Are ISOs taking away our creative input?

[RadoStefanov]

The reason I asked, is because I've seen stuff delivered with no separate boom.

on my current show I don't use a boom. We are dealing with regular people who are often nervous. Long lens and wireless lets them relax more and be more natural then having a camera and a boom stuck in their face.

[Joshua Anderson]

when you have 7 talent unscripted shooting a scene for 2 hours that is later being condensed in to a 2 minutes segment mix track track can not cut together.unless you are a Jedi master and can predict the future...

This happens to you on narrative features? Or, a lot of times on narrative features? 

[atheisticmystic]

That's like walking into a bar and asking the bartender to 1 part of every liquor into a glass. I don't want to drink that...

Yes, we "trackers" are a breed apart, and "we" have ordered and indeed partaken from that glass.

Lol

Ill stay ouy of the rest of this.

[Joshua Anderson]

Yes, we "trackers" are a breed apart, and "we" have ordered and indeed partaken from that glass.

Lol

Ill stay ouy of the rest of this.

No need to stay out, Steven, but the initial post was about the purpose of mic ISO's in narrative work. If you're referring to tracking in non-scripted reality or documentary work then you're employing the best practice for that field. That style has gotten into narrative work and it's tough on the sound department. Each improving character added to a scene increases the difficulty logarithmically. If Rado is running into that shoot after shoot, that's really rough. Every one should have some easy days every once in while (just like everyone should be on a show that shoots in their own neighborhood - at least once a year). 

[RadoStefanov]

This happens to you on narrative features? Or, a lot of times on narrative features?

the post mentioned "unscripted"

[RadoStefanov]

The only reason I jumped in was because the subject of the conversation was ISO tracks taking away the creativity. My post fade ISO example is relevant to the conversation regardless if it is narrative or unscripted.

[afewmoreyears]

When you guys talk about iso's. do you mean just the leaves?

So, lavs on separate tracks, and then a mix track of all, plus boom on 1 mix track.

If that's the case, what Imwoudl love to see is a mix tracks, a boom track, and then iso's.

As in fact, the mix track becomes unusable because the combined noise floor of various mics combined.

We will normally have a mix track, a boom ISO, and all the LAV ISOs...  for however many people are talking... Even if the Boom is the only thing working and sounds the best... they still get ALL the ISOs...   If we are using combos of Boom and ISOs...same thing.... always the same...

[Diego Sanchez]

Thanks Jay, CrewC, Eric and everyone else for their amazing input, it's great to hear the opinion form such seasoned mixers in here. Will keep on delivering the best mix i can and the cleanest isos possible.

[mikewest]

Interesting subject especially to those of us who earned our title by mixing radio mike and a boom to a mono Nagra 4.2!

 

Hence I found that mixing to two tracks on DAT easy and helped by consigning the RM with most dialogue to track 2 and mixing

the rest to track 1.

 

ISO's no problem but  time and money do cause productions to work faster, shooting with video has caused film structure

shooting to be lost, just keep rolling, pick it up from somewhere, add libs etc thus a 1 track mix is made harder.

 

My thoughts

 

mike

[Jay Rose]

 

 shooting with video has caused film structure shooting to be lost

 

Mike,

 

That's a great observation.

 

I've worked on a few video-shot projects where the director approached it like film. From a post perspective, it sure made my job easier (and more flexible/powerful, since I had good camera and sound logs available).

 

But I've also worked on video narrative projects where the director just shot... or shot&shot, with two cameras. Scenes sort of happened, and woe to anyone who wanted to find pieces from other takes to fix a scene or even any logic in how the shots were broken out.

 

Question:  shooting / editing / posting styles aside, did it make any difference in the quality of these finished movies? Not that I could tell. (Other than the fact, of course, that all of them had really awesome tracks...)

 

 

 

Here's an analogy to think about. 

 

Back in the days of film, everybody had to break their scenes down and plan their shots...

 

But Hitchcock famously storyboarded every shot as well.

 

Many of his contemporaries didn't bother, "visually ad-libbing" the setups until they got the look they wanted. 

 

Hitchcock made some great films... but so did many of his contemporaries.

 

...

 

And then Altman started making films where you couldn't even break the scenes down...

[Malcolm Davies Amps CAS]

I may be wrong but due to human nature if post ask for isos all the time they must believe that it will make their working life easier just as we believe that not doing them will make ours easier.

Malcolm Davies A.m.p.s.

[studiomprd]

I guess making all the ISO's post fader retains our creative input ?  

[Glen Trew]

When you guys talk about iso's. do you mean just the leaves?

So, lavs on separate tracks, and then a mix track of all, plus boom on 1 mix track.

If that's the case, what Imwoudl love to see is a mix tracks, a boom track, and then iso's.

As in fact, the mix track becomes unusable because the combined noise floor of various mics combined.

It sounds like you are describing a summed track (combination of all sources at original level). What has become the traditional mix track is the production mixer's best efforts at a live mix, which often means excluding (fading out) mics that are not used. It is also traditional for the iso tracks to be prefader tracks of each source, independently, including the boom mic(s).

[Glen Trew]

Hi all,

I'm starting a feature in a month. In a recent meeting re sound work flow with the sound designer, the dialogue editor, the picture editor and myself i came across the following that surprised me a little and to be hones upset me abit.

The sound post people wanted to see if the editor could cut the picture with all the ISOs so they wouldn't have to reconform after. That I understand as it would save time, specially as this is not a big budget project and they don't have an assistant. But when enquiring why they wanted all the ISOs present in every take, bot the dialogue editor and the sound designer confirmed to me that they wouldn't be using my mix at all, that they will start from scratch from the ISOs. They also said that this is the standard practice (at least in the UK) and this guys have work with some big sound people and in big films.

 

What surprised me is that they are prepared to re-do a job i will be already doing, without even considering hearing it first. I know that because of our 'live' situation sometimes some takes are not 100%, but to scratch it all from start seems a little wasteful and maybe, disrespectful.

Not so long ago, when there was not such thing as ISOs, we would mix as many channels as needed down to a stereo or even a mono mix, and post would have to work with it. Sometimes it wasn't perfect, but that made us Production MIXERS, and made us become better at what we do.

 

I believe that now with the option of leaving all creative decisions to the last minute, we are getting the little creative input we have taken away from us. 

I don't know if this is the same in the states, but i believe we offer more that a purely technical service, and we can be part of this creative process we call film making. 

 

Or am I just a bit to idealistic?

When the now-standard practice of a mix plus prefader iso tracks began, some production mixers resisted because they felt they would be reduced to "trackers" instead of mixers. However, just the opposite is the case...

 

Having prefader iso tracks allows us to mix without fear of mixing to our taste, because the prefader tracks allow a second chance (and third and fourth...) chance.

 

Regarding the practice of always ignoring the mix track and defaulting to the iso tracks, this will vary full swing from one production to another, from one post mixer to another, from one facility to another, etc...  It's interesting that some post mixers now go straight to the iso tracks, because it took us years to get post production to even consider the iso tracks before resorting to ADR.

 

Glen Trew

[Philip Perkins]

The post mixer can go straight to the prefade isos or not as they please.  Having a mix from production is extremely useful for a project at many steps before the mix, and well worth doing whether the rerecording mixer uses it or not.

 

philp

[RPSharman]

A couple of years ago, when we had this discussion, I mentioned liking the safety net of ISOs, allowing us to go for a "better" mix as opposed to a "safe" mix.

Lately, I have realized that many RRMs remix from the ISOs as a matter of course. So I just mix for me, making it sound how I like it to sound. If I'm remixed, so be it. No big deal.

From time to time, I run into scenes that are "unmixable" live. In those cases, I make sure all the elements are there for the temp and final mix.

Robert

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Robert, I don't know who the Rerecording mixers are who you "realize" that they just "remix from the ISOs as a matter of course"?

 

I've sat in on many mixes and spoken to lots of rerecording mixers who work episodic and features. Any dialog mixer worth his salt will be using the comp mix almost exclusively, until they need to fix a poor fade or off mic word or line - then they'll dive deep into the session's iso's. They like a well mixed and recorded comp more than you believe.

[old school]

Though I enjoy and embrace the new school multitrack workflow we have now days, I feel it in no way diminished my recordings as a PSM, nor do I think my mix track is any less important or useful in the post production arena I work in. (commercials).  I think it's great because we are using more mics (radios) all the time and with problem locations like DT LA etc. a revisit to the iso's can be a very good thing. Time is what keeps getting squeezed in our world of production and theirs in post. Most of my mix's make it to air because there is often no time for polishing the turd as they say. Many have said the same version of what I have and they are right.;~)

CrewC

[RPSharman]

I sat in on a mix at WB.  One of their main stages with one of their main RRM on features.  Although the project he was mixing was mine, and not "full" budget, so my mix was routinely used, he mentioned that on a "normal" project, everything is remixed from the ISO tracks.  There have been threads here where RRMs state the same, and where other PSMs have received the same alarming news from other RRMs.

 

I did say "many" RRMs.  That doesn't mean most, but perhaps it is.  I have sat in on several mixes of my TV show, and routinely wonder why radio mic tracks were used instead of the boom, which I clearly remember as being "better" sounding.  On occasion, I asked why the boom wasn't used.  The supervising sound editor reviewed the track, agreed it was better, and cut it in.  Presumably the dialog editor had simply inserted the lav tracks for the RRM to use.  I don't know.

 

My point is, that I work to get the best mix possible.  For me.  For my clients.  A mix which I enjoy, creatively, and one which I know can often serve as the final track.  But in the end, the decision is left to someone else.  This is why I do not simply "wire everyone all the time".  I don't want those tracks to be used when it's not necessary.  But our job as mixers is to get the best mix possible, when it's possible, and to get the best pieces possible when a good mix isn't.

 

I'm trying to address the OP, in writing that I don't believe ISO tracks have taken away our creative input.  Only we can decide to give up on creativity.  Currently, I haven't.

 

I know that many RRMs use the mix track in the final product, or at the very least use it as a reference, but I also know that many RRMs simply remix regardless.  Why not?  If you have the time and they have the money.

[studiomprd]

" asked why the boom wasn't used.  The supervising sound editor reviewed the track, agreed it was better, and cut it in. "

ah,  the process....

[stevegrider]

On the last feature I did, they asked me for a mix on channel one, isos on two through whatever. I was happy to provide it. But since we had two cameras on set, we set one wide and one tight. I fully expect my mix to be thrown out the window because I can't mix for two radically different perspectives at once. That seems to be a filmmaking trend these days, and I lose no sleep over it.

[bigmaho]

There can be a lot of problems with the mix track, and my guess is that this is simply a lack of a proper "sound mixer" doing the recording.  Phasing, missed lines and high noise floor are some of the issues I've run into very often on mix tracks which makes using the ISO tracks a much better decision.

 

'High noise floor' sometimes takes too much precedence.  Often when I'm mixing, the radio mics will be quieter but they are just wrong for the scene either because they are so flat, or missing some high end, or don't have the dynamics to capture the full performance.  Many times I'll use a noisier boom mic because it sounds much more natural and very often, more intelligible. In most cases post stays with my choice.  Phasing is another issue, sometimes we get caught but with iso tracks the problem is easily corrected.  It's funny how often it isn't.  Guess it's sort of good because it means they're using my mix ;-)

 

Billy Sarokin

[RPSharman]

3 mics in a car today. Ad libbing and overlapping and shouting and talking. All over the place.

3 mics open.

Remix me, baby!!

[VASI]

At the end of October (I hope) will we start a television serie here. 15 episodes. 45 minutes per episode.

I will work as boom operator.

 

1. No post production for sound. I mean no re-recording mixers, dialogue editors, supervising sound editors etc. Only the poor "picture" editor will "fix" the levels and little EQ (?). So the production sound will go as "raw" to the public (viewers).

 

2. According with 1st; there no way for unusable mix track. My mixer have the request to mix, with no faults. That mean will decrease the amount of wireless.

 

3. How many talents? 7 (or 9) total. That no mean 7 wireless or 7 ISO. That mean the director will get the final picture and final dialogue from close-up shots or from medium shots. My request? Do not miss a word.

 

4. Total: One boom and two (or three) wireless.

 

What we can do? To live and work with this situation giving the best result we can. Not only our project is in with this situation, but from what I know the 95% of television series here follow this workflow. It's good or bad I don't know. But the series here sounds ok. Not for award, but ok. And everyone is happy.

[Wandering Ear]

It's sad that the production doesn't value their sound enough to even touch it in post. No sound designer, no mix, all of the necessary things that have to be done to complete a narrative show.

Are they skipping color correction too?