Jump to content

The importance of lavs from the POV of post.


Henchman

Recommended Posts

Yesterday Michael Miramontes came into the studio yesterday to watch us while we were mixing 12 monkeys. What we do is mix for a bit, then answer any questions that might arise.

The issue of lavs came up, and we talked about the importance of them.

I have seen in discussions, even here, that the opinion is, they are there as a backup in case the book is unusable.

Well, that simply isn't true anymore. Especially in the world of television.

The majority of what we use in a mix these days are lavs. Because of so many shoots are using two cameras, the boom is either impossible to get into the scene, or when it is, it's unuseable.

So, make sure your lavs are in tiptop working condition. Check them out periodically to make sure they are working and sounding properly. Simply because easily 70-80% of what we use in TV these days is all lav. In fact some shows don't use a boom at all anymore. "Better call Saul" is one such show, if I'm correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yo Hench--a question.  So say we have a scene in which there will be a few shots that are impossible to boom well, so the radios are primary and the boom is air or etc..  But we also have shots in this same scene that are very boomable.  Of course we keep the wires going, but if I only have one boom op do I tell him to go for all the dialog in those shots (even though it may not be all the dialog in the scene) or continue to go for wide air to match the big wide shots?  This happens to me a lot, where I can get SOME of the dialog well boomed but not ALL of it.  Is your pref to keep things consistent re the closeness of the boom or get whatever we can on the boom and you guys match it all the best you can?  In doc post I like getting both the wires and the boom, but would probably try to keep the closer shots on the wires even if I could use the boom so there wasn't a matching issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about matching. And since time is an issue in TV, we would end up using the same mic on a character for speed.

I mean, if I am going to make my boom match a lav, then I'll just use a lav for the entire scene.

So, get what you can, but make sure the lavs get the most attention.

Unfortunately that's where it is for TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as for Better Call Saul, I can correct you here.  There is a lot of booms in the mix, and I would say much more than lavs, but that would actually have to be answered directly from our re-recording mixer Larry Benjamin.  It is a "show by show" and sometimes "scene by scene" decision as to how it's mixed.

 

On BCS, we boomed every scene.  Yes we had wires on them, but it's almost all fine boom operating by Patrick Martens.

I've been on Glee for 6 years now and we are booms 90+% of the time as well.

 

 
I find it funny when people make comments like this.

 


"So, make sure your lavs are in tiptop working condition. Check them out periodically to make sure they are working and sounding properly. Simply because easily 70-80% of what we use in TV these days is all lav. In fact some shows don't use a boom at all anymore. "Better call Saul" is one such show, if I'm correct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't work in the TV arena and I'm certainly not in post so I know not the norm. From the mixers I know and have had conversations with here in LA, it all depends on the show, and how and where it's shot. Stage is 90% or more recorded with boom(s). Street heavy or location heavy shows it's a combination of both Boom & lav (aka wireless). My understanding from the post folks I deal with is "the best track(s) wins or makes the mix.   In commercials, even as we record the same way, following the same game plan as most TV or Films, 80 to 90% of the time, the mix we record is the one used due to time and post budgets.

On another note, I think it's great that Hench made the time for Michael M. Very cool.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about matching. And since time is an issue in TV, we would end up using the same mic on a character for speed.

I mean, if I am going to make my boom match a lav, then I'll just use a lav for the entire scene.

So, get what you can, but make sure the lavs get the most attention.

Unfortunately that's where it is for TV.

 

This statement really bothers me. I would hope that if we get the whole scene on boom great except for the first line in a wide shot post would take the time to make the lav sound the boom and use the boom for rest of scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the pleasure of working some days as 1st Boomer on the latest series (shot on location) of "Better call Saul".  95% Lavs in the mix.  Their shooting technique was textbook 'bad news' for using a proper mic on the pole.  200mm and 18mm (both zooms, so anything in between).  I would always try and get as close as possible with the boom, but this proved impossible, especially in the 'headquarters surveillance hub'.   The mixer wasn't really concerned with the boom either.  All about the Lavs, sadly.  

Have a listen and see what you think about the success with this technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement really bothers me. I would hope that if we get the whole scene on boom great except for the first line in a wide shot post would take the time to make the lav sound the boom and use the boom for rest of scene.

If it's a single line, then of course.

And in cases like that, they'll look for an alt boom.

But given the time constraints in a TV mix, we don't have time to spend on matching numerous lines in a scene. We simply don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whispering trend among some actors continues to baffle me. The equipment is as strong as it has ever been and you may have a mixer on set who has impeccable technique, but if you don't deliver audible dialog, it can't be recorded. I am all for subtlety in a performance, but there are two things one must do as an actor: 1) find the light 2) speak up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whispering trend among some actors continues to baffle me. The equipment is as strong as it has ever been and you may have a mixer on set who has impeccable technique, but if you don't deliver audible dialog, it can't be recorded. I am all for subtlety in a performance, but there are two things one must do as an actor: 1) find the light 2) speak up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whispering trend among some actors continues to baffle me. The equipment is as strong as it has ever been and you may have a mixer on set who has impeccable technique, but if you don't deliver audible dialog, it can't be recorded. I am all for subtlety in a performance, but there are two things one must do as an actor: 1) find the light 2) speak up!

I know. It's very frustrating.

I wish directors on set would push actors to speak up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something about this whole discussion seems a bit strange to me. 

 

We can try different tricks of mic placement or for enunciation, choosing a less muddy mic for a particular voice. But in the end, a lav mic 6 inches from an actor's mouth (even with extra oomph of the chest resonance, but minus the lack of directionality) isn't a magic tool compared to a shotgun that's also 6 inches from an actor's mouth. There may be times, when the pattern of an overhead boom might be worse than a from-below boom or a body-blocking lav, but those are decisions we make in the field. On set, it's our job to convey to the directors if a line is unintelligible or too quiet. It's their job to decide to try to get the level up from the actor or let it be (either as a semi-audible or mouthed word or to let it go to Post due to time constraints on set).

 

What really strikes me in Henchman's first post is it seems that the problem isn't mixers getting screwed by using booms that are too far away when shooting wide and tight, but by mixers that are either not involved in the shot discussion or not seeing that a close up is being done at the same time. That really is a main portion of our on set job, in my opinion. I try to deliver sound that matches the picture. If a director wants to shoot wide and tight, then I need to decide if I can make the sound work for both shots. If I can't, for whatever reason, I need to plead my case. This is where we earn our keep. It's not hard to push a fader, it may be tricky to push 6, but the money is in being a part of the visual/editorial consideration.

 

Now, I would be really bummed if Post didn't take the sound of a close up boom and put it in the wide shot for that one opening line example mentioned above. I'll deliver an aired out, boom matching lav track in the mix for that wide shot, but if Post can slip the boom from close up to match the subsequent shot and performance, I think any sound person (and director) would prefer that. 

 

It just seems the blanket "all lavs" or "60% lavs" is not how most of us work on set. There may be shows that are heavy improv or some other manner that demand a lot of lavs. But I think most of us are trying to build the sound to match the shots we are doing. If in Post, you have shots with sound that doesn't match the perspective, the issue is in the decision making on set. Always throwing a bunch of lavs in is not the best solution in my opinion.

 

Those are my rambling thoughts on it. I know Phil and Patrick. They are top sound guys. If they're using lavs in the mix at times, it's for a reason for those particular shots. But if Post is just grabbing unmonitored ISO's of the lavs and disregarding the work Phil and Patrick are putting into the Mix, I would question that decision. 

 

Just my random thoughts on it all. Take it with a grain of salt - I'm on night exteriors this week.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's great Henchman brought Mike into the session. The few times I've been able to do that have been great experiences for me. A lot of times it seems the Post Audio gets hired after we've gotten into shooting. Then it's like playing catch up in establishing that communication. But's great when that communication is there.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the importance of lavs in the final mix on shows where "the dam has already been broken", multi cam wide and tight, where most people involved don't care much for good boom sound, so it's rather hard to get natural boom sound. What I disagree with is to make this a general statement, like saying in today's TV world there is almost no boom so pay attention to your lavs more than focussing on getting good boom tracks. This is simply not the whole truth. There may be many series that rely almost exclusively on lavs, but there are exceptions. House of Cards comes to mind, Boardwalk Empire and I'm sure some board members can add shows they have worked on that have more booms than lavs in their final mix. If on a show the powers that be care about having natural and good boom sound then it will work. I for one didn't enjoy watching Sons of Anarchy and Breaking Bad as much as I could have because of the dry lav-only sound, and I love the open sounding boom scenes on Boardwalk and House of Cards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clear something up. I'm not saying disregard the boom. I'm saying DONT regard the Lavs as a last resort backup, so do don't worry about them too much. When they are in fact a go to solution.

And wether you like it or not, is besides the point.

It's a reality.

The majority of shows do not have the type of audio post budgets that HBO shows have. And therefore, don't have the amount of time either. We have to get through a mix of an average show in two days. And that includes the playback the 2nd day with the clients.

No predubs. Just turn and burn.

There is no time to agonize over all the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...In fact some shows don't use a boom at all anymore...

I hear the "a lot of lav" (Game of Thrones), and "all-lav" (Portlandia) quite a bit during home viewing. On Portlandia, there are even instances of full-on, distraction-grade, clothing noise. For me, listening to that typifies the Perfect Storm that is described here by production (wide and tight) and post (no time, no budget).

 

I may lament that as an adept technician, but when I've pointed it out to friends, family, and non-sound colleagues...they don"t hear it.

 

Best,

Steven

 

PS Mark, I hate to break it to you, but if you've moved to Granada Hills, then we're neighbors and eventually we're going to have to hit a trail together...lol.

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...