The Cost of "Wide & Tight"

[al mcguire]

My favorite Directors are Editors who evolved into the field. They don't want to deal with the wires either. 

[pkautzsch]

But this constant "wire everyone" is producing more costs in post, as there are more tracks to juggle, and more work to be done on lav tracks, I'd guess. Adding perspective, cleaning the occasional rustle and so on. This is not necessarily related to two cameras, though, and I don't know how this actually works out cost-wise, but it will certainly create more work for post.

And I'm sure we all agree that a well-placed boom mic always sounds better than a well-placed lav mic.

 

It certainly is possible most times to have the boom cover the wide, and mix the lavs as needed for the tight. This means real-time mixing on the spot, which to me is one of the essential skills of a sound mixer.

You don't always need to actually give them all the tracks. Chances are high they will simply have all tracks playing all the time, and then complain about lav rustle. I've actually had producers request that I don't submit isos but two tracks: one boom, one everything else. Well, I've also had producers request that I submit isos only, and I could record the comtek mix if I liked - and then they used the mix. It Depends.

 

Coming from a TV drama as boom operator; I found the director telling every necessary department the master shoot will be 3-5 seconds. When we had scenes with 3-4 pages dialogue and 7-8 actors, director comes to me and telling "don't panic, I will pick up one - two lines from here and after I will cut". I found this faster than "wide & tight".

 

Isn't this cheaper for production and more fast for AD's?

 

Probably it is, but it requires thinking before taking actions. Not something that people today seem to be used to.

[syncsound]

On most shows, it'll cost less to pay a few people more time to fix something later than it'll cost lots of people to spend a little time to get it right on the day.

 

This right here. One actor plus 2-3 post people vs. a forty-fifty person crew. Additionally, the post budget and production budget are separate, so when you punt and have to loop something, you can still make your production budget while the additional cost only shows up on the post budget.

[Constantin]

It certainly is possible most times to have the boom cover the wide, and mix the lavs as needed for the tight. This means real-time mixing on the spot, which to me is one of the essential skills of a sound mixer.

Of course, but that's not the point at all. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's not desirable. And whichever way you want to look at it, more tracks mean more work in post. If you don't hand in the isos, then that is still true, although if post disagrees with your mix they will need to re-do it, one way or another.

I'm surprised no one here seems to care much. If we don't why, should they?

[RPSharman]

I care a lot!!

But I've learned to be less possessive of my mix, and I've learned that sometimes it makes more sense to let them "fix it in post".

Our job is to know the difference.

[Jan McL]

Three words: common head room.

[syncsound]

I care a lot!!

But I've learned to be less possessive of my mix, and I've learned that sometimes it makes more sense to let them "fix it in post".

Our job is to know the difference.

 

Yup. Battles must be chosen. At the end of the day, we serve our clients, and if the client is happy, then mission accomplished. 

 

This is something I struggle with often; on bigger, busier sets audio quality will take a back seat to picture, and "good enough" has become the norm. It took me a while to realign my own standards. We always care, we always want more, but sometimes it isn't practical in the bigger scheme of things. But, they keep calling me back, so I must be pressing the right button and the right time.

[Marc Wielage]

Three words: common head room.

 

Common top also helps post. Much less trouble in final color. 

[James Arnold]

Who here wouldn't want to work for Ridley Scott?  If you answered yes, then you would have to be prepared for a minimum of three cameras per setup, it's the way he works, and he's been very successful at it.  So it's not just TV series, trying to make a schedule, it's across the board.  You have to be an incredibly successful director, with an equally powerful producer, to make a movie today with one camera. 

Does he? He never used to. I find that surprising given his incredible eye for lighting. And not a little depressing.

[jozzafunk]

After battling for a couple of weeks against  'we'll just shoot some scenics on the 2nd camera" to shooting most of the dialogue ( in shitty locations ) on 21mm and 135mm, without good coverage because 'we've already got the tights' I've had a small victory - I made a point of talking to the director privately as we broke for christmas and for the final 2 weeks will be covering everything on 2 wides or 2 tights - after viewing some of the rushes he's seen the light - Hip hooray!!

[stacysound]

While as a sound mixer, I certainly hate wide and tight. But I have not heard much from actors on this subject. In the old days, actors would find their tempo in the wide shots, and then give their best performances in the close up. I can't remember the last time I heard an actor ask the Camerman if this is the close-up.

[tonetripper]

Three words:

Complimentary frame sizes

Works for lighting and sound for the most part.

Saying that, outside noisy exteriors - dealers choice.