On changing expectations

[IBH]

I am new to these forums and have greatly enjoyed reading the discussions and gear geeking over the past few weeks. 

 

I noticed a discussion happening in the Equipment hopes for 2015 thread that I think deserves more attention. 

 

Philip Westbrook hoped for the ability to have a built in compressor, EQ and perhaps VST support on SD recorders, to aid with a quicker post production. This would be especially helpful if it could be written as metadata.

 

There was a pretty quick response from some of the more veteran engineers who did not like this idea. Their fear (and I believe rightfully so) was that productions might begin to expect more duties from on-location sound. 

 

While I understand that sentiment, I think it is a dangerous way of thinking. We should not reject the addition of features out of fear that they may make people demand more, or change their expectations on how a production goes. What if we had rejected automatic cameras, because it put the man spinning the film out of a job, and put more duties no the camera operator. (not the best analogy but I hope my point is expressed). 

 

I would like to see digital recorders gain as many features and abilities as possible, hell give me a spectrogram. Not because I want to do double duty- but because these are features that can be added and may open up new avenues to the craft. 

 

I just finished my first real production as the location sound recordist for a indie documentary in south India. It was a very small team and I will most likely be doing post for the film as well. The documentary will feature lots of musical performances, and when we did our dalies I always tried to provide a rough mix of the performance from earlier in the day. This was especially important because I close mic'ed so many of the performers. 

 

If I could have an initial mix already setup based on what I was doing out in the field it it would have gone a along way for me, and the post production process.

 

We will deal with the changing expectations as they come, and I think it is good to discuss those issues, but I think it is full-hearty to reject the improvement on a technology. 

 

I am just starting in the business, and would greatly appreciate the thoughts of those who have concerns on the matter. 

[AlexQ]

I feel our number one duty is to gather the best raw material for post sound to operate on. If you happen to be post as well as location then by all means the inserts are a welcome addition. I don't necessarily believe it's all about changing expectations, more or less about standardized process.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jozzafunk]

This is an interesting thought - I started in Post and record with Post firmly in mind, however find sometimes that this is at odds a little with clients 'wants'

I have had this discussion a few times over the last few years on set, partly because there was a close relationship to the post team on The Hobbit.   Having these abilities would definately add value to my service, seeing as I have some idea how to use them, but would definately add stress if/when they became as expectation.

I recently found myself looking for a portable compressor to use on some live broadcast webinars, having the ability to add this on a channel basis would be awesome - In my world of location sound where often the job is somewhat different to the spec you can't go wrong with extra tools.

[glenn]

I could not agree with this more. The inclusion of tools that may or may not be utilized on a daily basis is a very good thing. Innovation is a must and the times they are a changing.

 

Glenn

[Mirror]

You haven't read the thread where a post guy says they don't even listen to the mix. They just use iso's and our mix is for comteks.

[RPSharman]

Frankly, we already have too much to contend with on set. Lots of mics, lots of cameras, inexperienced directors and DPs, lack of respect cooperation from other departments, whispering actors, etc. Just give me a reliable machine that I can plug mics into and mix and record.

Let post demand the proper time to make it sound great.

The second they think these tools are available on set, they'll want them included in whatever crappy deal we're forced to take, then they'll demand post shorten their schedule because "half the work has been done on set".

Bad for any number of reasons.

[Johnny Karlsson]

+1000 to what Robert said.

[mikewest]

I used a small Audio & Design compressor during my final analogue days

 

Usually 3:1 but sometimes 5:1 compression on shouty stuff.

 

It worked well and the Canadian post house did not realise it !!!

 

mike

[CraigF]

features like this would add expence and lessen dependability in my book

plus you have to start thinking about delay compensation between the effected and uneffected tracks

 

now a system that shocked a whispering actors via a Lav, I'm down with that

[afewmoreyears]

Frankly, we already have too much to contend with on set. Lots of mics, lots of cameras, inexperienced directors and DPs, lack of respect cooperation from other departments, whispering actors, etc. Just give me a reliable machine that I can plug mics into and mix and record.

Let post demand the proper time to make it sound great.

The second they think these tools are available on set, they'll want them included in whatever crappy deal we're forced to take, then they'll demand post shorten their schedule because "half the work has been done on set".

Bad for any number of reasons.

10,000 what Robert said...  

 

  Of course the OP says this...he's doing the post...

[Wandering Ear]

Moving to smaller mixers/recorders and control surfaces, I miss some effects like eq. I wish I had a deesser in the field too.

Post is in a better position to make critical judgments about the tracks, and needs the ability to take raw source material and make sure it matches after the scene is edited, which we can't always know when in the field. This is why we only use FX for the mix track, to make it the best we can, and record the iso's without FX.

I don't see it being realistic to have our FX from the field be non destructive and transfer to post, surviving the edit process, and all the media transfers that happen. We can't even get basic metadata like scene and take to survive that process (thanks Apple and Adobe).

Reliability is far more important to me than a full range of effects. I don't see myself ever using a reverb or delay plugin in the field recording dialog.