Overlapping dialog

[Izen Ears]

  Okay so this thread's played out and I've got my answer, summed up really well by Philip.  The big rule is consistency, which is kind of the big rule that applies to all our recordings not just overlaps.  I guess I needed to hear it the right way for it to sink in. I realize now I've been much too forgiving with overlaps.  I once got yelled at by an actor for asking for no overlap, he said it affected his acting!  I guess that made me want to find a way to make it always okay (for post) and not get yelled at again. 

  Love to hear that the boom saved the day, what mic?  Just curious.  Thanks to the board and JW y'all!

  Dan Izen

[Philip Perkins]

  Okay so this thread's played out and I've got my answer, summed up really well by Philip.  The big rule is consistency, which is kind of the big rule that applies to all our recordings not just overlaps.  I guess I needed to hear it the right way for it to sink in. I realize now I've been much too forgiving with overlaps.  I once got yelled at by an actor for asking for no overlap, he said it affected his acting!  I guess that made me want to find a way to make it always okay (for post) and not get yelled at again. 

  Love to hear that the boom saved the day, what mic?  Just curious.  Thanks to the board and JW y'all!

  Dan Izen

If you are addressing me, the boom mic used was "Frances's Stradivarius": the Sanken CS3e.  We discussed using a Schoeps MK41 to make the "gets" smoother, but the room was ugly and hard and we were right under the final approach to Oakland Airport AND we had a "hot" Red camera, so....

Philip Perkins

[studiomprd]

" On Mad City, director Costa Garva, gave me a big speil about how important good sound was to him, but on the actual shoot, I found him less than receptive to my suggestions.  "

This happens frequently!!

[taylormadeaudio]

Just have a detailed sound report:

"102A, take 4  -- overlap, Director OK'ed"...

it also helps to have something on the tail end of the take -- something audible... but be careful as directors can turn on you if you're too "opinionated"... choose your battles.  After all, it's their film -- you can always invoke the pseudonym clause in your deal memo. : )

(you should have a pseudonym clause in your deal memo)

--tt

[Noah Timan]

Just have a detailed sound report:

"102A, take 4  -- overlap, Director OK'ed"...

it also helps to have something on the tail end of the take -- something audible... but be careful as directors can turn on you if you're too "opinionated"... choose your battles.  After all, it's their film -- you can always invoke the pseudonym clause in your deal memo. : )

With all due respect and no offense intended, I've got to disagree with this philosophy pretty entirely.  It's not something aimed directly at Taylor -- it's more something that I see repeatedly said by many folks here and on RAMPS and have never understood.

I'd be happy to hear disagreeing voices from other experienced folks, but it's my experience that directors, producers, UPMs, studio people, post production supervisors, and just about everyone else whose negative judgment you're trying to avoid just don't read the sound reports.  Who does?  Well, the telecine operator primarily, MAYBE the picture editor's assistants and MAYBE the dialogue editors (and in these last two, it's often that these reports often go unread).  Are these folks really going to care/be slightly interested that the director OK'd the overlap on set?  Are they looking to place blame?  In the case of the telecine operator, who is the primary reader of the sound reports, do they even notice/care about the overlap?

Where (in my experience, at least) the blame happens is at the rerecording mix stage, where A) the sound reports are nowhere to be found, and you are going to get blamed regardless, simply for the fact that the post team needs to justify to the producers why the mix is taking longer/costing more than expected and/or to the director why the less-preferred ADR has to be used over the production track.  In this case they need a scapegoat, and you're always the easiest one since you're the one not in the room to defend yourself.  (I remember sitting in at a mix years ago and when an issue came up [which was not my fault] the rerecording mixer and post supervisor said half-jokingly, "Now we can't blame him, because he's sitting right here!") 

One scenario I CANNOT fathom (other than perhaps in one of our fantasies) is one where the producer or director asks at the mix "why isn't this done already" or "Why do we have to use the ADR here?" and the rerecording mixer gets up in front of all the brass at the mix stage, picks up the set sound report, and says, "Well, it says here in the sound report that YOU, Mr. Director, told the sound mixer it was okay to allow the overlap when it occurred.  So don't blame him, it's your fault."  Really?  Do you really think that's going to happen?  Would those people really risk pissing off their clients/bosses/providers of bread to their families/etc by calling them out just to defend a production guy they didn't know, even if they DID carefully read the scribbly sound report?

The same thing might happen at the ADR spotting session/report when the bad news has to be delivered, but with the same result.

To me, the usefulness of a sound report in this context (say, an overlap) is a situation like this: the actor stepped on the other actor in takes 1-4 and 6 but allowed the other actor to say the line clean in takes 5 and 7.  Noting which takes the clean line is may actually help the editors (who, again, I feel are the ONLY relevant people who might even look at the report) find a clean reading or take of the line to use to help them bridge the cut and not have to resort to ADR. 

But I'm not sure whether those people care whether or not the overlap happened because the sound mixer was oblivious or shot down by the brass.  At that point it doesn't help because regardless of whose fault it was, it's too late to do anything about it.  If the report is littered with these kinds of "not my fault" notes that don't have any useful information on how to fix the problem, it may prevent the editors from bothering to pore through them to find the actual useful notes (eg "line clean in take 3", "line overmodulated in mix track but OK on iso track 6", etc. 

Even less likely to ever be heard by anyone who cares is a voice explanation of why something is wrong after "cut" on the track.  The reason why is that the telecine controller and editor are going to use/look for the relevant piece of sound that they need by locking to the time code that matches the picture and laying that in.  Most of that process these days is done by automation and it seems exceedingly unlikely that anyone is going to continue playing the file long enough to hear our esteemed analysis of the take recorded afterwards -- and even then, if someone were to do that, it would only be the people like the editing assistants and the telecine people, who probably aren't terribly interested in what we have to say. 

One thing that is possible to do is to say what you have to say IMMEDIATELY at the word "cut" -- this way you have a chance of having your voice heard before people take off the comteks (which they generally immediately do right at the word "cut") and/or maybe going to dailies transfer if the camera doesn't cut immediately when asked to.  But it's questionable whether either thing will be heard.  Most of the time, no.

In addition to that, it can also come around to bite you in the ass -- if your complaint about a minor detail issue audible on headphones but not on speakers goes to dailies, and no one watching dailies can hear what you're talking about, you begin to foster a "boy who cried wolf" persona, which may hurt you when there really IS a big problem that you need to fight for another take for.  ("Oh, yeah, that sound guy said we had to go again after the take I loved because he heard a plane, but I watched dailies and I didn't hear it -- what does he know.  I'm not going again").

Rather than these methods, I recommend really teaming up with the script supervisor.  The scripty often has a much more intimate and trusting relationship with a director than you may, because he/she sits next to that director all day for 12 hours for weeks and weeks.  The scripty can be a really good ally.  Let them know where the problems are and I find often they will go to bat for you -- and then it's another voice besides the always-complaining sound man, and might register better.

The other thing you can do, rather than place blame in reports and on the files, is CALL the picture editor and assistants at the beginning of the job and establish a relationship.  They're working on the film and with the track while you're shooting and you are present on the project.  Let them know that if they have a problem with something, you may have information to help them and that they should call you if something comes up.  On the last film I was on, although we never had a bad relationship, we also never really got a strong relationship going and at one point the script supervisor (someone who I have worked with for many years, and who is a good friend) alerted me that he'd received an email listing a handful of requested alternate lines and replacement lines. 

When I got that, I was able (through the benefits of non linear technology and still having all my tracks right in front of me) to go through and eliminate 60-70% of those things (which they'd probably have looped otherwise) and point them towards other takes or iso tracks where the track didn't have the overlap, plane, etc.  A much-shortened list came back and we were able to knock off most of that by working on set, where the actors still were, by setting up a booth adjacent to the stage and working with the ADs to put those actors in the booth (when they would have otherwise been in their trailers) and rerecord clean versions of the lines for the editors to use.  My third went and did that while we were shooting, he got a bump up to mixer rate, and everyone won.  Now they shouldn't have to loop those things, and fly the actors out to LA and house them and so forth.

Otherwise, we've got to do whatever we can do on set to politely alert our directors and producers when we catch a problem that they are unaware of, and once we've done that sufficiently, allow them to make their decisions and then we go home and soundly go to sleep at night.  After all, WE don't generally have to loop the dialogue, redirect the performances, or listen to problematic track over and over again for weeks on end in the edit.  If we've sufficiently alerted them and they've pooh-poohed us, well, so long as we honestly tried as best we could to help them, that's what we can do.  Ultimately, if they refuse to listen to us, it's THEM and not US that has to do the suffering and work, and perhaps have their product compromised.  We can only do what we can do.

Sorry to go on and on.

.02 nvt

[RPSharman]

That was an excellent and informative post.  Thanks, Noah.  I have often made notes on reports about which tracks might be useful to the editor or dialog editor in the past, but have given up the practice as of late, feeling that it was of little use.  I will go back to the practice.

I do note things like "off camera good for wild line" on scenes where there may have been some on-camera issues with that character, like a lost word due to an obstacle on the set, or a missed cue.  And I always get the missed line with matching perspective, or various perspective choices if applicable.

Typically, if it is a critical situation, I will ask the script supervisor to put it in her notes, hoping the editor might see that.

Robert

[taylormadeaudio]

Wow Noah,

It seems as though I really struck a nerve here.  No offense taken, BTW.  I think you simply misunderstood the intentions behind my last post.

First off, you should know I have a tendency to say things in jest -- sometimes it's a little more obvious than others, but I make no apologies for my sense of humor (or lack thereof)... I'm a Soundguy for crying out loud.  I have a sticker on the back window of my car that reads "Vulcan Science Academy."

Secondly, you don't really think I believe the scenario you so eloquently described would actually ever take place, do you?  I have a pretty thorough understanding of what happens to my tracks after they leave the set.  I've only been in the business for 15 or 16 years, so I only claim to be "experienced" in so far as you can make the comparison between myself and say... a school bus driver... or an offshore drilling rig supervisor... it's relative, is what I'm trying to say.

My only point in making the comment about the sound report was to reiterate exactly what you just said.  Basically, who cares besides us?  They're still gonna curse your name in post. (not your name personally -- "your" the Sound Mixer's name.)

However, just because someone else down the chain neglects to pass the sound reports on the people who might actually get some use out of them, should we stop trying?  Should we just submit a bunch of scene/take #'s with TC starts and call it good?  The sound report is often our only recourse when it's all said and done -- when picture's locked and they're in the sound edit and you get a phone call... the first thing I do is refer them to the sound report -- if they don't have one, I send it to them -- scan it and eMail it.  There's a lot of information there (or should be, IMHO.) 

Containing that type of info in the sound reports also serves as a good reference for me -- the production sound mixer.  I'm often most of the way through a following project if/when I get a call from the Editor or post sound people regarding a particular take.  If I have good notes, it's easier for me to remember what occurred on the day.  It's not necessarily so I can shift the blame onto the Director (what good would that do?) so much as have a written record of how things went down.  It's a lot better than saying, "...uh, I don't remember..."

Finally,  I whole heartedly agree with you regarding the importance of establishing an early relationship with the editor(s) and the Script Super, as well as the Director, actors, DP, Gaffer, Key Grip... and anyone else on the crew with whom I can form an amicable relationship -- it makes everyone's lives easier, more enjoyable.  Comparing notes with Scripty is paramount.  I have a feeling you may have mistaken me for one of those guys who sits, huddled in the corner, muttering to himself about how the whole crew is out to get me and I better cover my ass 'cause they're all stupid and I hate this job and why didn't I stay in school?

Anyhow, I better shut up now.  It's time for my light therapy: )

peace,

--tt

[Noah Timan]

It seems as though I really struck a nerve here.  No offense taken, BTW.

Hey Taylor,

No, as I tried to state last post, it had nothing to do with you -- it's more just years and years of reading and hearing the idea that if you note things in the sound report that went poorly it absolves you (and covers you) somehow. 

I've only been in the business for 15 or 16 years,

Again, none of it was intended as a knock on your knowledge or experience, sir.  It was more of a response to the idea that the sound reports and what might be noted in them have any weight -- and that by using them for political ends (even if the political ends are justified) we may obliterate their actual usefulness.

However, just because someone else down the chain neglects to pass the sound reports on the people who might actually get some use out of them, should we stop trying?

The idea that I was trying to promote is that a sound report is not an effective means to address the problems.  The sound report isn't supposed to be our defense against the prosecutors -- and my point is that even if we wanted to use it that way, we don't get our way based upon who reads them.  The sound report is supposed to be a tool first for the telecine people to find our stuff, and second for the editors (picture and dialogue) to help them edit our sound.  Do complaints/blame-game about what happened on set, which they read months later, help them to make the movie sound good?  Or do they just make us feel better about absolving ourselves from submitting a problematic product, regardless of whose fault it was?  To know that we aren't being judged unfairly?  And does that supposed absolution fall on any relevant ears, in an effective way?

Either last year or the year before Peter Schneider and Gotham hosted a conference here in NY about post production/non linear workflow.  One of the things that really stayed with me and amused me to some end was the beginning of a speech from the producer of "30 Rock" (who has been fortunate enough to work with the excellent and now twice Emmy nominated mixer Griffin Richardson, if I can throw in a quick plug for my dedicated and hardworking friend).  The interesting thing she said was that of all the departments that she'd ever had to deal with in all her years of being a producer, only sound ever consistently wanted a "report card" about how they were doing and how their work was being accepted.  There's lots of things we can all read into that, but I think there's no doubt that it's interesting and revealing in several ways, and that there's definitely some truth to it, and that it's not entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

But (once again, for you poor folks trying to quickly scan JW's group and go have some lunch) once I again I digress.  What I'm hoping to encourage is that there are other and more effective ways of trying besides sitting there quietly, getting ignored, and jotting things down in the sound report for the telecine guy to perhaps read.

Should we just submit a bunch of scene/take #'s with TC starts and call it good? 

I'm not sure TC starts are needed in the sound report, but that's entirely another discussion.  The scene and take list is for the primary user of the sound report -- the telecine operator, so he/she can locate the files to transfer.  In the non-linear age where files are named by scene and take, I'm not even sure how much this is still used by telecine -- it might be a carryover from Nagra/DAT.  If it's not, I'd personally favor just writing notes tied to relevant scenes and takes, rather than noting the existence of every take in the report even when there's no relevant comments.  I suppose they all need the track assignment information, but if we as a whole start labeling our tracks and what they are in the metadata and the Avid and ProTools (or whatever) software can reference that, even that necessity might fall by the wayside in a few years.

The sound report is often our only recourse when it's all said and done -- when picture's locked and they're in the sound edit and you get a phone call...

Well, here's my first note.  In my experience you rarely get a phone call when they're in the sound edit, unless you know the sound editor personally or they are exceptionally diligent.  Does this regularly happen to you?

There's one post house here in New York, C5, set up by the brilliant Skip Livesay.  They've handled a number of my projects and I know that Skip's philosophy (which has trickled down to the staff, since he's no longer overseeing every project there) is that when they do ADR, they like to run it with fishpoles and production mics in the studio, to best match the set circumstances and subsequently the production track.  On one job a few years ago (a film called "Awake") the editor emailed me to find out what mics were used in one particular scene that had to do a bit of looping for.  Of course, even then, with a very diligent and aware post sound crew, it was clear that they hadn't read the sound reports since I ALWAYS list the microphone used on any given track in the report, for this exact purpose.  I referred them to the reports and they found the info, thanked me, and moved on.  I never got a call saying "why did this happen?"  They've done a lot of movies and they know why the things that happen on set occur.

I can't think of too many other incidents where post SOUND -- done months after production -- called me with questions or to resolve an issue.  Again, love to hear if this has happened to other folks out there (or not).  There have been times where I really knew the post super, editor, etc well and I was invited to the dialog edit suite or the mix suite to get some feedback or contribute, but I think that was more a function of my relationship with those people than it was because they really were looking for an answer for me about something that they weren't just going to make a decision about themselves anyway.  It was more to help me and help me understand what works and doesn't work in their world, and while I admit that sometimes their suggestions and ideas about what could have been done had obviously no basis in on-set reality, I appreciated it.

the first thing I do is refer them to the sound report -- if they don't have one, I send it to them -- scan it and eMail it.  There's a lot of information there (or should be, IMHO.) 

But does that help them to accomplish their task?  Or do you feel that it helps them to absolve you of things you might otherwise be blamed for?

More frankly, is the goal of your notes to make the movie sound better?  Or is it to make sure there's no egg on your face?

Containing that type of info in the sound reports also serves as a good reference for me -- the production sound mixer.  I'm often most of the way through a following project if/when I get a call from the Editor or post sound people regarding a particular take.  If I have good notes, it's easier for me to remember what occurred on the day.  It's not necessarily so I can shift the blame onto the Director (what good would that do?) so much as have a written record of how things went down.  It's a lot better than saying, "...uh, I don't remember..."

That's pretty reasonable.  But is the right place for that kind of understandable necessary memory-jiggling in the reports for post to use?  I get it that there's not really an opportunity to make notes-to-self in two separate places.  But if the sound reports ARE to be used for their intended purpose, doesn't it hinder those if we litter them with notes that have only to do with referring us back to the shoot day -- notes that don't help post in any way?

[taylormadeaudio]

Hi Noah,

Please  don't think I took offense to anything you said -- quite the contrary, you bring up many valuable points.  I just think we're pretty much saying the same thing two different ways.  I completely agree with you.  You have a great way of putting things too.  I didn't necessarily think you were slamming me, and yes, my original post is a bit flippant -- but more for the sarcastic humor than anything (refer to 2nd post.)

Yes, I do get calls from time to time (not so much, "why did this happen?..." as "what happened..."), and it has helped me to refer back to the report -- perhaps advising the post guys to lift a track from the ISO's or a different take altogether... I try not to fill the report with a bunch of stuff that is intended only to absolve me of any blame -- I'm pretty confident I'm doing as good a job as anyone can expect -- it's a diplomacy thing that drives me to "comment" from time to time on the sound report.  Rather than keep bothering the 1st AD and Director with every little thing that bugs me (like you said, it often doesn't even turn up in the dailies) I simply make a note that can be referred to later.  Some of my notes may not help to the degree I think they might, but I've never heard anyone say, "hey, please don't put so many stupid notes on your report..."  Maybe they're thinking that though... hmmm.  Perhaps I'll ask.

When I put "overlap, Director OK'ed" in my notes, it's only after a series of events have occurred wherein I feel the production sound for that particular take is not useable.  Usually the Director has decided to move on and Scripty and I are looking at each other with that bewildered look like, "huh?"  So my notes don't preclude consulting with the Director and Script Supervisor.  I'm not trying to save face -- I'm just trying to give them what they need to make it sound as good as possible.  If I don't feel we have it, I'll say something. If the Director says, "no, it's OK" I simply like my notes to reflect that. 

I don't expect the post guys to call me -- I just try to give them enough information to make their jobs easier -- and yes, there have been times, particularly in cases where the Director doesn't have  a ton of experience, that the post guys have had to answer a few questions like, "why is it taking so long?", or, "Why is there so much ADR on this?"  In some cases, notes that refer back to the shoot day do help.  That's why programs like Metacorder have built-in notes like "airplane noise" or "road noise" -- not to place blame on pilots or drivers -- just to document what happened.

I usually try to assume the best in everyone, but realistically there are some people in this business that probably shouldn't be.  Perhaps I run into more of them than you do.  I don't want to slam the projects into which I pour my soul (I hope you're laughing at this point) but there aren't too many of them I'd invite my parents to watch, or sit down with my friends and feel a sense of pride.  Some, yes, but many of them are just paychecks -- and an opportunity to further perfect my craft.

In any case, I thank you for the amount of time you've spent on this thread, and my comments in particular -- your insight is valuable.  Hopefully we can all be better on our next day on set as a result.

--tt

[Noah Timan]

Thank you for the kind words, which I appreciate.  In order to not make this into an airport novel, I'm going to try to be more brief with my responses.  Please forgive me if doing so makes them sound more harsh -- it's not my intention.

Rather than keep bothering the 1st AD and Director with every little thing that bugs me (like you said, it often doesn't even turn up in the dailies) I simply make a note that can be referred to later. 

But whom will refer to it that it can help? 

Some of my notes may not help to the degree I think they might, but I've never heard anyone say, "hey, please don't put so many stupid notes on your report..."  Maybe they're thinking that though... hmmm.  Perhaps I'll ask.

My point isn't that people won't like it.  My point is that no one is going to read it.

When I put "overlap, Director OK'ed" in my notes, it's only after a series of events have occurred wherein I feel the production sound for that particular take is not useable.  Usually the Director has decided to move on and Scripty and I are looking at each other with that bewildered look like, "huh?"  So my notes don't preclude consulting with the Director and Script Supervisor.  I'm not trying to save face -- I'm just trying to give them what they need to make it sound as good as possible.

How does the note make it sound any better?  What specifically does it accomplish? 

If they can't use it because of the overlap, they're going to hear that and experience that all on their own, no?  Do they need your note to understand that the shot now does not cut together because the a fragment of the line is heard twice -- in his over and then in hers?  Or do they experience that by cutting the shots together?  Furthermore, does the knowledge that the director okayed it on set help them cut it together?

I don't expect the post guys to call me -- I just try to give them enough information to make their jobs easier -- and yes, there have been times, particularly in cases where the Director doesn't have  a ton of experience, that the post guys have had to answer a few questions like, "why is it taking so long?", or, "Why is there so much ADR on this?" 

Which "post guys" are these who are asking this of you?  These kinds of questions, in my experience, come not from "post guys" but from producers.  Are the producers going to refer to the sound report for answers?

In some cases, notes that refer back to the shoot day do help.  That's why programs like Metacorder have built-in notes like "airplane noise" or "road noise" -- not to place blame on pilots or drivers -- just to document what happened.

Again, what does that notation accomplish, and for whom?  If there's a plane or a truck that's loud enough to be a problem, isn't it going to be heard?  Are you noting it because you feel there is going to be confusion for others about what the sound is?

I usually try to assume the best in everyone, but realistically there are some people in this business that probably shouldn't be.  Perhaps I run into more of them than you do. 

I hope not, for your sake!  <g>

[Philip Perkins]

An aside: it is important, I think, not to get too paranoid about the assignment of blame and scapegoating of production sound people by post people.  I'm really sorry if you have been sandbagged in this manner, but in my experience usually the post people A: can tell what's going on on the set pretty well, B: are sympathetic and C: just take the material presented to them and do what they need to do with it, without wasting time on blame assignment.  And sometimes the original sound reports DO make it to the dubstage, or at least to the sound editors who are prepping and predubbing the dialog.  Making getting and understanding those reports easy for those people (for obvious reasons) is one good argument in favor of electronically generated and emailable reports on the original deliverables.

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

An aside: it is important, I think, not to get too paranoid about the assignment of blame and scapegoating of production sound people by post people.  I'm really sorry if you have been sandbagged in this manner, but in my experience usually the post people A: can tell what's going on on the set pretty well, B: are sympathetic and C: just take the material presented to them and do what they need to do with it, without wasting time on blame assignment.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I'm not encouraging anyone to get paranoid about it by stating that it sometimes happens.  There are a lot of post production people working out there that, unlike yourself, have very little experience or conception of what set is like (just as the reverse is true with production mixers who really don't understand what happens in post).  But regardless of that, whether it happens or not, there's nothing to be done about it anyway.  As I said in the first post, I believe the only sane path is to do the best you can do on set to minimize future problems, and then go home and sleep comfortably at night.

   And sometimes the original sound reports DO make it to the dubstage, or at least to the sound editors who are prepping and predubbing the dialog.  Making getting and understanding those reports easy for those people (for obvious reasons) is one good argument in favor of electronically generated and emailable reports on the original deliverables.

I think the real key there is your phrase "understanding those reports" above.  To my thinking, the traditional sound report is still hanging on to traditions and now-obsolete necessities left over from the linear era and could use an update.  Telecine really used to need a list of what is on a sound roll, since all they had to look at otherwise was a reel of tape or a DAT cassette.  However, now (assuming scene and take metadata/filename is entered) that they can get that on their DV824/DV40/InDaw display once they enter the DVD-RAM, I don't know why it's important any more to have a piece of paper with the same information.  Marc? 

Writing down track assignment information is critical, but that also can be entered in metadata.  That's hardly part of the standard process now, but once it becomes so doing a paper or PDF form also seems like it could fall by the wayside, and having that information in the metadata on current ProTools systems allows dialogue editors to find alternate tracks much more efficiently than having to cross reference a pile of sheets or even scroll through a bunch of PDFs.

Now, when we get to the "useful comment" part of the sound report (eg notes that might help the dialogue editor or picture editor) the problem now is that these comments have to be dug out of pages and pages of lists of every scene and take shot.  To compound the difficulty of this, the piece of locked picture delivered to post sound may not accurately cross reference back to the original production sound rolls.

What seems to make more sense is that if scene, take, and track assignment info can simply be embedded into the metadata file, the sound report could just consist of a plain piece of text listing only those scenes with relevant notes.  For example, just:

SR #47

Scene 27A: Boom was sent to mix track but lavaliers on iso tracks #2, 3, 4 may have cleaner audio due to loud traffic noise in BG.

Scene 63: In take 4, clothing noise on Actor X's line 5 -- clean on boom on iso track #7.

Scene 63C: Overmodulation in mix on third line.  Line is recorded cleanly on iso track #4.

...and so forth, with only the relevant scenes with notes referenced instead of everything ever shot.  That would save post having to pore through page after page of lists of every scene, take, and file ever recorded on a movie and allow things to be organized cleanly and efficiently.  If done on a computer, perhaps at the end of the job the list could then be organized chronologically by scene number rather than by sound roll for post sound to easily reference.

My .02,

nvt

[Izen Ears]

  Hm, I think the paper sound notes are a great documenting tool.  It just pays to know what happened on the day especially with any problems.  I often just put "overlap" or "genny rumble" or whatever the problem was and avoid blaming anyone.  I feel like this indicates that I was aware of the problems, and to occasionally help fix stuff (such as indicating which takes have overlap and which don't).  In fact once I had an EP ask me about the genny rumble and I was able to flip through the notes right there and let him know how many days it had been an issue. 

  The idea that no one reads the notes after telecine has just not been the case in my (admittedly shorter term of) experience. I have often spoken with post, both picture and sound editors who call me and reference my notes and their exact wording.  They appreciated the details of the reports, and felt they could approach me with issues.  I have my phone number and email on the reports.

  Totally agree that scripty can be a really powerful ally.

  I'm curious Noah - how do you handle overlaps?  What if the director wants overlap on singles?  I'd really like to hear your methods for recording overlap, or times you were forced to live with an overlap and it was still able to be cut smoothly.

  Dan Izen

[Marc Wielage]

However, now (assuming scene and take metadata/filename is entered) that they can get that on their DV824/DV40/InDaw display once they enter the DVD-RAM, I don't know why it's important any more to have a piece of paper with the same information.  Marc? 

Whoa, what a great thread! Incredibly amount of information to dissect in here. I feel like I'm lurking in the back of a grad class at USC.

My feeling is, yes, post needs all the documentation we can get. Whether it gets to a telecine operator, an assistant editor, the post supervisor, the editor, the dialog editor, and/or the re-recording mixer, depends on the nature of the project. Sometimes, a paper trail helps, especially when alternate takes are missing. I can tell you I've gotten phone calls six months after a dailies project where an editor has asked, "hey, we're looking for a sound report for roll #96 -- the paperwork isn't in the box, and the mixer is unavailable, so is it possible the report still might be in your telecine bay?" So somebody's reading this stuff. Note also that I see sound disk files all the time that do not have metadata -- usually just a random file number created by the hardware, or just files identified as "001.wav," "002.wav," etc. So locating stuff like wild tracks, room tone, and so on is almost impossible without written sound reports.

My experience is exactly what Phil Perkins says above: in post, we inevitably find ways to deal with what we have, and we make them work. Dialog editors are heroic for going back and finding pieces of uncircled takes and getting individual consonants and vowels and breaths to fix damaged and/or overlapped dialog, and sometimes they can work absolute miracles. Ideally, I think somebody has to tell the director "we need one clean take for sound," to get isos without overlaps, but I know in the real world, it ain't always gonna happen.

I also don't think any audience or producer is ever going to hear the difference between a Schoeps MK41 and a Sanken outside on a chest...

On my last little short as a sound mixer, I had a producer ask me if the wireless Tram I was using would work better than a Schoeps MK641. I let him hear the difference on headphones, A/B'ing the mix in ten seconds. He was startled by what he heard, and I told him, "that's the difference between a $200 mike and a $2000 mike." In this case (a pseudo-doco), we ran with both on multi-track, but the boom was used about 90% of the time for the final.

[Noah Timan]

The idea that no one reads the notes after telecine has just not been the case in my (admittedly shorter term of) experience. I have often spoken with post, both picture and sound editors who call me and reference my notes and their exact wording.  They appreciated the details of the reports, and felt they could approach me with issues.  I have my phone number and email on the reports.

It was erroneous for me to say "no one reads them" -- I was being a bit flip.  My point in context was a response to the idea that noting in the sound reports that you got steamrolled on set by a director will absolve you of any judgment one way or the other.  I don't really like the fostering of the idea that noting a problem in the report "gets you off the hook" -- not that any of us should hang ourselves on a hook, but just that we should be aware that the folks you might want to excuse yourself with may not be reading your notes there. 

The point isn't what went wrong -- the point is making it right.  Noting in the report that there's clearly audible airplane noise on the track doesn't bring a whole lot to the table.  I'm sure none of us wants to give the impression to folks listening later that we were oblivious to it, but as Philip notes, most experienced post people already understand that we are sometimes forced to roll when the sun's going down and no one can risk losing the light to wait for a plane to tail out, or that a plane came in after the take already started.  Therefore, I think it's more helpful to put the concentration of notes into finding where things DO work, as opposed to pointing out where they obviously don't and why -- most everyone gets why, and those who don't are generally not the people who are referencing the sound reports, in my experience.

As far as picture and dialogue editors go, I haven't had much experience (I can only think of one) where someone referenced the reports.  Most of the time I get calls with questions about things that were very clearly delineated in the reports, which fosters my observation that they often are ignored or are too difficult to cross reference with the EDL.

  I'm curious Noah - how do you handle overlaps?  What if the director wants overlap on singles?  I'd really like to hear your methods for recording overlap, or times you were forced to live with an overlap and it was still able to be cut smoothly.

I went on and on about in a long post about overlaps earlier in this thread (before I hijacked it to talk about sound reports).  I don't want to not answer your question, but I also don't want to put everyone through another long post if it's already here.  Scroll back and it should all be there -- if you have further questions, fire away. 

[Noah Timan]

I can tell you I've gotten phone calls six months after a dailies project where an editor has asked, "hey, we're looking for a sound report for roll #96 -- the paperwork isn't in the box, and the mixer is unavailable, so is it possible the report still might be in your telecine bay?" So somebody's reading this stuff.

It's always someone's job to make sure all of the paperwork is in place.  If, say, the production office copy of the sound report doesn't make it to the office at wrap, we'll be surrounded by PAs asking urgently for our set copy until we hand it over.  But let's not confuse that with relevant parties reading the notes -- the reason the office instructs the PAs to do that is because it is someone's job in the office to note how many wild tracks were shot on the production report, how many sound rolls were shot, etc etc and keep copies of everything.  That's wholly different from someone actually reading or using the reports to improve the sound or find out why something went wrong on set.  I don't know if the reason they were seeking the paperwork in your case was a former or latter reason, but I'm not convinced it's the latter. 

One thing that the reports ARE very necessary for is for track assignments, if an editor needs to go through the iso tracks and find something.  It could also be that.  But in my experience, they only require that report if the iso tracks are actually needed and used.  I do believe that having track assignment information entered in the metadata will improve this system for everybody and eliminate the need for paper information eventually, but we're not there yet.

Note also that I see sound disk files all the time that do not have metadata -- usually just a random file number created by the hardware, or just files identified as "001.wav," "002.wav," etc. So locating stuff like wild tracks, room tone, and so on is almost impossible without written sound reports.

Of course.  But assuming someone has done it right and has a list of chronologically shot files (eg 47_001.wav, 47_002.wav, 47A_001.wav, 47A_002.wav, WS_1003.wav, etc) on the disk, would you then need the paper copy as well, from a telecine standpoint?  I mean, if there was a problem (eg bad time code, missing file, etc) obviously that information could be sent along as a note, but otherwise is the paper report necessary for telecine if your Fostex shows you everything that's on the disk on its display?  Do you need, for example, to have a tail-slated shot marked "tail slate" in the sound report as is traditional?  Or do you figure that out by watching the film?

Ideally, I think somebody has to tell the director "we need one clean take for sound," to get isos without overlaps, but I know in the real world, it ain't always gonna happen.

Well, I think most responsible sound mixers always TELL the director that another take is needed.  The issue is that after we do so, it's the director's call.  If the director says, "we're moving on anyway" (because we're losing the light/because I am not going to get the actor to repeat the performance I want/because we are not going to make the day if we sit here doing more takes all day/because I don't like you soundman, go away/etc) then there's not a lot of recourse -- what are we going to do, get into a fight?  We can only make the consequences clear to the director (with experienced ones who have been through the process again and again, it's easier, since they know already what we're talking about) and hope that they listen to us.  If they do, we are able to help post in the way you describe.  If they don't -- well, we did what we can do and we trust that you in post will understand and not think that we just didn't notice and let it go.

[t.elder]

I have to say that I generally agree with what Noah has written about much of this - specifically with the practice of not using the reports as a recourse to explain why things aren't going great for sound and with the importance of expressing problems to the director or the AD when a take was unusable - and by unusable, I mean unusable!  I don't know if sound reports are read by anyone else by the telecine operator, and I know a lot of sound mixers don't write anything on the reports other than scene and take number, but I like to be descriptive in my sound reports.  That way, the sound and picture editor have the necessary information, whether they actually read them or not.

Tim

[soundtrane]

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I'm not encouraging anyone to get paranoid about it by stating that it sometimes happens.  There are a lot of post production people working out there that, unlike yourself, have very little experience or conception of what set is like (just as the reverse is true with production mixers who really don't understand what happens in post).  But regardless of that, whether it happens or not, there's nothing to be done about it anyway.  As I said in the first post, I believe the only sane path is to do the best you can do on set to minimize future problems, and then go home and sleep comfortably at night.

{snip}

-nvt

Welcome to the world of those who know nothing afterwards. here is how it is and I have gotten screwed on both ends 5 years ago.

today, I am hearing a mix engineer say good things about my work. Maybe things are getting better on the other side. Maybe not. My picture is being released on friday. I will see it a few days later (to beat the crowds) to check whether -I- feel I have done something good -> which has been furthered by the work on the post -> which has been furthered by the final mix.

I still am not sure of whether I am in a world that knows stuff before and after. I hope i know the stuff before (on projects I am working on) and have a hope that with the stuff I record, things are not worked on and made worse by the people who do it.

You people out there have the best of the technology and stuff available, and access to the best sound post people who know their stuff.

I am sure if i was working on a film with say, Randy Thom as supervising sound - I will have it going the best way. A lovely thought, a dream for someone like me working in India.

best

-vin

[taylormadeaudio]

It was erroneous for me to say "no one reads them" -- I was being a bit flip.  My point in context was a response to the idea that noting in the sound reports that you got steamrolled on set by a director will absolve you of any judgment one way or the other.  I don't really like the fostering of the idea that noting a problem in the report "gets you off the hook" -- not that any of us should hang ourselves on a hook, but just that we should be aware that the folks you might want to excuse yourself with may not be reading your notes there. 

Noah,

For some reason, I get the impression you still think the intention of putting notes like that on the sound report is to gain some kind of absolution -- on the contrary, it's simply to have a written account of what happened on that particular day, scene, take... it's that simple.  The reason for it has been stated in previous posts.  It can and does help -- not everyone, and not all the time, but until I hear otherwise, I intend to include as much information on that little strip called "notes" as I deem relevant -- including stuff like, "overlap, Dir. OK'ed."  It's worth the 2 seconds to write something down when it occurs, it's not happening in place of speaking directly with the Scripty, 1AD, Director, and if it never gets to, or helps the post guys, I still sleep comfortably at night (or day if we're shooting nights)  knowing I did everything I could -- including a detailed written report of what happened.

[Noah Timan]

For some reason, I get the impression you still think the intention of putting notes like that on the sound report is to gain some kind of absolution --

It may not be *your* intention, but I have seen that idea suggested often over the years, both here, on RAMPS, and in direct conversations with other mixers, and that's what I was responding to.  That's why I prefaced the original post stating that the response was not really aimed at you per se.

it's simply to have a written account of what happened on that particular day, scene, take... it's that simple.  The reason for it has been stated in previous posts. 

I guess I'm still not clear from those posts who would use that account, other than yourself.

My point is simply that I think it is more useful to delineate in the reports what can be done to fix a problem.  I am not sure that simply noting a problem exists and why it happened really does much to help anyone after the fact.  You noted that you sometimes want that to explain to people who call you -- I guess it just hasn't been my experience that I've gotten a call saying, "Why did this problem happen?"  Maybe if it was something really out of the ordinary, OK.  But for overlaps, planes, traffic, etc?  I have gotten calls where an editor or someone has said, "there's a problem with this line" and then I can look at the report and say, "oh, we got it in takes 4 and 6" or "it's ok on iso track #4" or whatever and we all move on.  I can't ever remember being asked, "Why did this happen and who okayed it?" by an editor in reference to an overlap.

.02 nvt

[Marc Wielage]

But assuming someone has done it right and has a list of chronologically shot files (eg 47_001.wav, 47_002.wav, 47A_001.wav, 47A_002.wav, WS_1003.wav, etc) on the disk, would you then need the paper copy as well, from a telecine standpoint?

Dailies people don't have the time to jog through 150 takes on a sound disk to desperately search for a Wild Track that may or may not be there. If they have a mixer's log sheet that tells them there's a Wild Line or Room Tone for scene 66A, right inbetween 66A and 66B, then they'll know to be sure it gets laid down as part of the dailies. Otherwise, you can be sure the assistant editor will be calling twenty minutes after the finished dailies arrive to complain. It seems nowadays, assistant editors are even more reluctant to grab the sound rolls and do this work when another company is handling the dailies. (I'm not sure many of them know how to do it.)

Do you need, for example, to have a tail-slated shot marked "tail slate" in the sound report as is traditional?  Or do you figure that out by watching the film?

Many times, there's a sound that "seems" like a clap on the track, but we don't know it's a slate unless somebody yells "tail sticks" or "A camera mark." Multiply that times two or three when there's multiple cameras rolling, along with cameras that start and stop and different times, and the potential for screw-ups goes up exponentially. And there are many cases where A&B cam are head slates and C cam are tail stix. Having the sound mixer warn the telecine operator (and assistant editor) which is which is always appreciated. ("That was a tail stix for 66A-5 on C cam.") It's almost hopeless when the slate timecode goes to hell, and that's a problem for film, tape, and digital.

Well, I think most responsible sound mixers always TELL the director that another take is needed. The issue is that after we do so, it's the director's call.

No argument there. I agree that the politics and time/money issues often override the technical requirements, and that's true in every facet of the business. It's clear that every project requires a different approach to maneuver through the minefield of production. I applaud those who've figured out which battles are worth fighting.

[taylormadeaudio]

Hi Noah,

Thanks again for you candor in your reply -- you're right.  The most effective notes are the ones that point toward a solution.  I often do try to "steer" the people who have to piece it all together in any direction I think might be helpful.  Sometimes though, all I can do is say this take is no good.  If I say the Director OK'ed it, it might help as far as deciphering what was important enough or not important enough to the Director -- they have their own vision as far as how it will cut together. Ultimately, it probably doesn't help the post guys out that much except to serve as a possible warning that they're gonna have a tough time with this one (which, yes, will become immediately apparent as soon as they lay the sound in and try cutting things together.)

Post people can work some pretty amazing magic.  I've seen scenes that I swore up and down would need to be looped pass by with not a single hint of whatever it was that bothered me so much to begin with -- whether they lay in sound from other takes, filter out the unwanted noise, mix and remix until it's just right.  I know it requires a level of patience and tenacity that many people can't fathom.  I guess I just want to give them everything I can -- one thing's for sure, I will definitely be more diligent in offering possible work-arounds for problems as you suggest.  As conscious as I think I am of that, I'm sure I have many more opportunities to implement that into my MO than I currently do.  Thanks for raising my awareness that much further  : )

--tt

[Noah Timan]

Dailies people don't have the time to jog through 150 takes on a sound disk to desperately search for a Wild Track that may or may not be there. If they have a mixer's log sheet that tells them there's a Wild Line or Room Tone for scene 66A, right inbetween 66A and 66B, then they'll know to be sure it gets laid down as part of the dailies.

I get you.  150 takes seems like an awful generous number for one sound roll -- clearly, people are a lot more productive on other sets than they are on mine -- but I see your point nonetheless.  Perhaps in future versions of the telecine hardware there could be a "search" function as exists on laptops -- the user could just plug in "WS" or "WT" and all of the wild tracks would come up.  But wild tracks aside, the scene and take info generally follows on most recorders' platforms chronologically, so it matches up with the film, no?

Otherwise, you can be sure the assistant editor will be calling twenty minutes after the finished dailies arrive to complain. It seems nowadays, assistant editors are even more reluctant to grab the sound rolls and do this work when another company is handling the dailies. (I'm not sure many of them know how to do it.)

Believe it or not, the main issue is often that Mac platform computers (that run the Avids) often don't inherently recognize DVD-RAM, and when the notion is suggested that they buy a $150 or so external drive for the edit suite that can handle the media, everyone goes into a tizzy.  "Can't telecine just transfer it for us?"  I've seen a couple of productions now pay thousands against the high telecine house rate to transfer wild tracks onto DV-CAM or DigiBeta dailies in real time, because editorial can't figure out how to purchase and connect a DVD-RAM drive. 

Many times, there's a sound that "seems" like a clap on the track, but we don't know it's a slate unless somebody yells "tail sticks" or "A camera mark."

Sure, but if there's no visual slate on the film at the head of the shot to be found, are you really trolling around at the head of the sound file for a "slate like clap"? 

Multiply that times two or three when there's multiple cameras rolling, along with cameras that start and stop and different times, and the potential for screw-ups goes up exponentially.

Point taken.

[studiomprd]

Noah and Tom are discussing two American traditions: the Blame Game, and Covering one's Ass!!

[Marc Wielage]

But wild tracks aside, the scene and take info generally follows on most recorders' platforms chronologically, so it matches up with the film, no?

The sound disk typically is run in "Time-Link" mode in telecine, so it goes by timecode, starting at the lowest number (Hour 1) and going to the highest number (Hour 23). Even then, post people won't know when to look for a Wild Track or Room Tone file if they don't know it's there in the first place; without a log sheet, it'd be a needle in a haystack.

Believe it or not, the main issue is often that Mac platform computers (that run the Avids) often don't inherently recognize DVD-RAM, and when the notion is suggested that they buy a $150 or so external drive for the edit suite that can handle the media, everyone goes into a tizzy.

Yeah, that is crazy. I just successfully mounted a Deva DVD-RAM disk on a recent Intel Mac (running OS 10.5.4), and on an external drive as well. (The external drive is a Plextor "Multi," which handles everything; the internal drive is just the stock one that Apple provides with current laptops.) The files copy across just fine. What you can't do is copy files to the DVD-RAM disk. I think the assistant editors aren't aware they can use DVD-RAM sound rolls provided they have recent Macs.

Sure, but if there's no visual slate on the film at the head of the shot to be found, are you really trolling around at the head of the sound file for a "slate-like clap"? 

Yeah, absolutely. What's always fun during a tail slate is when the actors on the set are clapping their hands at the same time, or an impatient AD is yelling, "alright everybody, back to one, please!" and clapping their hands for emphasis.

This is a case where "overlapping dialog" even affects slates!  *sigh*  It's yet another reason why I'd like to see Denecke and Ambient offer a "beep" option for claps on their slates -- a 1-frame flash of light and 1K beep, with a volume control.

--Marc