mikewest Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I' recording a 6 part series currently. Young actors, a great director and supportive production team. Last night I received a note from the editor advising me that I should have used radio mikes for a scene and not a boom so she could split out the actors! I guess she never worked in the days of the 4.2 Nagra. Next it might be advice to the DP saying he should have used a different lens and more back lighting!!!!!!!!!!! Oh dear! mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 This is standard practice today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Here we go again. If the director agreed with Mike's approach then the editor needs to get in line. "Standard" is whatever the filmmaker wants. phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikewest Posted May 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Thanks Philip, An editor does not know the constraints on location. Costume, wind, hugging, physicality, hi delivery levels are some of the reasons radios are not applied. Time is another constraint, and coverage of a scene allows track laying for an editor. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Thanks Philip, An editor does not know the constraints on location. Costume, wind, hugging, physicality, hi delivery levels are some of the reasons radios are not applied. Time is another constraint, and coverage of a scene allows track laying for an editor. mike Exactly. Post works with what they receive, not what they want. Tell the cameraman or director that you want more or different coverage and see how long you have a job. Or as Mick J said "You can't always get what you want" and the reframe is.... CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riggs Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Often times an editor is tasked with quality control by production and told to bring any sound/picture issues to their attention. I've done this in dire cases even when not asked, Mike's situation isn't one of those cases but situations when a "sound mixer" records at 44.1, or levels are around -35db range on a CU, you have to bring such issues to their attention asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 How did the scene sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikewest Posted May 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Well by my ears OK I've been doing this job for a few years - like 46 years! mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Hmm. Maybe a calm explanation of the reasons behind the approach might help. An editor might simply feel out of their element not having the (perceived) level of control they are accustomed to...doesn't mean it's necessary. A bunch of tracks with clothing noise, muffling and hug squashes does not equal control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Is there a reason you didn't record lavs AND the boom? Pretty much all of the TV shows I work on are recorded that way, and we would be dead in the water in post without the lavs. We would have to do so much more ADR to meet producers expectations on the dub stage, without lavs to fall back to. Just last week I was mixing an episode of a show, and there was so much ambient noise on the boom, it sounded awful. Thank god we had the lavs, as the producers wee not happy with the noise. So we would have had to have an entire scene that sounded passable, instead of good, if it hadn't been for the lavs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 "Standard" is whatever the filmmaker wants. phil p Until they end up having overages because of excessive ADR needs. Then, the standard becomes fire the sound mixer, and get someone else. In spite of what the director agreed upon. Cover your ass is my motto. And the days of Nagra 4.2 are long gone. That would be the same as an editor saying he can only edit on a Steinbeck. He won't be seeing much work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Until they end up having overages because of excessive ADR needs. Then, the standard becomes fire the sound mixer, and get someone else. In spite of what the director agreed upon. Cover your ass is my motto. And the days of Nagra 4.2 are long gone. That would be the same as an editor saying he can only edit on a Steinbeck. He won't be seeing much work. I think Mike is working well outside of your LA-centric post-prod bubble, Mark, so in my experience your rules don't necessarily apply. Mike is experienced enough to not have made the decision to record as he did lightly, without consultation with the director and producer, because he didn't want to make the effort or didn't have the gear needed. The editor has no idea of the strife involved in the actual shooting, and while they can certainly make requests they have to let the guy on the ground there make the call on how to work. In any case, as Mike describes, lav tracks would likely have been junk anyhow, so he made the call to save everyone the trouble involved in using them. You may not understand this fully, but sometimes that is the right call to make, often for reasons other than sound quality. As for "not seeing much work"--Mike seems to be pretty busy, so no worries there! philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 As for "not seeing much work"--Mike seems to be pretty busy, so no worries there! philp That wasn't directed at mike. It was a general statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 I think Mike is working well outside of your LA-centric post-prod bubble, Mark. How do you know? Stuff is shot all over the world, that gets posted back here in LA. So, I'm simply not assuming that this isn't that type if a show. I can say is that the last time I mixed an MOW that only delivered a boom track, it was an aweful experience for me. Not having the option at all, is not good in today's post budgets. Not having the budget to do large amounts of ADR when required, means having a fallback. The lavs. Wether you guys like it if not, that's the reality. One that a well known Oscar winning, highly respected soundmixer has agreed with me in private. But we've already been through this in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Now, of course it's not clear if Mike didn't use lavs at all for the entire shoot, or just a specific scene. It could be just a specific scene. And that happens all the time, for various reasons. But just one more note. You might be surprised what a re-recording mixer can do to what you guys might consider unuseable, too muffled sounding lav tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Thank god we had the lavs, as the producers wee not happy with the noise. Spot the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 How do you know? Stuff is shot all over the world, that gets posted back here in LA. So, I'm simply not assuming that this isn't that type if a show. I can say is that the last time I mixed an MOW that only delivered a boom track, it was an aweful experience for me. Not having the option at all, is not good in today's post budgets. Not having the budget to do large amounts of ADR when required, means having a fallback. The lavs. Wether you guys like it if not, that's the reality. One that a well known Oscar winning, highly respected soundmixer has agreed with me in private. But we've already been through this in another thread. Yes Mark, how do YOU know? I'm sorry that mixing a show with only a boom track was tough for you--I do it all the time, we deal, and we assume there were good reasons for why the production mixer made the choices they did instead of sand-bagging them with the producers because you didn't get what you want or what you are used to. ReRec mixers need to understand that on some really chaotic or difficult jobs the range of possible solutions can be limited to what is the least bad and gets us through our day. Location filmmaking is a team sport. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yes Mark, how do YOU know? I'm sorry that mixing a show with only a boom track was tough for you--I do it all the time, we deal, and we assume there were good reasons for why the production mixer made the choices they did instead of sand-bagging them with the producers because you didn't get what you want or what you are used to. ReRec mixers need to understand that on some really chaotic or difficult jobs the range of possible solutions can be limited to what is the least bad and gets us through our day. Location filmmaking is a team sport. philp Not Using a single lav on anything is as bad as not ever using a boom. It's easy to say "deal with it" when you're not the one sitting in the hot seat at the end of a project with a row of producers sitting behind you, questioning your abilities, because an entire show doesn't sound that great. You should know that mixing a documentary vs mixing scripted drama is whole different ball if wax, with a whole different set of expectations from the folks in the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Someone with white hair (ok little hair in his head actually) said: - It's not a sound problem. It's a location problem. So producers blame themselves ("unhappy with the noise")? This is an interesting topic in psychology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Again... We work on set in real conditions with human beings. It's not appropriate in most cases to ask these human beings to wear lavs all day, getting in their costumes, interrupting their process, spending time, because post sound would like to have lavs. You have time and budget considerations, but so do we. What do you think costs more, a few lines of extra work or possible ADR, or 10 minutes on a set with 100 people on overtime. There's a lot more to working on set than getting all the words. And if we're getting the words nicely with as little impact on the actors, the schedule, and the budget, then that's what we'll do. If your process in post is so adversely affected, tell the director and producers, and let them decide whether to impact your work or the work of all the people on set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 I've been doing this job for a few years - like 46 years! Then the only appropriate response to the editor is, "Blow Me!" Of course, I may be wrong on this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 From my post production days, we were told to ask if something was available (like iso tracks) but if they weren't there, then that's what we had to work with and we didn't demand lavs or this or that. Part of the post job is knowing how to deal with what is given to you from production and trusting that those people know what they are doing and they have reasons for doing what they are doing. When I was cutting dialogue I didn't like to rely on lavs because 1) it made me lazy, and 2) I preferred the sound of the boom. Yes, there were some times when a boom just wasn't possible, so the lavs came out (lots of times on Fear Factor, for example) and that was that. As a side note: What's going on with all the unintelligible dialogue on tv and features these days? It's mainly actors mumbling their lines, but is there nobody anywhere in the post chain going "uh hey, guys? Am I the only one that can't understand a word that is being said?". When I had dialogue that could not be understood I always made a note of it and also would talk to the post sound supervisor and just let them know so they could make the call on whether or not to move that concern up the food chain. Maybe that is happening and directors just don't care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stillweii Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 Someone with white hair (ok little hair in his head actually) said: - It's not a sound problem. It's a location problem. So producers blame themselves ("unhappy with the noise")? This is an interesting topic in psychology. Go to phrase when living / working in NYC. Mostly when its out of towners coming here and they start tripping. Producer: Is there anything we can do about the construction in the office next door? Me: Pay them a union wage for the day to take the day off or wait to shoot on their lunch break. Otherwise its a LOCATION PROBLEM. Did you happen to have a location scout for this? Producer: No its our friends office......::::His Eyes roll ::: Otherwise its our job to record the audio. Post can wish all they want, but in the end it's the producers budget guiding the equipment we have on hand. I like making life easy for post, but it depends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrider Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 One lesson I learned from my time in post is that if you use lavs regularly , dropping them for one or two scenes may make it difficult for post to match the sound scene-to-scene. This isn't always the case, but it should bet kept in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Miramontes Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 As a side note: What's going on with all the unintelligible dialogue on tv and features these days? It's mainly actors mumbling their lines, but is there nobody anywhere in the post chain going "uh hey, guys? Am I the only one that can't understand a word that is being said?". When I had dialogue that could not be understood I always made a note of it and also would talk to the post sound supervisor and just let them know so they could make the call on whether or not to move that concern up the food chain. Maybe that is happening and directors just don't care? Funny you should ask. This same scenario came up when I visited Henchman while he was mixing a show. The problem was that the season was already in the can by the time it got to him. So, any comments to the production folks would have to wait till next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.