Slates are Obsolete

[Paul F]

The dry erase marker discussion brought up the usefulness of slates. It seems many  use it as a prop for clients rather than a real tool. 

 

I find the slate a nuisance that slows down production, adds no value, and slows down editing. This is an outdated scheme that was necessary for film. Even the scene-take logging is outdated. Having to keep track of scene and take in the mixer file names is also a waste of everyone's time on set. 

 

My method - Camera and mixer starts the day with 'Day1-001'. If there are multiple cameras then the clip name starts with C1Day1-001 or C2Day1-001. The mixer starts with Day1-001. From that point on, all clips and takes are kept in sync. If a camera or the mixer do a false start, the other burns a take to stay in sync. K

 

Script supervisor logs clips/takes to scenes.

 

Assistant editor bins the sound and camera files for each scene

 

What I really like about this is that in the bins, I can see the take without a slate blocking my view. I know exactly which camera angle this is. When I need to bring in the ISO tracks, it's very easy to find them against the simple naming of the clip. The are in nice numerical order. 

[Philip Perkins]

I do a lot of work with low-skill crews who are using a potpourri of non-pro cameras, usually recording audio in multitrack to a computer and possibly also an SD machine.  Someone has to assemble and sync all of this, and often a TC connection isn't possible for various reasons, isn't implemented properly if it is or isn't understood in post.  A slate clap is a universally recognized sync mark, and makes things much easier in the morass of assembling multiclips and audio sessions for the footage.  I gave up my TC slate since no one seemed to care about that any more, but a plain old clap slate is a very valuable tool.  Spare me the hand claps, and I don't count on editors really understanding TC frame rates etc very well anymore.

[OB1]

No wonder our craft is suffering when one of our own is finding fault and debunking the use-case for smart slates. IT'S A BILLABLE ITEM. I see so many more things on set that slows down production and adds a lot less value than a smart slate. Even if they don't need it I bring it, and before I'm even heading to crafty I've convinced them to use it (and bill it). It's not my space to care what the workflow is after I hand over my card. All I care is that it's my job to keep it in sync visually and digitally and that makes someone happy. And happy people rehire me.

 

Edit: As a matter of fact, if anyone has an Ambient "Take 2" slate they want to get rid of, I'll buy it.

[fieldsound]

My opinion is that the convention of slating on narrative and commercial sets has a positive impact on the set environment. Contrary to slowing things down, I believe the practice of slating helps maintain a more strict workflow and encourages quiet & focus when we hit record.

Slating with accurate TOD can also protect crew in case of labour disputes. Hard to argue with a clock that’s visible in every single take. 

 

But perhaps most importantly, slates earn us money as a rental item. So I am more than happy to provide them  
 

[Philip Perkins]

I really liked the shift in crew attention that slating made back in the day, but then we ran into a long period of great hostility to that change from some directors (it messed with the "flow") followed by the gradual onset of laziness, cheapness and misunderstanding of the tools.  I can't change the set culture back (I tried), and no one wanted to rent my TC slates anymore so I sold them to someone who could get rental for them (I guess).   The TC display on a TC slate is a valuable thing, but not as valuable as the clap itself, AND the "call to attention" the slate going in front of the camera used to be.

[Derek H]

Pretty big headline here.  I agree that the traditional slate workflow is helpful to have a cadence on set that helps reduce mistakes, gets everyone on the same page and quiets down the set.  The words we say are important. “Roll Sound!” followed by “Speed” are pretty standard for a reason. When I work with people who like to differ from this norm I find it confusing and tedious as they change their vocal routine from take to take and I have to actively listen to the set in order to interpret when they want me to roll rather simply listen for “roll sound”. Stuff like “Let’s go” “are we good?” “Speeding?” All potentially ambiguous choices and slow things down if anything.  Potentially it makes for a very informal set (which is maybe the point) and also  one where people aren’t really sure of the current status. Are we rolling? are we not? Not everyone knows, etc. I think the decision for an alternate on-set workflow belongs in the director’s hands if they have a preference and then maybe a post sup but not the location sound mixer. 
 

That said, if you’re working on a small tight knit project and everyone agrees to an alternate workflow and it’s working for you guys then sure why not. I would, and do, find it irritating though. 

One caveat.. the traditional slate based workflow requires the right staffing. You need a script sup and 2nd ACs, a separate mixer and boom op. Without these things then yes it can be a burden and a stumbling block on set. For documentary work for example, I don’t use a slate or worry about scene names. In that scenario I keep the camera jammed and set the file as the date and just increment takes all day. I don’t care what the camera clips are labeled usually they have their own system for that.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

2 hours ago, Paul F said:

My method - Camera and mixer starts the day with 'Day1-001'. If there are multiple cameras then the clip name starts with C1Day1-001 or C2Day1-001. The mixer starts with Day1-001. From that point on, all clips and takes are kept in sync. If a camera or the mixer do a false start, the other burns a take to stay in sync. K

 

Script supervisor logs clips/takes to scenes.

 

Assistant editor bins the sound and camera files for each scene

This seems like it would be super error prone.  There *is* workflow where a day just rolls continuous takes, but I don't think you've described a good example of it.  As others have noted, the formal cadence of starting each take with a slate clap does a lot to focus the set and keep everyone on the same page.  Without it, things get messed up, which wastes time and money.  Once there are enough people on set (I would say, >10-15 or so), you need this kind of workflow to keep everyone coordinated.

What this does is puts immense pressure on the assistant editor to correct all of these mistakes, which will cost time and money in that department to make up for a workflow that is a bit simpler, but doesn't seem to have a lot else to recommend it.  I can't guarantee that having the editor work longer hours to wrangle the on set sloppiness isn't a net savings against time and labour of making sure things are slated properly, but I doubt it, especially if you are adding lost time on set (multiplied by many billable crew hours).

I think what you've described could work on smaller scale (e.g. corporate, or regional TV shoots), and there's certainly a fair argument to say that much of what gets made in Hollywood / big budget scripted could be done with much fewer crew resources.  But not all of it can ... large scale scripted does enable a different level of production value, and some producers and networks are still willing to pay for it.

1 hour ago, OB1 said:

It's not my space to care what the workflow is after I hand over my card.

This is a terrible attitude, sorry.  As is, "it's a billable item".  Yes, we are businesspeople and it's nice to have a high margin item to charge.  But if there's not a good workflow argument to have the item, it's not a good argument to say we should keep billing it because it's the way we've always done it and we happen to make more doing it that way.

Workflow can and does evolve, and sometimes the changes are for the better.  A less formal workflow allows much more 'in the moment' performance to be captured, which has its advantages.  And, improvements in equipment have allowed much smaller crews to do much higher level of work.  That's life, our industry has changed.  And will keep changing.

As it happens, I think there is a strong argument to keep using slates, at least in medium scale scripted and bigger; others here have made that argument very capably.  And we can keep billing because of it.

But making that argument absolutely means caring about post-workflow and having a bigger understanding of how production runs generally.  If you want to keep convincing producers to pay for your slate, you need to have that understanding, not to mention good communication with how post is using your audio.  Deliberately ignoring what post's workflow requires is unprofessional and just makes you a dinosaur.

[edward chick]

 Go with what works for you and your clients. I have worked with directors that want a slate, and those that do not.

The slate does seem to clue larger crews that the reason we are all there is going to begin.  They find a seat, stop talking ( or whisper quietly not thinking I can hear them:) and off we go.  And as Philip stated the slate helps get non synchronous cameras into sync in the edit. 

 

On docs I don’t use the slate unless requested , not a lot of time on the fly. I always have a sync box on camera .

 I do label scenes generally as a reference as to the person being interviewed , b-roll shot we are shooting etc. This is just something I do to help the Editor and Producer get organized down the road. 

 

 

 

 

[OB1]

3 hours ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

This is a terrible attitude, sorry.

 

Read the OP's post. My response was specifically to that. I didn't say anything about "we should keep billing it" or "it's the way we've always done it" or "we happen to make more doing it that way." Maybe I didn't have enough finesse or acumen to put together seven paragraphs in response, but the sentence following the one you plucked noting that "it's my job to keep it in sync visually and digitally" was the meat of my argument. The OP didn't mention if they worked in small or large productions, narratives/episodics, or features, or run and gun docs, etc. The title of the thread is "Slates are Obsolete". So my finessed answer is: No they are not.

[PMC]

If the OP lives in a world where his crews are the same people with the same cameras, I suppose that would work.

 

I live in a world where I work with a different crew 60% of the time and I don't get to dictate much.

 

For me;

Smart slate, Yes.

Dumb slate, Well, if that's all you have.

Hand clap, Don't give me the clapp, let's be professional. Practice safe slating.

 

Vérité and sensitive subject stuff, yeah I get it. No TC slate. Use slate mic to tell the AE what's going on plus notes.

 

I see the OP's workflow missing the benefits of a TC slate as cameras B and C break away to shoot b-roll or a camera comes back after shooting over crank, I have cought more than a couple cam ops trying to roll for an interview and they didn't notice they were still in non-standard frame rates.

 

Plus the camera dept has their standard scene naming they are comfortable with. I am not going to dictate to them what they should call their scenes/takes.

[KC Kelly]

With the projects I work on, I'm lucky when one of the cameras is capable of Timecode.  Even then, the camera operators may not know how to set the TC, let alone set the camera to time of day using a cell phone.  I bring both a TC slate and a dumb slate, as well as TC boxes.  The TC slate will at least have sync with my mixer.

[Jim Feeley]

On 1/16/2026 at 1:05 PM, Philip Perkins said:

The TC display on a TC slate is a valuable thing, but not as valuable as the clap itself, AND the "call to attention" the slate going in front of the camera used to be.

 

Ya, I get rental for TC slates...but also ya, the call to attention is important (in addition to the theater and dealing with wild cameras).

 

But I'm glad I bought the slates used; they're not an everyday tool in my little world.