Jump to content
JamesP

Production Mix Structure

Recommended Posts

 

Hello all!

 

Long-time lurker, first time poster here. Firstly I’d like to say how grateful I am to you all for maintaining this amazing site, for people like myself just starting out it is a fantastic resource. The fact that I am only just posting here with questions now is a testament to the richness of debate that goes on here. Keep up the good work!

 

So I’m going to be mixing my first low budget feature next week, I have worked mainly as a solo sound recordist and boom op so far and have very limited experience producing a mix track. This time I’ve got a great boom op and a sound utility gal working with me so I have an opportunity to get my head around mixing. I’m going to be using the Zoom F8 with the FRC-8 control, we have some decent boom mics and the option of a 2nd boom when needed. Also running 3 channels of wireless (G3’s with COS11s).

 

I’ve read through these threads:

 

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/23938-the-importance-of-lavs-from-the-pov-of-post/&

 

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/24760-do-we-still-need-a-production-sound-mix-track-when-multi-track-recordings-are-requested/&tab=comments#comment-291328

 

I know that the post-production budget is small and there are no sound editors on board yet so I think that a good production mix will be really useful for this project. Besides coms and dailies I think there is a chance the mix will actually be used in the final film providing that I produce something of decent quality.

 

I’m confident making a mix track from lavs; ensuring there is only one channel open at a time, this I can get my head around. But my questions are about the composition of the mix. I’m sure that most of the time my boom op will be in an optimal position (good boom skills, single camera, sound friendly crew), in this case would it be best to just push up fader 1 and make slight adjustments based on the dynamics of the scene? Leave the lavs recording on the ISOs but keep the faders down? My main problem with this scenario is that I can’t stand the thought of having tracks open that I can’t hear. How would I know if there are issues with these tracks? Do I set up a a monitoring situation where I can still hear the Lavs? Wouldn't this affect the quality of the mix? Maybe I don’t even need to use the lavs if I’m confident that the boom op/s will cover the scene?

 

I can get my head around it more if the boom is in a less than optimal position, I would add in a little of the boom for air and then mix the lavs into the same track. In this situation how do you guys deal with phasing issues?

 

My final question is about the structure of the mix, the Zoom F8 can produce a polywav with two mixtracks on channels 1 and 2 (L and R). I know in some cases mixers will send the boom to channel 1 and then a mix track of the lavs to channel 2 but whilst this seems useful for sound editors in post, it defeats the purpose of my mix for good quality dailies, a better experience for the picture editor and potential use in the final film. I don’t think that the zoom can be set to just produce a single mono mix track, if this is the case, and I want to produce a proper, usable mix, what do I send to the 2nd mix track? A safety mono mix at a lower volume? Do you use the pan control to set the levels here?

 

I would really like to have my approach nailed down before I start the film so I can tell the DIT exactly what will be on each track, and keep it consistent throughout the entire film. Thankfully as this is a super low budget film it’s not a total disaster if I get this wrong, and I don’t think they are even expecting a mix, but I would like to use the opportunity to practice mixing and go beyond the expectations of production.

 

Thanks again for all the great info on this site, I’ve spent many happy hours browsing through these threads and it’s great to get involved with some (hopefully not completely daft) questions. I have so much respect for you pros out there and I really want to honor the craft by giving us soundies a good name, and doing a great job on set. Any help on my journey is greatly appreciated!

 

Peace!

 

James x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memory seems like I've run through this discussion several times on the forum, but quick 30 second regurgitation of my current S.O.P.

 

Split mix is good for lower budget (or corner cutting television shows) that would like to get away with using camera sound, usually fed by pro-level hops or hard line, i.e. not a scratch track, in which case I'll split lavalier groups or boom / lav split if for some reason I'm booming something - but never just default always boom - purely contextual for me.

 

For narrative, I highly recommend doing a mono mix.  It is THE single mix that as a PSM and QC expert, you are focussing on during takes, and if you suppose that the mix has a possibility of being used, is THE one option that is your best foot forward to present to editorial.  Even if the production mix is not being used, then it is still very important as everyone who deals with dailies or watches dailies, or has to do technical work down the line, like cutting, ADR, foley, SFX, score, etc... will use to accomplish their jobs.  My standard is track 1 is the primary mix, which for me is +6dB over my ISO, mainly because I use a Cantar X2 and that is how much "gain in hand" the Cantar offers me on faders.  track 2 for me is a safety mix, which is basically the "mix -6" or a mono mix where the levels equal my ISO track levels.  If you are delivering a poly file or the sound gets synched to video early on in the game, anyone previewing the clip or track will only hear tracks 1 and 2 generally, so having 2 mono mix tracks makes it safe to assume that an uneducated listener will only hear the mix and not an errant ISO.  Everyone does it different, but then subsequent tracks are lavalieres or plants and for me the last track is always boom.  I more often than not fly an ambience mic on the 2nd to last track.

 

Just a side note, I think the ambience mic is one of the more important things that junior mixers don't always utilize.  It is incredibly useful to help smooth out mix transitions but more importantly, between the call to "cut" and "roll sound", it is nice to have a mic up that lets everyone listening, boom op, utility, director, producer, know that their equipment is working, and not hear dead silence, or be able to catch AD calls, but not necessarily hear a cast member or your semi-private conversation with you boom operator.  It is also helpful for post sound in that they can utilize this non-dialog specific track for many things, for pseudo-room tone, to "learn" noise reduction tools, for improving mix transitions, or even just to hear feedback from the AD or director that calls something out on set the moments after "cut" is called and you pull down faders, but haven't cut the roll yet.  It is incredibly helpful to hear a snippet of the crew and creative chatter associated with takes to place problems or note selects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, there have been other threads on this topic though I can't recall a signpost for James to look for.  

James, I'd treat the mix like it were the only track. I'd use the elements (radios n 2nd boom) with the main boom to make it sound like it looks. The hardest part of mixing multiple mics is hiding the fader moves and cross fades. You don't want to wow the bg sound or give away the process... tip, (Bring mic 2 up to level before you drop out mic 1). It takes a lot of practice to do it well, but rest assured you have all the elements in ISO as back up, so go for it. The other big thing is shot to shot consistency so the sound is cuttable and doesn't create an aural jump cut. That may not always be controllable, but is a goal. Best of luck. Also important, have fun w your crew doing the job. 

CrewC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great info guys thank you, I apologise if this topic has already been covered but I couldn't find any threads here.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Visser said:

Just a side note, I think the ambience mic is one of the more important things that junior mixers don't always utilize.  

 

I have never heard of that technique being used but it makes a lot of sense. What pickup pattern might you go for here? I imagine a wider pattern would get the desired results? Do you leave the fader up in between takes?

 

 

25 minutes ago, old school said:

The hardest part of mixing multiple mics is hiding the fader moves and cross fades.

 

I've been practicing this at home with some old location stuff from previous shoots, there's definitely a knack to it. This film will be really good opportunity to practice this under pressure with the assurance that the ISOs are there if it goes tits up!

 

 

27 minutes ago, old school said:

Also important, have fun w your crew doing the job. 

 

The two people I'm working with are lovely and we're gonna get along great, gonna be good vibes on set, I agree, super important!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you are considering mixing. 

It all depends on the situation. Go with what sounds best to your ears for which ever particular situation you are in. I have no problem with my mix consisting of only the boom if that is what sounds best. I will then feed lavs into the mix as needed or vice versa. To me the biggest challenge in a mix is to avoid phasing issues.. The fewer mics you have open at once the better as a general rule of thumb. You can monitor all of your tracks using your PFLs or different headphone presets, like boom on the left and lavs on the right. Also, remember that you can make things sound louder with the faders not just quieter.

Trying to achieve a consistent sound across the entire scene is top advice. Also depending on what you are shooting to try and make it sound how it looks, like CrewC mentioned. To me, all of this is the difference between storytelling and just recording isos.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Make it sound how it looks" 

 

Crew, that's the best advice you can give I think! 

 

I also agree, don't worry about the isos 99% of the time and just monitor the mono mix. Follow those two guides and things will begin to make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to address the matter of working for consistency so that the material can be edited smoothly.

 

This is a concern and a good mixer will be mindful of the need to record lines that can be intercut shot to shot.

 

However, I think consistency should be a secondary goal, not a primary focus. I believe a successful location mixer will attempt to get the best results possible in each shot and not degrade results, at least not significantly, in an effort to maintain consistency. Just because the master was lousy is no reason to do second rate work on all the close-ups. (And, I'm sure that the advice from experienced contributors like Crew and Tom Visser and the others doesn't intend that you do anything of that sort. But it's easy to take good advice and follow it too rigidly.) 

 

So, to restate, try for the best sound possible in each set-up but be aware, as you work, that consistent tone is also important. But don't hesitate to jettison an iffy miking approach if you have a chance to make a significant improvement. (The editor may throw away the sound from the compromised shots and make the assembly with the better material.)

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, I can't wait to try out all of these techniques.

 

I suppose as long as my mono mix track sounds good then that is enough QC for me to be confident that things are working. I can see how I can be much more focused on a single mono track than I would be with many open ISOs, if I hear a problem in my mix I know exactly where it's coming from so it can be fixed quickly. Also handily there are headphone monitor presets on the zoom F8 that I can quickly switch between to check everything is working. I'm a big fan of this little machine, gonna put it through it's paces with the FRC-8 control surface. 

 

 

2 hours ago, David Waelder said:

However, I think consistency should be a secondary goal, not a primary focus. I believe a successful location mixer will attempt to get the best results possible in each shot and not degrade results, at least not significantly, in an effort to maintain consistency. Just because the master was lousy is no reason to do second rate work on all the close-ups.

 

Yes David this is something that has confused me in the past. I heard that advice and after shooting an impossible master shot I was left wondering if I should keep the boom far away for consistently shit sound haha. I recall the Senator mentioning that on super wide shots the dialogue from the closeups can be edited in surprisingly well as the talent are so far away that lip sync isn't as much of an issue. Is this right in your experience? If so I can hold fire in the master shot and go for consistency when we punch in close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David is absolutely correct. A good soundlng shot has way more value than a consistent shitty sounding shot in a compromised sounding scene. 

Also I care much less about a master shot than I do the coverage. Unless it's a all in one shot, a master will only be used to set up the stage/setting and the coverage sound can and should be used in the wide shot. Every mixer I know tries to be 100% all the time, but the best are realistic about what they can do in every scene thrown their way and give the best they can.

Also concerning ISO tracks, I try to pfl them before we roll to hear their status. As The Godfather of multitrack Jim Webb would tell you, ISO one track and you won't hear the other (how many) you have armed in your mix. Unless there are issues, concentrate on the mix and scene, not the gear.

CrewC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.9.2017 at 9:31 PM, Tom Visser said:

Just a side note, I think the ambience mic is one of the more important things that junior mixers don't always utilize

I don't consider myself as a junior mixer, but honestly have never heard of it. I mean we are not talking stereo ambiences

from mass scenes or walla's? 

 

So basically you are saying you make the extra effort of putting an extra mic on set (which has to be dealt with by your boom op)

so people of the crew know, that there IFB is working? Because where ever you put this mic, it will never sound like the boom,

so as a room tone, or as a noise profile for noise reduction it won't really work. Also basically every second it is "quite" on this mic it will 

also be "quite" on your boom. So "room tone" or noise profile can be taken from there and will match 100% at least one part of a cut that

needs to be smoothed.

 

With faster and faster shooting, and also "wilder" camera work, the love and care this mic would need would be too much for me,

at least for this outcome.

 

Please tell me if I am missing something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing all of this up for me guys, feeling a lot more confident for this shoot now! 

 

I would like to hear more opinions on this ambience mic though? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I did dialogue editing in post and there was a second boom, I often used that to add room for smoothing out transitions. Also, when you wanna replace not-so-optimal sound on a wide shot and use a closeup's audio for that, a real closeup boom sound can sound "wrong" or distracting (i.e. too close), so in those instances, an ambience mic, like Tom described, can be quite useful to add room in post/edit (though I have also used lav tracks of off talent for that at times too, but that's not as pretty). I have also had a sound-savvy editor specifically request an ambience mic for that purpose.

I wouldn't completely discard consistency in mixing. Maybe better call it perspective, as a wide shot doesn't need to, or shouldn't sound exactly like a CU, more like what Crew said, it should sound like it looks.

My direct advice to you James: Always have two booms on the scene. Second boom takes off lines or at least ambience. That second boom track may well turn out to be very useful later. Also you probably won't need to use lots of lavs, which will make actors happy, and also yourself as the mixer, as double boom is the cream of the crop of production sound mixing, and you might not get the chance to try that process so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christian Spaeth said:

My direct advice to you James: Always have two booms on the scene. Second boom takes off lines or at least ambience. That second boom track may well turn out to be very useful later. Also you probably won't need to use lots of lavs, which will make actors happy, and also yourself as the mixer, as double boom is the cream of the crop of production sound mixing, and you might not get the chance to try that process so often.

As you say it yourself. Le creme de la creme. Wish I could have a 2nd boom on every film I do, not very common here in Germany, only very big

top notch features have this. And a 2nd boom mic and an ambient mic is quite a difference. Can't imagine myself recording a track that is only

roomy, noisy, reverby of a scene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had a chat with the director and editor about what sorts of tracks they'd like to have avail in post?   Do they like getting a worked-over mix, or do they intend to move right into using PF isos in their cut?  Do they have a lab/boom mic preference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken to them and there are no real plans for the post sound yet. They aren't particularly sound savvy but are very accommodating to to us so the approach is basically up to me. I do think that a good production mix is going to be very useful and as I said earlier, might actually get used in the final film which would be very cool. 

 

I think I'm going to focus primarily on the 2 booms and use them both all the time. What are your approaches to mixing 2 booms? Wouldn't the BG be noticeable when crossfading? I'm using a matched pair so they will sound the same at least. 

 

I'm really lucky to have this experience with 2 booms so I want to make the most out of it, might not get the chance to do it again for quite some time! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi James,

first off, welcome to JWS and good luck with shooting when you start - it sounds like you are making good use of the low budget situation by putting together a strong sound team with preparation and support, which will be a bonus to all and to the film when it comes to shooting.

I'll keep things very brief here but try to give my first thoughts as a dialogue editor (and past dubbing mixer) - I've done super low budget things with friends and a good mixture of decent to high budget.

Firstly (as a dubbing mixer) I prefer the sound of a boom and I'll second Christian's note to use a second boom whenever a scene would benefit - from tricky moves down to just having one for an off-character to allow optimum placement and avoid unnecessary moves. That said, simplicity is always key, so take it out when it's not of use and allow the simple single mic to get clean lines. It is of course extremely important that the sticks are loved by the director and the fellow crew members, so work towards 'boom awareness or a boom plan' (... I truly hope I haven't accidentally coined yet another meaningless term there ...) in planning with production and with crew. In particular, you say you have a great boom op and a (presumably less experienced) Utility ... so talk it over with the boom op and  see what they think - if necessary perhaps have Boom give Utility advance lessons or give Boom the shout to ask for second Boom ... things like that.

Lavs can of course be useful, so try to make them useful all the time (by making sure well in advance they work with costume especially) and recognise when they are essential and make sure they are doing the job. Since you're in the UK it might be worth getting hold of at least one of the little tascam DR10 recorders for any especially problematic situation (ie no boom and bad range).

My personal preference would probably be to mix booms on M1, mix lavs on M2 and have consistent ISO tracks (say B1 B2 L1 L2 L3 Xtra ... ) ... discuss this with director, whoever is editing and if someone comes on board for sound obviously with them. You're welcome to give me a call if you want to talk in more detail. I think that these days a two-channel mix of 'booms/lavs' is both easy and convenient for editorial to cut with and have a good idea what the isos will be, but people have different ideas.

I wouldn't 'blend' boom into lav or vice versa, but keep the mic types separate - you're not doing a fast delivery show where this can be an advantage, and it should be easy enough for Edit to work with non- blended mix tracks: the benefit down the line is that the boom isos can be confidently and easily laid to a boom mix, lav isos can be pulled into sync/ phase with the boom and the dubbing mixer can make far better decisions on the mixing of elements both generally and specifically for trouble spots. That's my own 'post opinion', and the overall watchwords are consistency and simplicity. With the latter in mind, stay well away from an 'ambient' mic - if you feel a scene or setup might actually need or benefit from an ambient perspective by all means set a plant (label its intention) and roll, but I would expect in a dialogue situation it will be just a 'seemed a good idea' thing ( I have come across / edited similar .... ). But do not mix it into anything else - problems problems problems ....

ATMOS tracks, totally different: go for it - nice to have even if not used, especially for interesting and unusual sounds - just never at the expense of getting the dialogue. FX likewise. Room tone again - good set practice particularly on a low budget shoot to get director ( thus crew) and actors to allow a few seconds ambience at take start (before 'action') for those little handles ... A low budget luxury. And wild lines, asap after you know they're needed - for the performance sake - if possible on set (... if wild lines are filmed as wild lines then the camera crew are working with the team and no-one's waiting on sound ...) or if not then asap in a 'no extra noise from crew' situation.

That's my new pound coin of tuppence worth! Best of luck,

Jez Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jez, I think we should start an 'international boom awareness day', very important cause (; 

 

So I'm a little confused now at how I would approach a mix using both 2 booms and lavs. Seems like I don't have enough hands?? I can see that if I focus on a single mono mix track then I'm deciding in the moment which will sound better and then focus my mix approach accordingly. I mean, if they're gonna go to the bother of blending boom/lav mix tracks then they're likely to dig into Isos anyway? My main goal with the mix is so the editors have something decent to work with and so the directors have something good for coms and dailies. It's use in the final film will be a nice bonus for me. Any thoughts on this? Factors which might sway this decision one way or the other? 

 

Really great to to hear your perspective Jez, it's feedback from post that I desperately need and am not getting enough of right now! 

 

Thanks again everyone, this has been a very enlightening conversation for me!! Really appreciate it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesP said:

 

So I'm a little confused now at how I would approach a mix using both 2 booms and lavs. Seems like I don't have enough hands?? I can see that if I focus on a single mono mix track then I'm deciding in the moment which will sound better and then focus my mix approach accordingly. I mean, if they're gonna go to the bother of blending boom/lav mix tracks then they're likely to dig into Isos anyway? My main goal with the mix is so the editors have something decent to work with and so the directors have something good for coms and dailies. It's use in the final film will be a nice bonus for me. Any thoughts on this? Factors which might sway this decision one way or the other? 

 

Pleasure, James!

 

If I were doing post, and asked, I would say, "we will get the best possible sound at the end of the day from decent isos", so firstly, whilst you might be 'proud' of your mix track ending up in the final film, this might well not because you did better on set than it was possible to do (with all the iso elements in place, to a finished edited sequence, with proper monitoring, with better tools and with music, atmos, effects ready) in the final mix - carefully balancing all the sounds to the dynamic of the story and the emotional performances of the scene. It would be more likely because for some reason the isos were unusable (distorted, ridiculously underrecorded or just unrecorded) or impossible to find and track lay in time. Times have changed, go with the flow and what's best for the final product. If the boom is nicely recorded, the lavs intelligible, clothing silent and tracks neatly delivered, post will be singing your praises to the producer.

 

For all this, I would avoid blending altogether. We don't (on feature drama) dig into isos anymore, we construct the entire tracklay from them, starting with a boom track, combining second boom or plants (watching for phase discrepancies) and aligning all the lavs IN SYNC AND IN PHASE to this. Then we can edit, and then we can mix - making decisions all the way. And we can work to avoid the phase problems (and very many other problems or issues) you cannot.

 

However, if your editor or director must have a blended mix (they can only work with mono, or need it HOT) we at post can deal with it. But we'd prefer it sorted out how to do it beforehand. If the tracks are in good order, and metadata is handled well in (picture) editorial, we can probably grab and sort the boom and radio etc isos from the polyfile. (Right click, select, as easy as that). But if there is no understanding or experience of the production-editorial-post track workflow and problems occur (eg in a low budget scenario) then a well thought out system could save days, weeks, or an entire soundtrack. There are many ways to work, I know. I've given a preferred workflow (good isos, boom mix and lav mix) which would hopefully simplify post and avoid mishap - but it has to work for editorial, their needs and their abilities, as well.

 

Best, Jez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a great thread in that it highlights the questions about what we put on the mix track and its primary purpose. Surprisingly that's not a universal equal, as plenty of people here have said its best practice to do a mono mix, then we get this opposing opinion. All very valid points. Ive typically kept to a single mono mix on narrative work, unless I know the camera footage audio is used for a specific purpose and thus a split track is a necessity. The same is said of many mixers i know, however this. thread and discussions with others are making me question if an alternative approach would be better.

 

3 hours ago, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

My personal preference would probably be to mix booms on M1, mix lavs on M2 and have consistent ISO tracks (say B1 B2 L1 L2 L3 Xtra ... ) ... discuss this with director, whoever is editing and if someone comes on board for sound obviously with them. You're welcome to give me a call if you want to talk in more detail. I think that these days a two-channel mix of 'booms/lavs' is both easy and convenient for editorial to cut with and have a good idea what the isos will be, but people have different ideas.

I wouldn't 'blend' boom into lav or vice versa, but keep the mic types separate - you're not doing a fast delivery show where this can be an advantage, and it should be easy enough for Edit to work with non- blended mix tracks: the benefit down the line is that the boom isos can be confidently and easily laid to a boom mix, lav isos can be pulled into sync/ phase with the boom and the dubbing mixer can make far better decisions on the mixing of elements both generally and specifically for trouble spots. That's my own 'post opinion', and the overall watchwords are consistency and simplicity. With the latter in mind, stay well away from an 'ambient' mic - if you feel a scene or setup might actually need or benefit from an ambient perspective by all means set a plant (label its intention) and roll, but I would expect in a dialogue situation it will be just a 'seemed a good idea' thing ( I have come across / edited similar .... ). But do not mix it into anything else - problems problems problems ....

 

I do have to ask, with plant mics that are placed for dialogue that a boom cannot get to, would they be mixed with the boom track M1 in this workflow, or somewhere else?

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Andrews said:

I do have to ask, with plant mics that are placed for dialogue that a boom cannot get to, would they be mixed with the boom track M1 in this workflow, or somewhere else?

 

Hi Mark, answering your question (which for other's reference was aimed at my M1 M2 suggestion, not at other points raised), I would probably treat a hard wired dialogue plant as a third boom in this case and stick it on the M1 boom mix. But ... ha ha ... if plants were a mixture of wired and wireless I might find it preferable to lump them together on M2 instead whenever they were used. So, a good question! What would be important would be to be consistent, not jump between the two, and be clear about what has what.

 

Another perfectly acceptable request from an editor (or editing director) would be to have two mix tracks with say, 'on' characters and (as far as is practical) 'off characters' for instance (or at least 'main stuff' and 'guide/other stuff). It's up to the project and people's working methods - keeping the main creative force happy is important. This of course could be near impossible for a sound mixer in many circumstances and it's up to him to point out why if so. In fact, supplying (or routing) more than a mono mix might be problematic or just impossible. But for editing programs it's now much easier than it used to be for handling and editing stereo tracks with the picture - in fact this is almost always what I find is done with low-budget/less experienced folks editing on their fcp etc (and you can always show the editor or director how to pan the replay to the middle if they are annoyed by daft ping pong stereo).

 

But I have to point out (hopefully without confusing James, the OP) I am a fan of simplicity and thus of a mono mix. Both as an editor (though I am pretty forgiving and ready to work with whatever in this role) and indeed in sound post. What I absolutely would not like to happen would be a mix to appear which (inevitably) favoured the hot lavs in volume/waveform, then a sound media / metadata breakdown in editorial, leaving a sound post situation where a mix guide track which favours the phase and timing of the lav rather than the boom (or indeed jumps between the two) is the only guide to a long arduous tracklay from scratch. In a big budget situation there would not be any hypothetical 'media/meta breakdown in editorial' and we could easily build a full tracklay as usual from the polyfile isos (in perfect sync to the polyfile mix track), then proceed to build our own 'boom track master' for the rest. In a low budget situation however, having a mix which didn't blend or jump between the boom(s) / lavs, could end up stopping one's most-embarrassing off the cuff mix for that scene with every mic competing phase and all the clothes rustling at once from ending up in the final film ...

 

It IS down to all the parties to agree though. The best way to avoid blame is for everything to be right for everybody. J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The feature starts tomorrow morning and based on what I have read here I think I'm going to go with the mono mix track. I feel much more confident doing it that way and feel I will learn more. 

 

I can totally see myself trying out other approaches when the communication is there in post but at this stage I'm going to attempt what I feel comfortable with. 

 

Wish me luck! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JamesP said:

The feature starts tomorrow morning and based on what I have read here I think I'm going to go with the mono mix track. I feel much more confident doing it that way and feel I will learn more. 

 

I can totally see myself trying out other approaches when the communication is there in post but at this stage I'm going to attempt what I feel comfortable with. 

 

Wish me luck! 

 

Hey James, good luck! And don't worry, you're right to go with what you're ready and happy to do.

DO keep the isos there for post to use ( preferably at a decent level rather than a super-safe level but a little lower is fine), be consistent, clear and keep hold of your poly tracks after delivery.

 

Focus on the words, clarity, story and performance - try not to overthink technicalities.

 

Filming in London or elsewhere?

 

Best, Jez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JamesP said:

The feature starts tomorrow morning and based on what I have read here I think I'm going to go with the mono mix track. 

I think you should consider distinguishing between what you mix to your ears and what you record to your device. Yes make a monomix, BUT record a split track. Booms to L, lavs to R. Listen to LR mono and also send L+R summed to IFB, video village and maybe camera. This way for everyone listening and for playback  you have the Monomix, but the editor has a tiny bit more freedom in using your audio by having a split track. They should pan both tracks in the middle anyway, no such thing as listening to stereo L Boom and R Lavs. But then at least they can for example when two actors hugging each other and you didnt manage to fully close the lavs, they can mute this moment on the lav track and keep sound for screenings consistent without touching the isos. Trust me they will thank you. The less they have to touch your isos in picture editorial the happier they will be. 

 

I see no harm in recording a split track while listening in mono. It is a huge benefit.

 

So good luck on your shoot. But with this community backing you up you wont have a problem. Keep us in the loop and just shoot when you have more questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number one thing, above all else discussed here to date, be sure and hit the record button. A unrecorded mix and a recorded mix sound exactly alike, (hopefully good) until you try and play the unrecorded one back....    Double check each roll that you are indeed recording. Nothing worse than having to tell all you didn't get the take... If it does happen, cop to it right away and go again. Better to be a dumb shit now than not sleep all night worrying about being a "fuck up" tomorrow. 

CrewC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old school said:

Number one thing, above all else discussed here to date, be sure and hit the record button. A unrecorded mix and a recorded mix sound exactly alike, (hopefully good) until you try and play the unrecorded one back....    Double check each roll that you are indeed recording. Nothing worse than having to tell all you didn't get the take... If it does happen, cop to it right away and go again. Better to be a dumb shit now than not sleep all night worrying about being a "fuck up" tomorrow. 

CrewC

(One bene of the old "vertical" Hollywood carts and Nagras: the reels were turning (or not) right under your nose...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×