Richard Ragon Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Friend of mine just emailed me this one.. Talk of placing two booms on one pole in order to NOT get another boom op? Seams weird.. But GoT did it. So you have this multi-cam shoot.. 2, maybe 3 cameras.. And you have 6, maybe 8 people in the camera department working on 'the picture'.. But you can't get another boom operator, so that you'll save literally thousands of dollars in ADR!! Yep.. sure, makes sense to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Miramontes Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Makes me sick. "we've all done sound at one point" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Wire 'em? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Spaeth Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 "...and everybody wants somebody extra" Doesn't sound like they've experienced the benefits of having a third person on the sound crew and how much better the results can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riggs Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Embarrassing at even this level of production that the producers don't see the value in it. However, I'm curious, is the director's idea of 2 mics on 1 boom that ridiculous? I've never seen it done before but it doesn't seem like that terrible a suggestion. Although he then says he wants 1 at a higher volume and 1 at a lower volume, when I figure he initially wanted a stronger/cleaner signal on the other actor. I do love the look on the Sound mixer's face and his response. Director: "I used to do sound myself" Sound Mixer: "Sounds like it" hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Martin Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 So at first view it seems like the issue was the director really wanted two boom ops to help cover the improv and the two cam cross shooting which made sense and seemed like he was actually fighting to get the sound department what they needed to do a better job. But then when a lack of budget came into play, he came up with the ridiculous idea of putting two mics on one boom. Obviously wouldn't have helped in this situation (one mic would almost always be off axis as you make any slight change to follow the other actor). So it started to sound like production was just being cheap and wouldn't properly staff the sound dept. But then I saw a thread on Facebook where the producer Effie actually chimed in and it all began to make sense. Effie Brown: "Hey Good People! It's a deleted scene for a reason - the conversation got totally off track. Here's the real skinny.... The issue was about people talking OVER one anothers dialoge. We had a three person(playback sometimes), 8 wireless mics and a great sound team. Out Sound Mixer Kevin Compayre was totally on point as you can see in the clip. The request was for them to control their ad libbing OVER the clean tracks of dialog. Like Kevin said even if we had another boom - we would have had the same.problem due to how Jason blocked the scene. Trust, I deliver films to the bitter end and you are correct. It's better to get it in production than fix it in post. The quality of sound was fine during the mix btw. We had to ADR because Of overlapping dialog due to directorial decisions in production. Anyhoo, I don't usually pop in a conversation like this but EricMofford's a friend and you guys seem to know what you are talking about.so I didn't want you to be mislead by a deleted clip. Thanks!" So it was really an overlapping dialogue issue that the director thought could be solved by more mics/tracks. When in reality it was HIM who had to change and actually direct his actors to overlap less, especially in coverage. Very interesting insights watching the clip and then hearing from Effie's perspective as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riggs Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Some interesting discussions on the facebook page. First, the Sound Mixer for the film Kevin Compayre Hey everyone, I'm the sound mixer for this movie. When Effie called to ask me to mix this low budget movie I asked about the 2 man crew. She said this is the deal we made, I excepted. When our 695 representative showed up to check everything out, it confirmed that all is well. That was the last time I thought about it. The video we all watched, I agree with Jason 100% 2 booms are better than 1 However the scene he is referring to was with cameras looking up, cross shooting, ad lib.'s, overlaps, mirrors & lack of real estate for another boom op. This is why Effie was trying to help me with the overlaps to record "clean sound" The blocking was like we were shooting 2 scenes at the same time. It was a wire/iso them all scene. I was also dealing with finding clean frequencies due to the 8 other union over the shoulder mixers as part of the "reality show". I was not going to stand there in between my producer and director & take sides. YES I wanted another crew member but in this case my loyalty was with Effie T. Brown because this is what I signed up for from the beginning. I agreed to the deal. Jason had a vision & is a sound mixers dream director "as far as" wanting good sound. Every TV show or feature starts with words on a piece of paper. You want those words to be clear and clean. It was chaos. I'm thinking that's what they wanted for the "Reality show" I must say for the first time ever I remember driving home after a tuff day & kiddinglypeaked at the call sheet to see if my name was on it to come back the next day. I've never experienced anything like it before. Cut to Jason telling me at wrap how much he appreciated us. Second, Richard Van Dyke vs Michael Howard regarding the 2 mic and 1 boom technique which wouldn't have worked for this issue (overlaps), but for recording 2 actors who are relatively close to each other, when you have limited crew it is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Whatever happened to cueing instead of dreaming up a two headed mic monster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Whatever happened to cueing instead of dreaming up a two headed mic monster? Though I haven't followed the FB conversation mentioned, mirror is right. Sadly I think the art of booming is sliding away every year. Sad. It really is the 1st and often best option for recording dialog for picture. The good ones are a mixers best friend and team mate. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Ragon Posted October 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Whenever I hear.. Multiple cameras.. The first thing I tell the producer is..."one boom op per camera!". Then I look to the producer, whose gears are now turning in their heads, and then I study the dismay on their faces as I just shot down their dreams of budget cutting.. Edited October 21, 2015 by Richard Ragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCooper Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Interestingly (a bit of an aside), I heard in an interview with TV production mixer Ed Greene that at one time (in the 70's) he used a pair of near-coincident mics on a single Fisher boom in between host and guest for a talk show. The idea was that he could have both mics up in the mix yet have minimal phasing. Clever idea in the days before lavs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredust Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Great video. I am currently in a similar situation. These tight budgets are making it harder to get great sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriskellett Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Whenever I hear.. Multiple cameras.. The first thing I tell the producer is..."one boom op per camera!". Then I look to the producer, whose gears are now turning in their heads, and then I study the dismay on their faces as I just shot down their dreams of budget cutting.. Just curious about this, what is the thought process behind this? Beyond the 2nd boom, could/would you really use more to cover a scene if there were 3 cameras or 4 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Ragon Posted October 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Just curious about this, what is the thought process behind this? Beyond the 2nd boom, could/would you really use more to cover a scene if there were 3 cameras or 4 ? The way I look at it.. It's entirely possible that each camera could be focused on different things (or actors). Lets say there is a rather large scene, where 3 actors are at opposite sides of a room. If the multi camera shoot is 'for speed', then each camera is going to be focused on their coverage, thus each boom can also be focused on that subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganC Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 I follow DP Shane Hurlbut A.S.C on his Inner Circle and he frequently discusses shooting with multiple cameras. He has a film coming out next year where the director regularly wanted three camera coverage. The typical set up was all cameras on Movi gimbal set up as Cam 1) a two shot wide and Cam 2 & 3) Over the shoulder. For most of these set ups, it looked like one to two boom ops would be able to cover with good coverage by booming from the same side as the wide camera. So whether its one camera out multiples, I think with a good director of photography it's possible to cover with the usual number of boom ops. And as always good communication! Which is hard if the other departments don't properly value the sound department and set them up for success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Having a cooperative DP is essential. Sometimes, they want the same thing you do, because a wide and tight can mess with their lighting. Sometimes that means you're on a collision course with your DP about who is going to be the bad guy to the Director for suggesting 1 camera at a time. In narrative television, we're constantly facing the two camera dilemma. We mostly boom (and double boom) entire scenes. I hate using the wires, and we'll try our best to not even put them on the actors. But then negotiating becomes essential. I'm very appreciative that I know my current DP so well. We're on our second consecutive show, but I knew him when we both did non-union features, when he was pulling focus and also when he was camera operating and I was 3rding. There's a familiarity that we have that makes things a bit easier. Of course, there are times when I lose out. We might be out of time, and I'm just going to have to figure out a wide and tight situation. Even with good communication, I'm always wary of losing to the cameras leap frogging each other. If I successfully get my way on the first set up to split up a two camera setup between a wide and a 3/4 or wide medium shot, I have to watch out for that first camera (the one that shot the wide) framing up a close up when the second camera (the 3/4 shot) has their turn. Otherwise, you'll just find yourself in a cycle of cameras leap frogging each other as they get tighter and you're stuck with constant wide-ish/tight-ish situation. It's akin to winning the first battle but losing the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Davies Amps CAS Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Joshua Anderson wrote: In narrative television, we're constantly facing the two camera dilemma. We mostly boom (and double boom) entire scenes. I hate using the wires, and we'll try our best to not even put them on the actors. Joshua a man after my own heart but what do you do when post asks for Iso's in addition to your mix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 There are no iso's if you don't lav anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 I've seen Josh and his team in action, and have heard their work (most recently Daredevil Season 1), and they're both outstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Thanks Jose and Malcolm. I don't luck out and get away with never wiring - that's for sure. I certainly get my share of scenes with 2-7 speaking actors in situations where I do need them wired (outside in NYC being one of the main reasons). But I try to "get to the boom" as much as possible. Even on exteriors (which happened today, actually), if the cameras get close enough, we'll go to booming the shot. I might still record the ISOs of the wires we used, just like I'm recording the ISOs of the boom/booms. But if I'm committing to the boom in the mix, I'm not monitoring them. We might even have to stuff them further into the clothing to hide them better for camera. Constantin - there certainly are ISO's when we don't wire actors. If we get a scene that can be handled with one boom, I'll give an ISO of the boom in addition to the Mix (which is really just the boom). That lets me ride with the mix track and keep the ISO of the boom at a slightly lower level. And once we start putting out a second boom and maybe some plant mics, I can easily have 3-4 tracks of ISOs without putting a mic on an actor. In fact, in my last show I had a scene outside with an actress outside of a car, speaking to the driver. The problem was that the driver spoke some lines towards the passenger window, some lines while looking through the rearview mirror and some lines out the drivers side window, including some where his head stuck out the window (this made his neck and chest "covered" by his car door). We filmed this scene around the time there was a discussion here about checking your wires as that might save post or something about how wires were better than a mix track. In that scene, I think we put out 5 microphones: 1 was a boom, 1 was a CUB and 3 were COS-11 lavs. But only one of those lavs was on an actor. For the guy in the car, to cover all of the speaking directions, we ended up using 3 plants (1 CUB, 2 COS-11s). Had I disregarded a mix and went with the lav 'em - only use the ISO approach, we would have had problems with certain parts of his actions. Malcolm - I haven't had specific requests from Post to provide more ISO tracks than what I do give them. Whenever I use a mic, I give it an ISO (up to 7 ISOs, leaving track 1 for the Mix). I'll give ISOs of practical mics if actors are using them in a scene, video playback feeds, and different mics if cameras are placed to give different perspectives of an action. So I do feel like I give Post a lot to sort through if they want to. But I try to get as much to the boom(s) in the mix. I'm guessing you will do the same: I'll push for similar frame sizes so even on wider shots, I'll let things play wide on the boom. It sounds the way it looks and if it means we don't have to wire the actors, it'll sound better and we'll work faster. I'd rather spend my department's time and energy on parsing through what different camera angles are needed for certain parts and making those shots sound like they look, than to spend that time/energy on micing a bunch of actors and having it sound like wires. If that means doubling down on the communication with the DP, even to the point of invading frames when they aren't useful for the picture edit anymore or just trying to convince them to hold off on the tighter shot while we shoot the wide, then we'll do that (It doesn't add time if you catch it all early enough, cause they'll adjust their lighting to it). -Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 Thanks Jose and Malcolm. Constantin - there certainly are ISO's when we don't wire actors. If we get a scene that can be handled with one boom, I'll give an ISO of the boom in addition to the Mix (which is really just the boom). That lets me ride with the mix track and keep the ISO of the boom at a slightly lower level. And once we start putting out a second boom and maybe some plant mics, I can easily have 3-4 tracks of ISOs without putting a mic on an actor. -Josh Yes, fair enough. I actually do the same thing. Although, having just the Boom and the Mix (consisting of just the boom), has resulted on more than one occasion in a call from an (probably inexperienced) editor asking me why everything was stereo! Despite a sound report which clearly indicated each track and its contents Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanieldH Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 (edited) Sorry to derail, but who else was smirking about those boom shadows in the clip? Edited November 29, 2015 by DanieldH Copypast error 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.