Jump to content

Delivery for Nat Geo


Bondelev

Recommended Posts

Thanks Senator Eric, I am awaiting the full QC, just wanted to know if any of the posties here had experienced this before. Everything I delivered was to their specs, I just wanted to know if anyone had seen this specific complaint before I talk to them. I've never even heard of anyone getting that complaint before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, are they rejecting location sound recordings done in the field or a final mix?

If it's the latter, the NatGeo specs are at this link:

http://www.digitalfilm.biz/Downloads/Universal%20Tech%20Specs%20for%20Hi-Definition%205-22-07.pdf

I agree with you: it's very rare that I find out a show has been rejected for being too low -- usually they complain when a couple of peaks or the dialog is a dB too loud.

Are you using one of the ITU scopes to check program level? Apparently, those are really taking over with many of the cable channels out there. The problem, of course, is I think it's possible to still create a crappy-sounding mix that will have decent numbers, and technically pass the specs. A lot of this is overreaction to the CALM act and also trying to come up with a solution for listener complaints about loud commercials and low program levels (or inconsistent levels on both). I don't think there is an easy solution, but the ITU spec is actually pretty good -- if used by experienced people with good ears, listening in a good room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the post audio, that's why I asked in the post forum. And yes, of course I had the specs and mixed to them.

This a problem unique to post production. The problem is not the specs, it's how the QC departments at the networks choose to interpret and enforce them. I asked this in the Post Production area specifically so that I could get feedback from people who had first-hand experience with this exact distributor, one of the few I have never dealt with before.

The QC departments don't get paid to say "everything is perfect." They almost always find something to comment on. It's a very unfortunate part of the process. (BTW, I delivered this show more than 6 weeks ago.) I'm still awaiting a full report from them. I just wanted to be armed with knowledge when I got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, got it. I agree with you about the flakiness of QC departments: I have had video masters rejected by one guy, and then approved by another. It's all very arbitrary.

It's a known phenomena that if a QC person turns in a report that has essentially nothing wrong listed, their supervisor will yell at them to find something! I'm generally so paranoid, that if I get a report on any of my own work, and they find almost nothing, I immediately say, "well, then they didn't look at it closely enough." That's ridiculous that it took them 6 weeks to check the tape.

They should be able to email you a PDF with the specific problem areas noted, and I bet it's relatively minor. They typically flag issues as a "1" (minor), "2" (moderate), and "3" (severe and rejectable). Chances are, it might be just a momentary issue in one segment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing I'd ask (assuming I had their spec in hand) was if they meant overall/longterm average levels or just in isolated places in the show. Did they specify which? Measuring tools like the LM100 can get fooled into thinking certain kinds of non-speech sounds are speech, and if they are quiet they will show up both in the moment by moment report and can affect the long term average. If they are unhappy with the overall average dialog level and it was in spec on your own gear then I'd recommend a phone conversation with someone about the measurement methodology in use. I have also had issues w/ QC concerning ambiances and music that the director specified be low in the mix--that took a phone call from the director telling them that that was what she wanted.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good news, David. I hate to get into pissing matches with QC departments, but it's nice that this time they backed down and admitted their mistake.

My favorite QC reports are when they flag stuff that's actually part of the movie, like "intermittent picture glitches." And we're watching a surveillance video that obviously has deliberate crackles and static in it. Or a monster's-eye-view of a scene that's all green and strange, and the QC report says, "too green -- does not match previous." If I didn't know better, I'd say they're not paying attention to the story...

I can recall an Academy-award-winning movie I worked on for home video where the QC department rejected some loud audio peaks, and I tried telling the guy, "hey -- the sound won an Oscar, and I'm not comfortable changing it." They won that argument, unfortunately -- but it was only one five second scene, so the compromise was pretty small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bondelev, 1/25:

I just had a show sent back even though we delivered to their specs. Their reason was "low audio levels,"

Bondelev, 2/9:

apparently the problems we not sound related, they were picture related. Supposedly someone at Nat Geo was new and used the wrong paperwork.

...so this QC guy didn't like the pix and checked off low audio level on the wrong form? I see a great future for them as a producer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I got another response, and apparently the problems we not sound related, they were picture related. Supposedly someone at Nat Geo was new and used the wrong paperwork.

I did a gig for Geo last year and this doesn't surprise me. It took almost 6 weeks to get an amendment to my contract correctly reflected in the actual document.

Best regards,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see these QC guys being like multiplex projectionists: I think they have a huge workload, are working on several films at once and are using partially (if not fully) automated measurement gear. Stuff gets flagged by the machine or by the person in passing, with neither sometimes watching enough of the film (apparently) to understand that that technical departure makes sense in context. Stories of hassles over directorial intent, mis-measurement or miscategorization of problems are pretty common.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smart QC people will add a note: "possibly intentional." Or they'll say, "visual glitch and sound static -- intentional," kind of as an FYI.

Most of the studios I've done work for only really get upset about the level 3 QC issues, which are the worst ones. But some go nuts about everything, up to and including a reflection of a stagehand in a mirror at the very back of the set, or a little camera wobble during a dolly, or bad ADR -- all stuff we basically can't fix and was in the theatrical version. Very few studios will try to go in and fix this stuff prior to air or home video release.

Legitimate stuff, like visible boom mikes or audio dropouts... those I agree with 100%, and those and should can be fixed.

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...