing when they overlap, also producers ask me in wonderment how I'm so okay with the overlaps.  I've yet to get any negative feedback from any dialog editor about this.  But hey, is it really usable if there's overlap?

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Overlaps are NOT okay just because you mic both sides.  It is okay if both characters are clearly on camera, obviously, but when they get into singles or even overs where you don't see the mouth, then it becomes editorially restrictive.  I try to discuss it with the director, and explain I understand that if overlaps are critical to help the actors achieve the performance he/she is looking for, then he/she can go for it, but otherwise it's better to try to keep the singles clean.

Typically you will not hear from editors or dialog editors about overlaps, they just curse you in their dark rooms of solitude.  If the director understands what he/she is getting into on the day, and you note that in your reports, then you are covered, but it's always better for the editor to get it all clean.  Then they can pick where the overlap happens, and how much overlap he/she wants.  Overlaps, even when perfectly mic'd, limit the choices for the director and editor in post.  If they want to cut to the other person's coverage, they can't do it in the middle of an overlap, unless they get lucky with lip sync.  And you should mic the off camera stuff to match the on camera.  Don't lav off camera if on camera was boomed.  It'll make matching difficult.

I'm sure other opinions will follow, as they have before.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert just about covers it all. You always want the editor to have all the options available to him and the director in post. Now if the powers that be don't want it, well that is where people skills come into play. Nothing personal, it's not a fight, but it's always good to have the conversation and let them make the decision. Seldom do off camera actors act the same as they do when they have the purring eye on them, so mic ing them is important, but it won't change an off camera performance which seldom make the cut. If I have to cover off cam overlaps I always match the on camera mics.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Thanks for the opinions it helps to know it's always better to get everything clean.  If it's a scripted overlap and they can't do it without actually overlapping, I guess it just has to live and get sorted out later.

  But what about improv comedy or reality show stuff?  That gets unavoidable overlap and they seem to come out okay, what about a Robert Altman or Woody Allen movie?  I heard those were shot with 2 omni booms?!!

  And also, Robert and Crew, aren't you production recordists?  I would love to hear from a dialog editor directly, do you guys have direct experience trying to do a dialog edit with properly double-miced overlapping?

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Thanks for the opinions it helps to know it's always better to get everything clean.  If it's a scripted overlap and they can't do it without actually overlapping, I guess it just has to live and get sorted out later.

  But what about improv comedy or reality show stuff?  That gets unavoidable overlap and they seem to come out okay, what about a Robert Altman or Woody Allen movie?  I heard those were shot with 2 omni booms?!!

  And also, Robert and Crew, aren't you production recordists?  I would love to hear from a dialog editor directly, do you guys have direct experience trying to do a dialog edit with properly double-miced overlapping?

  Dan Izen

I certainly do and it is the sound editing equivalent of being a stunt pilot.  As a production mixer you really never know how things will be cut EXCEPT that in a comedy they will end up CUTTING THINGS SHORTER.  ("Fast is funny.")  Anymore, I make my pitch on the set and then off we go, usually overlapping all over the place.  I get with the scripty and we try to see if we have everything clear somewhere somehow (incl. recording rehearsals etc) but as much as there might be good intentions at the beginning comic actors (especially people who have done live stand up comedy) CANNOT keep themselves from jumping in--they are trained to keep the momentum of the scene up at all costs.  So in post...we laugh, we cry, we gnash our teeth and we get through it somehow.  Oh yes, and we ADR, sometimes, and then throw out the ADR in favor of the compromised production track, everytime (it seems...).

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan. I am a production sound mixer for 95% of my paycheck and living. 32 years and counting I have been doing things the Hwood way. I came to sound with an editors POV and a film school BA. Life is good. I also have a small DV prod company w 3 people who wear all the hats and we can do all sorts of things, and I will attest that there are no hard and fast rules for anything having to do with how one makes a film. I have cut a shitload of picture and dialog so yea I feel qualified to comment, but that isn't the qualification. Knowledge is. To break the rules, one needs to know the rules. That is the key to it IMO. Also never ever believe that R Altman ever made a movie with 2 omni directional booms. Much history needs to be learned to understand how he did it, but he did and it is a method that lives today, but it wasn't w booms omni. I will guess since I don't know for sure, but W A is a very old school film maker with a like minded editor. I would bet he does it the old way. As for improv, well one gets it as best they can. Call Bill MacPherson and ask him how he does "Curb", more Altman than Onmi boom mic's I can assure you. Phillip does more post work than most I know here @ jwsound, so he may be able to expand this conversation.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did this notion of Altman using two omni booms come from?  I used to know Bob Gravenor somewhat, who did at least a few movies with Altman, and he mostly talked about lots of wireless lavs and plant mics and Stevens 8 channel tape decks etc. and that Altman didn't like booms much.  Or is that all myth too? 

As I intimated above, improv comedy (as opposed to heavily scripted and controlled, which I think Woody Allen's mostly is) is very situational and momentum driven.  I have done a lot of it, and it was more like recording audio for a doc than for a movie, really.  "Off-book" doesn't really describe it as well as "no-book"--the director wants to be surprised, so we are surprised along with him (although usually less happy about it than he or she is).  CYA!  Love those prefade isos!

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INT. PIGEON SOCIETY - DAY

Digger: If I see the hawk I'm gonna shoot the bloody thing--

Gourley: You cannae shoot a bird.  It's a bird like any other bird!

The only coverage of Digger was in a wide shot.  Gourley's interruption happens in two angles: the same wide shot and in his own close-up.  It took a lot of trial and error before I finally found the perfect inaudible cut that successfully blended the two.

This happened to me in March.  I groaned in my dark room of solitude.  I didn't see a point in bringing it up to the production mixer who did his work way back last summer in Scotland.  I fixed it in post well enough this time, but I was working with no options.  When I'm on set, I often think about providing options for post. 

I'm with RVD on this one.  Do what they want, but ask for the chance to do clean takes, or ask for wild takes.  Having no alternatives in post can sometimes suck.  Oh, I also believe in focusing the sound to match the perspective of the camera.  I rarely mike an off-camera actor.  However, I can also tell you that the "cocktail party effect" actually works, too.  Last year, I was recording two groups of people shouting taunts back and forth in a showdown of gangs, toe to toe.  I was at least 75 feet of XLR cable away form the action, and told my boom op to stay with the handheld camera's POV as it darted from one character to another.  I couldn't understand a thing in my headphones during the takes.  Nothing but a mash of yelling.  Later, that night, I was anxious to hear how it sounded with picture, and I spent some time syncing up our dailies from the P2 files.  Those of us on the crew who were sleeping at base camp that night got to witness our own amazing ability to read lips as every actor in frame was understandable among the gobble-dee-gook of voices.

Overlaps make editing harder, but they can also do well for the performance.  So much of what makes movies work hinges on believable performances.  I don't want an actor preoccupied with a technical concern.  Yeah, the track is usable if there's overlap... as long as there's no cutting involved!  Otherwise it's tricky, and sometimes the results are just not the best they could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  To paraphrase what I've gleaned from these great posts so far:

-  Don't allow overlapping unless the director specifically says to.  If this is the case make sure all talkers are covered on the same mic regardless of coverage, with consideration for the natural perspective of each shot.

-  In improv situations, make sure everyone's got a good sounding wire.

  Does this cover it?  Someone told me about 6 years ago about the 2 omni booms for Altman.  The movies sound like that could be true so I sorta believed it.

  And Crew, obviously you're qualified to comment as you are one of those "big time sound mixers" that I aspire to be.  Obviously!  But I would like to hear from someone who has done the job of dialog editing for the same amount of time.

  John E. Walker: so how would you have preferred that shot be recorded?  Would it have worked better if there'd been no overlap on the single?  Seems to me that would have created more problems, since you didn't have Digger's line clean...

  I also don't think any audience or producer is ever going to hear the difference between a Schoeps MK41 and a Sanken outside on a chest.  Sure we'll hear it, and a dialog editor hears it, but you can't convince me that any average audience member or producer will.  A pal of mine was a utility for a "big timer" on a 12-week show and he was shocked to see the mixer used any and all combinations of MKH60s, Schoeps, KMR81s for the same character in the same scene.

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A pal of mine was a utility for a "big timer" on a 12-week show and he was shocked to see the mixer used any and all combinations of MKH60s, Schoeps, KMR81s for the same character in the same scene.

  Dan Izen

Somewhat akin to using various focal length lenses in the same scene?

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...more like using different color-temperature lighting and filters in the same scene -- comparing the use of different focal-length lenses to using different mics would only really be analogous in cases where, for instance, you were using a CMC6/mk41 and a CMiT5U in the same scene... not really MKH60's and Schoeps... the coloration is completely different with those mics -- especially off-axis.

"An African Swallow maybe, but not a European Swallow, that's my point..."

:)

--tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overlapping in singles is like crossing the line -- like Crew says -- know the rules before you break them.  Too many directors have little to no experience editing.  Instead of confronting and reeling in their actors, they take the easy road and say something like, "I don't want to hinder their performance..." to which I usually reply (in as diplomatic a fashion as possible,) "so, do you think looping the entire scene will hinder their performance?"

They're actors for God's sake!  Make them ACT!  It's their job!  Getting good clean useable production sound is ours.  If a director is that adamant about letting them step all over each other in clean singles, put a note on your sound report to that effect.  And ISO's don't really solve the problem either, though they can help in a pinch.

One thing I know for sure -- the more experienced actors, the big names... get really pissed if someone steps on them during their coverage -- because they know -- they've had to go in and try to loop a really long emotional scene before... because the director "didn't want to stifle anyone's creativity"... they will often be your allies in cases like that (not always, but often.)

--tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here goes, I would say that I'm the rebel here.  I started my career in post production sound and have edited my share of dialogue.  I personally don't believe in hard and fast rules, I believe it is my job to provide the production with the best possible sound for the scene, and if that involves overlapping dialogue, let's have it.

I was hired to do the television series "Moonlighting" because I would allow overlapping dialogue to occur on a daily basis.  A fine old school mixer, John Speak, mixed the pilot but refused to create the overlapping dialogue that Glenn Gordon Caron, the shows creator and head writer, wanted to have.  In my interview he asked me how I felt about this, and I told him it could cause some time problems on set, but I felt that if the script supervisor and I were both attentive to the dialogue and overlaps as they occurred, we could do it.  After the first six episodes they loved our work and we overlapped every day on set and it all cut together nicely.  I didn't want to continue on the show, the DP was a complete jerk, but was given cash bonuses of $1,000.00 per episode to continue on.  I did the next 12 episodes went through 3 boom operators then quit, I thoroughly enjoyed the work and folks, but dealing with the DP was a struggle like I've never had before or since.

Having said that, in a traditional dialogue scene where there is a normal flow of "you talk, I talk," overlaps should be kept clean, or avoided.  It is my belief that you, as a mixer, must focus on the scene and think like the editor in "How would I put this together..."  Now if you shoot a master with no overlaps, then in your coverage your actors start to overlap, this is a problem.  It's a problem because it didn't happen in the master, you shouldn't allow overlaps to happen where they weren't, unless the director says that he/she likes that and wants to keep it.  Then you must remember when you shoot the other side of the coverage, you must have the overlap occur as it did on the other side.  My rule is also, if an overlap doesn't happen in the master, cover yourself with a "clean" take and one with the overlap.  I also have a rule that I like to have the on camera person's mic a little more "present" than the off camera person's, so that the overlap doesn't obscure the on camera dialogue.  This is something that I have trained myself to do over many years of listening to dialogue, it's a very fine line of the on camera being more "present" than the off camera.

I too have brought the lavaliers out onto the actor's chest area, if that is the way we are mic'n the actors, I think that's a good idea.  This gives you a chance to clean up some dialogue that may have had issues before.  When employing boom mics, I always have the off camera boom op match the height of the on camera boom, this again speaks of the "presence" I don't want the boom right on top of the off camera actor, then they will sound different from the on camera actor. The most important tool we bring with us each day are our ears, when I'm recording a scene from the master through all of the coverage I want it all to have a similar sound to it, and know that it can all be cut together cleanly and fluidly.

Overlapping dialogue has been happening in films for many, many years.  Possibly first used to great effect by the great Preston Sturges, now he solved his issues by shooting wider shots and not using too many close ups.  His dialogue was always brilliantly written and performed beautifully and naturally by his cast.

In regard to Altman, I've never heard of the "omni booms" either.  Altman was a trend setter in films for his use of multitrack recorders long before they became the norm that they are now.  He also had each actor wired with a wireless microphone, and sent to a separate track.  Over the years he got better technology and with that greater quality to his sound tracks.  John Prichett did some fantastic work for Altman, Bob Gravenor was one of the early "beta" testers if you will and the film "Health" suffers due to the lack of sophisticated sound gear of the time.

Multitracking is not the save all that you think it is for overlaps.  The other mics in the room hear each other, and what they hear is recorded on each track, certainly at a lower level but it's still there.

As I said before the main thing to me is that you must be paying attention to the scene, from the master down to the final piece of coverage, and be thinking about this dialogue being cut together.  If there hasn't been any overlapping done on 3/4ths of the coverage, then it's a bad idea to introduce it for that final piece of coverage.  If one take has an overlap, and you don't say something, then people will wonder if you're really paying attention.  There needs to be a continuity of the sound recording as well as the performance in the scene, and I feel that it's our responsibility to provide that.

As I said I'm the rebel here, I want to give my director what he/she wants for their scene, within reason.  I'm not there to tell them they can't do what they want to do, I can suggest and offer my opinions, but ultimately I'm on set to serve them and the film as a whole.  I like a natural feel to the flow of dialogue and I feel I've done enough of it to know what I'm doing and when it's not a good idea for it to happen.

I'll end this ramble with my secret about overlaps.  Some actors don't "listen" to the other actors speech, and they think that overlapping helps the scene be "real," however if the actor speaking has a piece of information to tell the other actor, and the other actor's line speaks in regard to that information.  The overlap cannot happen until that information has been said.  Example, actor 1:  "Johnny took the car, and I didn't know that the car had the gun in it..."  actor 2:  "You knew the gun was in the car, because you put it there..."  If actor 2 starts to overlap actor 1 before actor 1 says "I didn't know the car had the gun in it..."  This is unrealistic, because actor 2's response is based on the information actor 1 has told them.  This happens a lot, actor's just spitting lines out, and not listening to the other actors.

Well, that should confuse you all very much. 

Cheers, as always

RVD

I guess I don't see how you are a rebel in this regard.  You seem more like a realist.  We aren't working in the 1950's or '60s, with highly organized sets and task hierarchies: young directors want things to flow and not have a huge demarcation between "rolling" and "not rolling", as in "shoot the rehearsal", "fifty-fifty", etc..  Prefade isos will not get rid of overlapped dialog, but they do allow the audio posties to bias the blend one way or the other as the cut dictates, after the fact.  But for this kind of situation no piece of technology compares with a really cracker-jack boom operator (or two) following the ball.

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On yesterday's shoot here in downtown San Francisco,  I encountered so many overlapping dialogues that I just couldn't keep up with the pace.  Especially when I'm carrying my Petrol bag weighing in at about 20 lbs and booming continously for 5-10 minute each take.  EVERY project should include at least a boom op and a mixer, but these days are long gone.

Shoot today and I'm going to pull out the MK4 for this purpose, or not.

Yes Philip, good boom ops are very hard to find and will give any mixer piece of mind.  Even so, good audio engineers are rare.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RVD is a realist and a rebel as well as a being a top sound mixer.

Dan, I doubt you will find any 20 to 30 year dialog editors here, but try (http://www.lafcpug.org/). It is the LA FCP user group and they have a good group for all things editorial.

  And last, but not least  To our boom op's. Good boomers make mixers better every day in every way. Team is how we do it.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three cheers for good boom ops.  Not only is mic placement, and creating a natural feel for the scene in the environment, critical, they are often the communicator on set with the actors and the directors regarding the aforementioned overlaps.  Tact and a confident manner is equally as important these days, so more cheers to the boom ops who have both.

While experienced actors will often keep the overlaps in check, as will experienced directors, I think we can all agree that more and more projects are directed and acted by people with little experience and training.  It becomes part of our job to communicate our experience and knowledge to those people in such a way that they understand we are helping THEM, and not just covering our ass.

I agree with RVD that overlaps can be dealt with and can allow a more organic performance, although in most cases good actors can pull it off without the overlaps, in the same way they can hit their marks, keep out of each others' light, remember their lines and repeat them dozens of times while still sounding fresh.  I also agree with him and others that we would not be doing our jobs if we didn't let the folks above the line know that it's happening.  We must express our concerns and then be content with the response we are given.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RVD is a realist and a rebel as well as a being a top sound mixer.

Dan, I doubt you will find any 20 to 30 year dialog editors here, but try (http://www.lafcpug.org/). It is the LA FCP user group and they have a good group for all things editorial.

  And last, but not least  To our boom op's. Good boomers make mixers better every day in every way. Team is how we do it.

CrewC

Smile when you say that, sonny.  (20+ on dx edit here.)

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Phillip, I thought I did reference you as the most experienced post guy who also mixes that we have here. If not I meant to. As those who know me will attest, I smile most of the time. I try not to do it like a lunatic, but that isn't always easy. BTW, I love overlapping dialog when it is shot that way and a cat like Preston Sturges, or the Coen Bros are at the helm. Not enough people have the balls and where with all to do it that way these days.

Also let us never forget who brought multitrack recording to Robert Altman way before it's time, Mr Jim Webb. Jim was not a big fan of the technique, but like all of us, he was trying to keep the customer happy.

CrewC

PS. Jim was never a outwardly warm new age guy with hug's who would say anything directly, but he knew and valued his boom op's and shared credit and the job with them as an equal team member. Maximum Respect to Jim and all who worked with him. I know you learned much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right Dan, two clean singles would have been the ultimate.  Then I control the overlap and how much level.

I guess I would have preferred either consistency or more alternate takes to try swapping audio with takes the picture editor chose.  What I got from picture lock was one recording of a loud and clear Gourley stepping over another recording of a more distant, more reverberant Digger with louder roomtone.  Those were my two choices.  What had to be smoothed was the transition of one louder background to a quieter one.  The editor also cut to Gourley between his two lines, so his voice changes in a single outburst.  I did try letting the wide shot audio play out while the picture cut  to Gourley's CU, but the cadence and intensity of his speech was too different.  Besides, the audiovisual effect was a bit strange to me, like a nearby person with a far away voice.  I can't remember exactly now what I did.  I think I simply crossfaded to the CU sooner than the picture cut so Gourley would sound normal.

Prefade isos would have been awesome.  This particular project was shot single system, with an ME66 plugged into a Canon XL1.  Yikes.  The boom op was a film school student who had done sound on a couple of projects, and was thus deemed the most experienced among the crew of 5 that went to Scotland last summer.  I'm sure the only mixing involved was an occasional check of the XL1's meters.  It was one mike, one input, and not even the second channel as OL safety.  They rushed through the shots, too, so I didn't really have outtakes to go to.

I guess what I wanted most was a CU of Digger to go with the CU of Gourley.  Some clean wild takes might have been terrific, if the performances matched.  That's the other thing.  The cast was all non-actors.  My wife (did theater for 9 years) thinks 'non-actor' is a nonsense word.  She may be right.  From an editorial point of view, the performances weren't as similar as I'd like from one shot to the other, when I'm trying to convincingly glue together dialogue that's supposed to  happen in one space and time.

I think the strategy of get clean or choose a perspective will work out fine.  It could be awesome to arrange a regular line of communication between you and the post sound people, if they've already signed on.  I've only ever dreamed about that.  I have done post on a few short narratives that I did production sound on.  Best production sound I ever worked with!  Haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood me, Richard.  I completely agree with you.  Certain situations require letting convention go, but being aware of the overlaps and where they take place and how to mix them and how to help the editor are all acquired skills, which I'm sure us newer mixers will get better at over time.  As Crew said, "You must first know the rules in order to break them."  You also confirmed my other point that the conversation must take place, like the one you had with Apatow, so that people know that you are aware of the situation and will use your skill to help make it work.  It's never good to "tell" a producer or director anything, just advise.  It's really the more conventional situations, where overlapping is truly a mistake and unnecessary, that I think we should try to control.

And I agree with you even more that we are not mixing for the layman.  It always my goal to to the job correctly, not just well enough to fool most of the people most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Phillip, I thought I did reference you as the most experienced post guy who also mixes that we have here. If not I meant to. As those who know me will attest, I smile most of the time. I try not to do it like a lunatic, but that isn't always easy. BTW, I love overlapping dialog when it is shot that way and a cat like Preston Sturges, or the Coen Bros are at the helm. Not enough people have the balls and where with all to do it that way these days.

Also let us never forget who brought multitrack recording to Robert Altman way before it's time, Mr Jim Webb. Jim was not a big fan of the technique, but like all of us, he was trying to keep the customer happy.

CrewC

PS. Jim was never a outwardly warm new age guy with hug's who would say anything directly, but he knew and valued his boom op's and shared credit and the job with them as an equal team member. Maximum Respect to Jim and all who worked with him. I know you learned much.

Good quote from Bob Gravenor in the new Coffey Files mag re this:

"I still feel 90% of film can be done in two-track and using the multi-channel as a tool occasionally when really called for."

(Right on Bob!)

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Wow!  Another great and very germane thread.  What I've gathered is in order to properly cover an overlapping scene when shooting singles, you need a 2nd boom op with a matching mic (both in sound and camera perspective) on the off-screener.  (A mic on a stand would work if the action allowed.)  Otherwise it doesn't make sense to cover off-screen lines at all, since no overlaps = only the sound from the singles or wides will be used.

  I'm used to putting a Sanken or mic on a stand for off-screen lines regardless of overlaps, since I used to think it gave editors more choices (it often gets lines better than I was able to during coverage due to background or shadows - doesn't that help the dialog editor?), and also because gives the dailies a nicer and fuller presentation.  Maybe I've been doing it all wrong?  I mean, what's the harm of swinging the boom to get a whole scene on a single shot?  If there's no overlaps isn't it nice to have a full scene than can be cut with any shot?

  Richard,You described it in terms of your methods, but I would like to know exactly how you went about during Moonlighting when you knew they were going to overlap during the singles coverage.  You mentioned using the same mic for off-screen lines, as well keeping the presence (perpective? proximity?) of the off-screen less than that of the on-screen.  So I take it you always used two boom ops, each with identical mics?  One slightly farther from the off-screen than the on-screen boom?

  Is it just the case that the director is trapped into staying on a single until the overlaps allow a clean edit?  It seems Curb Your Enthusiasm does stay on single and OTS shots longer than normal before cutting to the other singles.  Could that be to allow the overlapping dialog to play out?

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Wow again RVD, this is just great info.  It's great to hear how you made it happen, thanks for sharing with such great detail!  I can imagine having the actor behind the dolly also gives you more isolation from the on-camera lines.  That is awesome that you created this system.  It does seem the best way to get overlaps in singles is the method you described. 

  What I'm taking away from this is not to worry about off-screen lines because it isn't really usable.  If there's an overlap that can't be avoided, employ 2 booms and match the perspective of the on-screen lines.  And keep track of what's overlapped and where!  THAT'S a tough one...

  One thing on OTS shots - wouldn't you hear the person who's back is to camera's lines louder and bassier?  Since you're looking over their shoulder they're closer to you, but with their back turned it would sound bassier and slightly off-axis right?  So in an OTS it makes sense to boom both actors, closer but slightly off-axis for the closer person?

  I too try to stay in touch with post through their process.  In fact that's what started this thread, I got some positive feedback from a sound FX editor telling me he appreciated the wild sounds I captured.  I went on to ask about overlapping and while he wasn't the dialog editor, he did say all dialog editors frowns on overlapping.  Made me wonder if there's any good way to get overlaps, and how would a dialog editor want me to record a scene with overlaps throughout coverage.

  So now I'm just going to try and avoid all overlaps in singles, and if it's unavoidable employ that 2nd boom!  If I don't have a utility, tell the director it ain't going to cut with just one boom!

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been a fan of the mixer who uses radios on wide masters and then booms close ups, I personally think that is huge mistake....    I want my sound to have a continuous quality to it through out the scene, I even think of how I mixed the preceeding scene, and the following scene.

RVD

Are you saying that if you one uses radios on the wide then one should stick with them for the C/U's and don't boom the C/U's? (or maybe boom them whilst intending to use the radio mic's to match. Or get a long gun mic (816) on the wide with obvious perspective and then same mic on the C/U even if the wide shot is not really captured with the 816?

regards to all.

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...