Jump to content

Olle Sjostrom

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Olle Sjostrom

  1. I, too, believe that intelligibility issues begin on set and carry over all the way to the end. I changed my career to radio a few years back, but I linger here because occasionally relapse into film shoots, and the obvious difference is we don’t have any cameras and mostly treated rooms. The problems we tackle are more on subtle language and expressions that have to do with editing. And that IS a post issue, even in movies, where wall to wall dialog is just so tightly edited that you don’t hear any breathing, so unconsciously you’re not hearing the words cus you are gasping for breath, sort of. And that’s an intelligibility issue too. And then again it just comes down to understanding what sound is and what information we get out of it. And some directors and producers don’t think of it that way, simply put. Again I’m preaching to the choir.
  2. There may be confusion as to which article you’re referring to, there are links to two articles above where one was inserted into Jeff’s post. Intelligibility on set is kind of a trap, since everyone reads the script, everyone knows what the actors are saying and therefore hear everything. That’s a given to us, of course, no need to point it out in a group of pros, but it’s easy to forget that not everyone listens the way we do and we are always outnumbered and outgunned, unless the director is a person who trust us. And that boils down more to luck than anything else in my experience
  3. I think it’s called U-Crane nowadays anyway, I agree with Wyatt. You can play the track conservatively through the speakers of the car if you can wire it up properly, A transmitter from your bag wherever you are. One solution I’m dreaming up is using a SIP or WebRTC transmitter through phones. I have a daily job in radio broadcasting nowadays and we use our own SIP server to connect devices all over the world , phones or dedicated hardware. I could really see a use in movies and cars. There are apps and solutions for it, the simplest one being Zoom (which is heavily encoded, yes, but still sounds good enough for playback to phones).
  4. Please allow me to senator: it depends
  5. I'm obviously not one of the people working on that movie, but I've worked on lots of sets with soft spoken of mumbled dialog; Soft dialog isn't really an issue on a quiet set where you can get up close. I can really see why actors want to play it like that. Sure, it's hard to mix but intelligibility wise it's fine as long as you can get it clean and close, and as long as the directors and actors are aware that you, in a sense, are locking the mix. The bigger issue with soft spoken dialog is the fact that you need to be so close, so booming is really tricky. Some actors don't like getting a mic all up in their faces, duh, but at least then you can tell them you can back out but it comes with a cost
  6. Maybe you can find some tips and tricks here!
  7. I'd like to add that I think going to the tech scouts is also important for team building, as in getting to know the rest of the team and building relationships and trust, or just getting a sense of who these people are. In Sweden the sound mixer is very often invited to scouts but would have little or no say over the choice, but there's no question that we should be there. I have no experience with working in the states so I don't know the on set dynamics at all, but over here we are a tight knit team and every single position is paramount to the production, and every one is a team player and everyone is telling a story. And if you’re going to be able to play that part well (and endure) , a tech scout might aid that transition, even if you have no say over the location.
  8. There are these fountain speakers that spray water in different colors. They are the best fo sho https://www.amazon.com/Aolyty-H2OSpeakers_Black16-Colorful-Fountain-Smartphone/dp/B0755DTTT3/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=dancing+water+speaker&qid=1660755048&sr=8-3
  9. Sad to see this show coming to an end. But very happy with the end result and that it didn’t disappoint in any way shape or form. Just brilliant. Again, Phil, amazing work. What a show!
  10. Such an interesting field. I tend to hear a Renault Zoe very clearly, they have a very distinct hum to them, I think it's a major seven chord humming. Very effective. And thank you for the podcast recommendation, have to check it out
  11. I'd venture a guess, based on my short experience in post on short turnarounds: Everything is mixed in huge (at least that's my experience) rooms with very good acoustics, comfortable listening levels etc. Then when everything is edited and goea into final mix, there's not enough time to actually go through every line and every syllable to make them audible. Instead you put a chain of compressors and dynamic eqs on each channel of dialog, make that stem have a nice reading on the meter, maybe even out and level some runaway lines. Then the fx and music comes in and you do the same kind of deal and you just look at the meters cause that's all you have time for, sort of. The music might even be pre-mixed and have a good loudness level, but the meters and LUFS readings have to match so that the dynamic range isn't too big or whatnot. This is an extreme case, but I have seen at least one mixer churn out episodes this way, year after year. And they all sound not good. But I have to say I don't really agree with mixes. I watch netflix and HBO a lot and I have no issues at all. The times I do have issues is more like artistic choice with low dialog or mumbling actors.
  12. Go euro (I mean you should! Even though Swedes are more American than euro...) style and put the TX on the top! There's also the straight cable option where you clamp the TX to the bottom..
  13. Yes, of course, that makes a lot more sense Well why not try it? My experience is that static booming is difficult and heavy, while running and/or moving a lot is a lot easier. In those cases I can go on for a very long time, however heavy the pole. Standing still however...
  14. Great idea, but weight would really concern me too as a boom operator. But if the boom is cabled and the transmitter is on the bottom, A tiny camera like that might not make all that much difference at the end of the pole. But even though it's cool, do you really have to put it on the end of the pole looking at the operator? I mean, putting it on the chest or the head of the operator might be equally fascinating.
  15. Both ways are good and useful. if you think of it from the actors’ pov, I tend to think that if an actor is acting with another voice, that voice needs to be in that realm; the telephone, otherwise if the off-camera actor is actually in the room, this might be troublesome for the on-camera actor, especially if it’s an inexperienced actor. The “right” way, is of course to discuss this with the director and the actors and let them work it out and try what is best. You can’t go wrong audiowise. You might, however, make acting harder if you push for one way over the other. Either way you choose you’re gonna get great audio. i also wouldn’t care so much about getting the futzing right. Your job on et is just getting the audio for the in-actor right and full, the off-camera might even be replaced …
  16. First the whine: why would you put an emotional dialog driven scene in pouring rain?! I’d flail a little and say something about production having to plan for ADR and really letting the actors train and have the time to do that properly. The expectations they put on you, seemingly not knowing this requires all the crew to actually help you, are sky high. Not fair… After whining, I would try to come up with solutions to get the best sound I can, using all the tricks above. The one method I’d probably propose first and foremost is to have the close up shots be free from rain ON the actor, but maybe have a trickle in just front of the lens and maybe behind the actor on to some mats, or even better, grass beds. I’d probably use a CMIT anyway, but a DPA4017 or the ones you mention will be fine as well. But never mind the drops; the pumps and all the other gear will be more obtrusive at that point. Back to the whine: production won’t save anything by not budgeting for ADR. You can’t change the laws of physics and noise. If you write like that, you have to factor in the effort it requires to get that sound. So in a sense, this is not on you. This is on production to accommodate you and your ability to capture the sound. You can consult them and advise them on how to achieve the best sounding scene, but no matter how you chose to do it, it’s gonna cost them a lot of money and effort, whether it’s in ADR or on set. They need to know this. They could even give you the right tools to do ADR on set, that would keep the actors in the mood, still wet, but everything’s quiet. You’d need a playback system and phones. That’s kind of it. I really hope you get what you want and not having to take the piss for it later. have fun!
  17. So in a scene where you'd have to bank to channels 9-16, wouldn't the noise from all those 8 other actors or whatever overshadow the motorized faders? I struggle to find a scene that would require more than 8 channels of audio that were so silent that you couldn't make a tiny noise. I imagine a scene like that would have to be a big wide master shot or a walk and talk... But I might be wrong of course. I've complained about rack focus units making it in to the boom channel on very tight close ups, and no one in post ever noticed cus it was easy peasy to cut away. If you're planning on having one actor on fader 8 and the other on fader 9 and constantly need to switch between I can see an issue there. It can't be that bad, for the end product I mean, the other aspect is of course to not disturb people behind the camera concentrating, but I mean video village is often whispering things to eachother, taking notes clicking pens... The ratio between "Making my job easier" and "Making a small noise" might be worth it, if it helps you to get better mixes overall. I dunno. I think you'll be fine s'all
  18. You know who would know the best? hint: it’s the fanatics who built it !
  19. We all knew it was spam, we're just practicing our right to derail threads.
  20. And if you're working as a Boom Operator swinging your pole all day, and really good at it, maybe so good that people would call you a star (?!) then you could buy yourself a Polestar 2 and just glide silently up to location. ... Nah. Maybe only for the name. And that one time that "joke" might be funny.. to that one guy in the crew who appreciates puns.
  21. A bit OT, but this topic is already OT to begin with so I don't see the harm...
  • Create New...