Simon Paine Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Went on a tech survey the week before shooting started and found out the director really wanted to shoot in front of this fountain. Especially loud because the water lands on cement, not just into a pool of water. Production told me they completely understood the challenge that would pose for me, so they fully expected to have to ADR the scene. But, I love a challenge. So I did a little research and slapped these together on the weekend in my garage. The center is the foam from an old mattress and the black stuff wrapped around it is some water filter material used in the backyard pond industry. I looked at air filter material but I could only find white and I wanted it to be a dark colour to try and fade into the BG. I would say it cut down the sound of the fountain by about 80 percent. Could still hear it, but combine the pads with some tightly placed lav mics on actors with there back to the fountain and I think we got some very usable audio ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Nice Simon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginufuk Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Very inspiring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Hirtenstein Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Davies Amps CAS Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Simon! Obviously this worked OK for you but if you have access to rubberised hogs-hair in Canada you could have achieved the same or better effect. We have it here in the UK and use it all the time for falling rain onto hard surfaces. The joy of this stuff is that it can be used over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Martin Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Proof that we should always be invited to tech scouts. You may have saved them a lot of money in ADR! Good work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhforAndAfter Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Awesome job. Love that kind of ingenuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrd456 Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Hogs hair works very well---I've got piles of it. J.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Great solution Simon! What also works well is to shut the damn thing off when it's not in the frame. Production often likes to say that it isn't possible, but often they haven't even tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 Constantin: " shut the damn thing off when it's not in the frame " once again... the obvious is often forgotten. with just a little bit of planning the shots, and you get a wide with no usable audio, and you get clean coverage that can be used for the entire scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 To Senator and Constantin In wide shoot you have the water noise. In close up shoot you don't have it. You record the fountain to add it after in post for the close up. The noise between wide and close up will not match perfectly. You are going to screw up the editorial and mixing team. Have it on or off in all takes. You can have a usable audio in wide shoot. Takes minutes to deal it (solution like Simon). If you can't deal it turned off. Because the next frame going to close up; doesn't mean the fountain have legs and did a walk away from set. The noise level must be the same (in recording). The rhythmic of noise must be the same (in recording). 90% directors, art directors wants these things to be on. Not off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Martin Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 To Senator and Constantin In wide shoot you have the water noise. In close up shoot you don't have it. You record the fountain to add it after in post for the close up. The noise between wide and close up will not match perfectly. You are going to screw up the editorial and mixing team. Have it on or off in all takes. You can have a usable audio in wide shoot. Takes minutes to deal it (solution like Simon). If you can't deal it turned off. Because the next frame going to close up; doesn't mean the fountain have legs and did a walk away from set. The noise level must be the same (in recording). The rhythmic of noise must be the same (in recording). 90% directors, art directors wants these things to be on. Not off. I would agree with Senator and Constantine that turning off the fountain when not seen could be a very good option. To help clarify, the concept would be to not use any audio from the wide with the fountain noise. The dialogue editor would only use the clean audio from the close ups, even when cutting to the wide. A wild track of the fountain on could be laid under at an appropriate level to help sell the cheat. As long as they don't try to use the wide audio, you won't have jumps in the background noise. But this should all be discussed with the Director and Script Sup so that all know that the wide dialogue is no good and for reference only. This may or may not be an option, depending on how much improv of the lines there ends up being, how long/often they plan to stay in or cut to the wide, etc. Just another option, but it definitely works in some situations and sounds great in the final mix. It can give the post mixer total control over the fountain noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Paine Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 once again... the obvious is often forgotten. with just a little bit of planning the shots, and you get a wide with no usable audio, and you get clean coverage that can be used for the entire scene. It depends, stuff happens. I prefer to come up with solutions to the potential audio problem first, and then allow the director the complete freedom to choose how they want to shoot the scene. After all, it's not my scene, it's theres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 It depends, stuff happens. I prefer to come up with solutions to the potential audio problem first, and then allow the director the complete freedom to choose how they want to shoot the scene. After all, it's not my scene, it's theres. Personally, I follow the opposite strategy. First, I'll try to get rid of the problem, often raising awareness for it that wasn't even there before. But when that fails, I'll have a strategy in place (hopfully) to deal with it anyway, such as your baffles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Tweak of the Week! Genius! Bravo! philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louw Verwoerd Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 I would agree with Senator and Constantine that turning off the fountain when not seen could be a very good option. To help clarify, the concept would be to not use any audio from the wide with the fountain noise. The dialogue editor would only use the clean audio from the close ups, even when cutting to the wide. A wild track of the fountain on could be laid under at an appropriate level to help sell the cheat. As long as they don't try to use the wide audio, you won't have jumps in the background noise. But this should all be discussed with the Director and Script Sup so that all know that the wide dialogue is no good and for reference only. This may or may not be an option, depending on how much improv of the lines there ends up being, how long/often they plan to stay in or cut to the wide, etc. Just another option, but it definitely works in some situations and sounds great in the final mix. It can give the post mixer total control over the fountain noise. Good job, Simon Matt gives a solid explanation for turning off the source of noise when in the close up. We're all about clean dialogue here. Remember the golden rule, Vas: 'If you don't see it in the shot, you don't want to hear it'. This helps in achieving a clean recording more often than you'd believe... Rubberised hog's hair? Great recommend. I've had some good success with bales of hay when shooting on location in a rainstorm and under a naked corrugated roof (no gutter fitted!). We don't always have the luxury of hay bales laying around, though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkautzsch Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 To Senator and Constantin In wide shoot you have the water noise. In close up shoot you don't have it. You record the fountain to add it after in post for the close up. The noise between wide and close up will not match perfectly. You are going to screw up the editorial and mixing team. Have it on or off in all takes. You can have a usable audio in wide shoot. Takes minutes to deal it (solution like Simon). If you can't deal it turned off. Because the next frame going to close up; doesn't mean the fountain have legs and did a walk away from set. The noise level must be the same (in recording). The rhythmic of noise must be the same (in recording). 90% directors, art directors wants these things to be on. Not off. In the wide shot you have the water noise from a wide perspective. In the close up you have the water noise from a different mic position, and the mic hopefully is pointed to the actors speaking, thus coloring the water noise even more. Noise will not match between wide and close either. I have never (!) met a director or actor who cared about rhythm of a noise that couldn't be switched off. They seem to not hear it, and sometimes they actually NEED to change their own rhythm. Having a rhythmic background noise in the recording means they basically can't cut because either dialog or background rhythm will jump. I don't understand how this doesn't screw up post. The proper way: Switch it off when not in picture, get a clean wild recording of the fountain to lay over the clean dialog. If necessary, give them options and record a wider and a closer perspective, the wider matching the actual wide shot. If switching off is not possible (sometimes because of real, valid reasons, mostly because someone didn't to their homework), have a solution ready, like Simon has. Everyone in the crew, and especially in production, should know, though, that this is a band-aid and that leaving that fountain on WILL have an impact on their post-production budget. Of course, all is lost if they already have budgeted for ADR. Obviously, in Simon's case, they didn't ask their sound team before deciding to ADR. Again, it's all about communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Forget the post production. It doesn't exist. Do not focusing who going to works in post production. We all know about wild tracks and who this going to work in post. I am focusing who to do it in location. Director want this to be on. For some reason the fountain can not be turned off. You tell them to go for ADR? No. This is what I am talking. We had a scene with dialogue close to a natural water source. We put a lot of tulle at the ground. Same movements from actors (in wide and close up), same booming technique from me. The noise level and rhythmic was the same in wide and close up. It is simple collaboration between boom technique and gain stage. Of course you record a wild track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 To Senator and Constantin In wide shoot you have the water noise. In close up shoot you don't have it. You record the fountain to add it after in post for the close up. The noise between wide and close up will not match perfectly. You are going to screw up the editorial and mixing team. Have it on or off in all takes. You can have a usable audio in wide shoot. Takes minutes to deal it (solution like Simon). If you can't deal it turned off. Because the next frame going to close up; doesn't mean the fountain have legs and did a walk away from set. The noise level must be the same (in recording). The rhythmic of noise must be the same (in recording). 90% directors, art directors wants these things to be on. Not off. So on the tight 2 shot, when you cue the mic between the actor closer to the (out of shot) fountain and the actor further away or covering the singles in both directions how is the inevitable differences of the background noise going to help post ? I agree with the others, if it's not in shot, turn it off. No advantage for post whatsoever to have the sound of something out of shot bubbling away (at varying levels and perhaps rhythmically out of time with the last shot in the edit), not least as they may not even use the dialogue from the wide master. And record a clean track of the fountain (if only for reference). Understandably post will want to creatively control the level of such things in the mix. This 1 has the rain consistent through out, no matter where in his apartment Stanwyck is standing (from 21'55"): http://www.solarmovie.is/link/play/2290428/ Nice work Simon, I've had to deal with this a few times, on one occasion I used a slopped run off (like a skii jump) of fabric to attenuate the impact of water droplets off a window, on another (before i knew about hogs hair) I used bundles of rockwool. On some of the scripted stuff I've done its not necessarily been agreed with the props department making the noise who provides the solution to attenuating the noise. Has anyone had a dop insist on using a swinging gas light (out of shot)? d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 We had a scene with dialogue close to a natural water source. We put a lot of tulle at the ground. Same movements from actors (in wide and close up), same booming technique from me. The noise level and rhythmic was the same in wide and close up. It is simple collaboration between boom technique and gain stage. Of course you record a wild track. The wide shot rarely matches the tight shot. That's kind of why we are all fed up by the new practice of shooting wide and tight and the same time. This is especially true with noisy backgrounds. I'd be a fool if I tried to make the tight shot sound like the wide shot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 So on the tight 2 shot, when you cue the mic between the actor closer to the (out of shot) fountain and the actor further away or covering the singles in both directions how is the inevitable differences of the background noise going to help post ? It was one camera and the actors face to face. No need for "cues". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 I'd be a fool if I tried to make the tight shot sound like the wide shot. - You try to keep the noise level behind the dialogue the same. If I hear a different noise level between wide and close up then it's failed for me. I am talking about the noise and how react with dialogue. The dialogue in wide shoot must be sound as wide. In close up as close up. The noise is the trick. Not the dialogue. -- If we had the time to place a microphone at the natural water source and to mix it with dialogue during the recording would be great option, but we didn't had the time. I know. Many of you will disagree with this technique and I understand why. All of your "reasons/flags" are correct. When you don't have options like "ADR", "Foley", "Dialogue Editor" and "Re-Recording Mixer" you must take action quickly with creative way. You know what means "time" in a TV Drama and how fast it is. So the only way it was to play with noise and to add it during the shooting. Unorthodox methods and standards whom sometimes work and sometimes not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Forget the post production. It doesn't exist. Do not focusing who going to works in post production. We all know about wild tracks and who this going to work in post. I am focusing who to do it in location. Director want this to be on. For some reason the fountain can not be turned off. You tell them to go for ADR? No. This is what I am talking. We had a scene with dialogue close to a natural water source. We put a lot of tulle at the ground. Same movements from actors (in wide and close up), same booming technique from me. The noise level and rhythmic was the same in wide and close up. It is simple collaboration between boom technique and gain stage. Of course you record a wild track. This is a good point Vas, and sometimes we just have to work with what it is. In the situation you describe something would have to 'give' in terms of the ideal. Perhaps independently miking the source of the BG (and occasionally off screen) noise is a way at least to play it in with a bit more consistency. But a natural water source is a rarely an easy thing to turn off, whereas a fountains generally have a man made water supply so theoretically easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 I'd be a fool if I tried to make the tight shot sound like the wide shot. - You try to keep the noise level behind the dialogue the same. If I hear a different noise level between wide and close up then it's failed for me. I am talking about the noise and how react with dialogue. The dialogue in wide shoot must be sound as wide. In close up as close up. The noise is the trick. Not the dialogue. Are you referring to your production mix of the post production mix? Creatively I can see why PP/director might want to have dialogue sound more isolated as a scene develops, especially if they want the BG up in the mix at the beginning to support what we see in the wide (I'm not talking a harsh jumps in BG levels between edits but a graduated fade done in post). Practically for the location recordist the hour/s between set ups for the wide and the close ups (on a single camera shoot :-) may mean our shore side scene (as an example) will sound different between slates because of the tide/wind etc, how then does your rendering of the BG work for you? Some shots you can play the null more than others, are you letting the worse case scenario (null of no use) determine your best case scenario (null of most use)? We've not even mentioned the added complication of the cast moving around and the amplitude of the BG noise source changing as a consequence. I fear i may be sounding a little aggressive with these questions and this is not my intention. For the kind of scripted stuff i do (not that often) getting consistent dialogue across takes and slates has been the challenge and unfortunate BG noise is just that - unfortunate, and i do my best to eliminate it. Your method sounds like you are considerably more accomplished in balancing dialogue and BG levels across a scene and i'm just keen to read how you work it with all the variables. atb, dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Vas: " The noise between wide and close up will not match perfectly. " sorry Vas, you didn't get it, Matt did: " the concept would be to not use any audio from the wide with the fountain noise. " Lour and PK get it... Simon Quiotie: " I prefer to come up with solutions to the potential audio problem first, and then allow the director the complete freedom to choose how they want to shoot the scene. " OK, but I think that is about what I have done, as well...but with better options for post. Vas: " You tell them to go for ADR? No " actually, in this case it was production that brought up ADR... 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.