AndyB Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I'm just curious how the lav and boom combo came to be expected on sitdown interviews. Not like its any big deal, but just about every time I've done these kinds of setups the boom is clearly the better track. I'm thinking about this because of sitdowns I did yesterday. The talent had a scratchy shirt over a hairy chest, so the lav was picking up scratching if he got animated and moving around in his seat. It was fine when he was relatively still. But the room was tight sounding with very little roominess in the boom mic. After we set up and tested things out, I told the producer there would occasionally be issues with the lav, but the boom was clean, and we were hard wired to the camera plus rolling backup recorder. I asked her if I could just pull the wireless, but she didn't want to do that, saying "I want backup". This made no sense to me. Obviously, if the boom went out for some reason, I would immediately hear that and troubleshoot the problem asap. I just didn't see the point in even having the wireless in play in that situation, but as always, the client gets what they want. Where did this expectation of running a wireless (or wired) lav as well as boom on a stand for sitdowns come from? In a controlled environment like that, the boom is going to win out, hands down, it seems to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Because it's what they've always done and always will do. For many "producers" a boom mic is for movies and a lav is for video. Trying to change their collective minds is like trying to push a rope up hill, a study in frustration. Now to satisfy your standards and their requirements, dump the lav track from your mixer and pan the boom to both tracks with one track just a little bit lower than the other and they will believe that one track is boom & the other the lav. Now every one is happy and you'll be the hero. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 THAT is a tip I will use next time I'm out on one of these shoots, Eric! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Daddyo Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Sometimes the editor wants to match the sound of previous interviews where a lav was the better choice. Then they can make the decision in post. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Copy that, Andy, but I was not one of the mixers on the main shoot for this show, so different gear was used. The room we shot in also was not used on the main shoot. These were green screen talking heads to overlay in the edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Babb Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Because it's what they've always done and always will do. For many "producers" a boom mic is for movies and a lav is for video. Trying to change their collective minds is like trying to push a rope up hill, a study in frustration. Now to satisfy your standards and their requirements, dump the lav track from your mixer and pan the boom to both tracks with one track just a little bit lower than the other and they will believe that one track is boom & the other the lav. Now every one is happy and you'll be the hero. Eric Except the next time this producer hires a mixer she'll say we don't need a boom 'cuz lavs are soooo clean. On my last set of sit downs, I lav'd the first interview wearing a silk tie an starched shirt. It was so bad I told the producer I wasn't going to bother with laving anyone else that day. I think she was relieved that I wasn't going to put lavs on any of the executives but her boss wanted them. Now I was the scape goat. It all worked out okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I've had it work many different ways, and "one size does NOT fit all." For instance, several years ago I had an interview where I did "boom only" in a less-than-ideal room because, when we set up, it was determined that the upper frame-line would be tight at the top of the head, so I knew the boom would still sound better than the lav. We were on a tight schedule and once shooting, needed to "pound it out." After a quick rehearsal, and as soon as we started rolling, someone in the chain of command decided the shot needed a LOT of headroom and the camera tilted up and the boom went up. We kept shooting with no time to wire the talent. I wished I'd had a lav option ready. Also, as was pointed out, post has more options with both, and if they need to match another shot -- perhaps a run-n-gun lav-only shot of the same talent, they have a better chance to do so. My main concerns with doing both is if post doesn't take the time to choose the best track, or, much worse, just combines the two. In one situation, post (which I thought at the time knew better) simply panned a lav-boom split left and right. With this client, even if they've learned better, I now furnish identical left and right mix tracks and anything else on ISOs if I feel that's needed. I have a number of clients with which the field producer understands that it's silly to also lav, but the company has expectations so that's what we do. There are other situations where the client wants to travel a number of interviewees through the process quickly and appreciates me not taking the time to lav them. Naturally, with interviews, the vast majority of the time the boom sounds best, but the choice of "boom only" or "boom and lav" is situational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 ...talent leans off axis during an animated story telling, that can't be asked to repeat. Unusual ambient noise where the editor could save it with a lav intermixed. I once had talent actually get up out of his chair and shuffle away during the telling of a story, I doubt that part actually will make it into the cut, but at least the lav gives them an option. RF interference on the boom, scratchy sounds from a failed phantom supply or oxidized cables... mostly unlikely, and many times can be redone since it is a "controlled" situation, but I'd rather be prepared for the unexpected, even if the chance is slight. they could also be intercutting the footage with production sound and maybe the editors will feel the lav makes for a better transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 The combining of the two sources is something I've been having to educate editors about more often than not.....sadly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 We have to remember to communicate with post too! Whether its a call, email, voice slate, real slate or just a note on the disc label. The combining of the two sources is something I've been having to educate editors about more often than not.....sadly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Even when that's done do things get done correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I often use only the boom on sitdown interviews. If the director seems nervous about the lack of wireless, I put one but I do not use it. In post, they only noticed that the sound is OK. It's also our job to help the director not to be anxious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berniebeaudry Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 In a situation where the room isn't ideal sounding with boom (frame too wide, room too reflective)and the lav might not be ideal either (scratchy wardrobe etc.) would it work for post to use mostly boom, and put a little of the lav in to fill in the roominess? Not sure of what mix ratio would be effective, if at all but it seems if the lav was mixed in much lower than the boom the result would be a fuller sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pverrando Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I wrote a blog entry about this back in June. A little history. If you're interested, check out http://dfwsoundman.b...l-2-please.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Another postie's voice begging you to keep both, and keep them isolated. There have been plenty of times when I've used the boom as the better track... but still had to grab syllables from the lav to fix room noises (or unwanted exclamations from others in the room), prop noises, off-axis responses. Likewise, there have been times when the room was too wet and I had to use the lav as main... but still grab syllables from the boom to cover clothing or RF hits. (Why, why do some folks insist on a wireless lav for talent that's sitting down the whole time? Are you all using digital transmitters with internal backups?) dump the lav track from your mixer and pan the boom to both tracks with one track just a little bit lower... they will believe that one track is boom & the other the lav. Do you really think we can't tell the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 No guarantees, but at least you did your job. Even when that's done do things get done correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmfsnd Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 This is, of course, assuming that editorial understands how to mix/handle both sound sources, and not just slap it into the NLE as L/R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwill Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I too run into this dilemma, the hidden lav almost always (imho) sounds mufled. Therefore I try to either place lav (B-6) just out of frame or tuck it into a tie knot or as close to the outside of garment as possible. I agree 90% of the time the boom sounds better, I too have had instances where I will pan the boom straight up if I hear a scrtchy, muffled lav. Just did a press junket and producer said" no lavs boom only, we have 20 interviews and have to keep this moving" So I used my MKH 50 on Interviewee and 416 on interviewer! Worked like a charm. JHW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 What's the dilemma? The client wants it for whatever reason. They pay the bill. Give it to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Marts Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Actors are used to having lavs hidden in their clothing and understand that noises and problems from that situation sometimes need to be fixed. Your average non-actor sometimes is distracted by the intrusion of a sound person having to reach up under their clothes to tape or otherwise attach a hidden lav. If a problem occurs, having to re-tape or reposition or even replace a lav can add uneeded tension to the interview - especially if the boom overhead sounds better in the first place. That's the only real dilemma in my opinion. A mixer friend of mine has an good retort - "Lavs are good problem solvers, but we don't have a problem right now using just the boom". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 This is, of course, assuming that editorial understands how to mix/handle both sound sources, and not just slap it into the NLE as L/R.And they certainly do slap them both together, irrespective of sound log notes, discussions with producer, and despite the QC process (there is one, right?) http://www.bing.com/...269%7c%7c%7c%7c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Thanks for all the responses. Special thanks to Pete for the link to his blog. That puts things in perspective for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Yeremian Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Do both anyways. If it is not detrimental, make that extra kit rental, make the producer/director happy, and cover your ass all in one fell swoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 In response to Jay, no, a pro like you DOES understand the difference, but I've had instances where some young gun does just mono sum it or keep both channels. Did a music shoot with a guitar, bass, drum, and singer. The editor panned drums and bass left and singer and guitar right. He was also the director, camera operator, and editor. So, as was pointed out, I think you really have to know the level of experience of your editor. There are "kids" coming out of college every day with a new Final Cut system who just seem to be winging it. Sound seems to be neglected in the training process unfortunately. The problem is that no one at the record label heard a problem with the aforementioned situation. Luckily, he let me redo the audio and I could at least pan the stuff more sanely. We use wireless because the untrained talent will inevitably stand up and walk away before I can get my pack off and grab the lav. I have hard wired, but it is rare. I agree that it sounds better, but no one apparently hears the difference all down the line. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Thomas Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I've heard back from an editor saying that on my sit down interviews that the intervewer (off camera) sounded fine, but the interviewee (on camera) was really quiet. Turns out their left speaker wasn't working... (boom was on left channel) *facepalm* 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.