Letting 'Em Go: Wide Shots

[Jan McL]

I come from the low budget world where sometimes there is ONLY a wide, so it's been difficult for me to let some of those low n' wide shots go without wiring everybody so you hear 'em all the way through the scene. I don't always let 'em go, but depending upon how wide and what I know of the coverage, I begin to relax into the idea that I can do this sometimes without fear.

• When it's really, really wide...
  
• When wiring everyone would be a drain on the schedule and suck anyway, so...not wishing to tempt the post production sound gods...
  
• When I know for a fact that the director won't stay in the wide for more than a moment (because I ask)...
  

When else?

-- Jan

[Mirror]

...after 18 hours on set.

[Jeff Wexler]

I think you got it covered, Jan. I really rely on the relationship with the Director and the style of shooting/coverage to dictate whether we knock ourselves out on a wide master or not. I will always try to record something that hears everybody in the scene (but usually with a very far away boom mic or several plant mics) since I think this is very important for on set playback of the shot, dailies and editorial. Knowing that the shot is so wide that it could be ANYBODY yakking up a storm in the shot, I feel I have protected the process. The thing I like best is when we do a wide master, we don't wire the actors (we do it some other way) and it sound great --- it sounds just like it looks. Even better is when the shot is used in the movie, even briefly, and they use our sound (rather than cheating in the sound from coverage) --- this is gold for me, the opening wide shot of the scene helps tell the story, in a context, both visually and on the soundtrack. Doesn't happen often enough.

[BVS]

+1 Jeff...loved the old days of making the perspective work for the image...

BVS

[Scott Aitken]

hey Jan!

I tend to err on the side of wiring because so many indie directors don't know what they want. I always run the boom in the room unless the ambience is horrible and you're using the wires to try to get better signal to noise. I always give as many options with my usual notes of reccomendations to our hopefully "friendly" people in post.

That being said my last movie had an Editor in the directors chair who has made a few films and oh my god what a JOY....he's been bit by bad sound before in the edit and was very very supportive to "our" problems. It made me feel like i was making real movies again. We tended NOT to wire and much like Jeff pointed out tended to do things in "perspective" and used the natural quiet surroundings of well chosen locations (much thanks/support from AD's and Director and supportive Producers for that!). Nothing beats mixing a scene with some nice plant microphones and an overhead boom in my world.

+1 for me...As Jeff stated "it doesn't happen often enough"....so i tend to soak it up for those days when i'm in the forest and it's pouring rain with the genny parked a hundred feet away and i'm getting crappy RF reception!!

BTW...I watched and enjoyed your work on "Flakes" yesterday! And was pleasantly surprised for the first time to see an name i'd corresponded here!! The world got a little smaller and more firendlier for me. Not to sound like a stalker now...beaing a big fan of the beats, i'm really looking forward to checking out "Howl". All the best!

[Philip Perkins]

I guess the main issue is the fear that you won't get another shot at that dialog. Of course they could cut almost any dialog into a really wide shot, but we've all been burned by a production shooting a shot with dialog that way and then moving on w/o coverage or some new BG noise flares up when they do do coverage, or the actors suck by the time they do the closer stuff.... I mean, the production would RATHER have all the audio all the time, although I understand the grabbed-wide-shot-as-the-sun-sets kind of situation, in which you just have to grin and bear it.

phil p

[Marc Wielage]

When I know for a fact that the director won't stay in the wide for more than a moment (because I ask)...

I remember a famous interview with Alfred Hitchcock, where the interviewer observed that Hitch would only shoot the first couple of lines of dialog in a wide shot, then move the cameras in and continue the scene. The interviewer asked, "why not just shoot the entire master scene from the wide shot, and then do it all over again from the medium angles?" The great director looked askance, then replied, "why would I ever waste that much film? We'll never use anything but the first few seconds of the wide shot anyway to establish the scene, and then the rest will be medium shots and closeups!"

I wish more directors thought like Hitchcock. Now, everything has to be a master, start to finish, even though they know only a couple of seconds of a 3-minute (or longer) scene will make it into the film.

The other reality is: a lot of ignorant, non-technical people wind up seeing the dailies the next day. If they can't clearly understand the dialog (especially in TV), there's a chance that somebody's going to scream and complain. Sure, we know the perspective is "wrong," but there are those productions for whom the style is to have close-miked dialog in a wide shot. My philosophy is, as long as you give them the option of a real boom with realistic (distant) dialog as an iso, the re-recording mixer has the option of using it.

I concede that it's a subjective call, and if there's no time to wire 'em, you gotta go with what you got. If they do masters from all the other angles, then you're covered.

--Marc W.

[Philip Perkins]

My opinion: many younger producers and directors LIKE "wrong" perspective! They want to hear lav-close audio all the time, regardless of the shot-size. Some are clueless about this, but others I have spoken with understand the diff and prefer the close perspective. And it's their....oh never mind.

phil p

[mikewest]

I agree with all above.

I always ask the director what he/she needs

Some know, some don't understand and say they need wide shot sound

Yep on very wide shots the boom does not necessarily cut it - just a guide - so lavs needed.

I hate wasting production time but comply as required

mike

[Ferdinand Almalvez]

I've been on a show thats been doing wide/closeup ( ) and the perspective for the CU just doesnt make sense with a boom so I have to wire (boo), but I do agree with philip, my generation of filmmakers just love the "wrong perspective"

[studiomprd]

perspective of sound, matches picture...

That is what makes movies movies

[BVS]

I'm not a Radio with Pictures type of guy...I prefer the perspective and even with wireless mics you can place them so they cut better with the boom...a little movement up or down on the chest can change the bass tone by quite a margin...enough to make it sound more like a wider shot when lowered. Having been a rerecording mixer for 20 + years gives me the experience to know what works for the shot and most likely how it will be used.

BVS

[old school]

I really rely on the relationship with the Director and the style of shooting/coverage to dictate whether we knock ourselves out on a wide master or not. I will always try to record something that hears everybody in the scene (but usually with a very far away boom mic or several plant mics) since I think this is very important for on set playback of the shot, dailies and editorial. Knowing that the shot is so wide that it could be ANYBODY yakking up a storm in the shot, I feel I have protected the process. The thing I like best is when we do a wide master, we don't wire the actors (we do it some other way) and it sound great --- it sounds just like it looks. Even better is when the shot is used in the movie, even briefly, and they use our sound (rather than cheating in the sound from coverage) --- this is gold for me, the opening wide shot of the scene helps tell the story, in a context, both visually and on the soundtrack. Doesn't happen often enough.

I'm w JW n BVS n others on this Jan. Glad you are letting go when possible. Even when I do wire a cast for a big wide tableau shot, I use a lot of boom n room w a touch of wireless or plant for clarity trying to make it sound like it looks. I love it when it sounds right. Good subject.

CrewC

[RPSharman]

Unless they are running a tighter camera at the same time, ugh, I try very hard to just play the boom wide.

It's a judgment call really...

If it's CRAZY wide, then my experience is that they usually cut pretty quickly and don't run the scene. In this case, I try to plant a mic so they can at least hear the words, knowing they won't use the audio on such a wide shot.

If it's just ordinary wide, then I still boom it if it's just one camera, but only if I feel the signal to noise ratio is ok.

Sometimes it's important to let the "village people" hear the sound for the master, as this is where they might work out the performances in the scene, given rehearsals are rare these days. If you can't get a boom or a plant close enough, and they plan to run it through, then you might get stuck wiring the actors.

On my current show, they do the coverage first, trying to work out the performances, and hoping they might get lucky with something better than awful. Once they have coverage with acceptable performances, they pop back to grab a wide. In this case, it's usually one camera and I just play perspective. The cast is all very young and inexperienced. But we rehearse, the kids hit their marks (mostly), and we only wire in silly locations and walk and talks in tight corridors.

Robert

[kksaudio]

I recently worked on a " Found Footage " type film ( think ' Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 ). A majority of the shots and sequences were wide to medium wide. There was no coverage, at all ! Although at at times the main charactor would speak directly into his video camera, and was close to it sometimes.

So we couldn't let dialog go. A combiation of booms, plants and a few wires were required.

[RPSharman]

I recently worked on a " Found Footage " type film ( think ' Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 ). A majority of the shots and sequences were wide to medium wide. There was no coverage, at all ! Although at at times the main charactor would speak directly into his video camera, and was close to it sometimes.

So we couldn't let dialog go. A combiation of booms, plants and a few wires were required.

This is different scenario than a traditional narrative, where false perspective is required. The reality is that anyone not directly in front of the fictitious video camera would not be properly heard, so we must record a false perspective in order for the audience to enjoy the movie.

I did a similar project where a serial killer decides to hijack a documentary cameraman and his camera in order to document a "day-in-the-life" of himself. The sound guy is dispensed with at the beginning of the film, and dialog explains the camera mic is "very sensitive". The two characters/actors shared operating the camera, and they often spoke while operating, so I routinely placed an MKH50 facing backward on the camera. Sometimes the DP would operate, so I'd do a combination of booming both sides as well as having the 50 face forwards. As they encountered people, we tried to keep the sound as "loose" as possible to enhance the nature of the story, but not at the expense of hearing them. The character often interviewed or tormented his victims. There was little or no "gore" of any kind, and no action. It was all performance driven. A very interesting project.

[Richard Ragon]

Anyone ever watch Breaking Bad? Many outside scenes, many wide wide angles.. Great job, and hats off to whoever does sound on that, as the 'Wide' is designed into the show to highlight the openness of New Mexico.

[Richard Ragon]

perspective of sound, matches picture...

That is what makes movies movies

This is, as far as I'm concerned.. the one thing that makes our craft.. an Art. The audience expects a certain perspective, and when they don't hear that correct perspective, it breaks them out of the movie.. The picture becomes weird, and they don't know why..

This is also the largest snafu with un-trained ears, and newbie directors.. Dialog recorded with ADR, placed in a wide shot. Technically it's a correct recording.. but it doesn't sound right.

[Michael P Clark]

I did a similar project where a serial killer decides to hijack a documentary cameraman and his camera in order to document a "day-in-the-life" of himself. The sound guy is dispensed with at the beginning of the film, and dialog explains the camera mic is "very sensitive". The two characters/actors shared operating the camera, and they often spoke while operating, so I routinely placed an MKH50 facing backward on the camera. Sometimes the DP would operate, so I'd do a combination of booming both sides as well as having the 50 face forwards. As they encountered people, we tried to keep the sound as "loose" as possible to enhance the nature of the story, but not at the expense of hearing them. The character often interviewed or tormented his victims. There was little or no "gore" of any kind, and no action. It was all performance driven. A very interesting project.

I remember this! Your call sheet said, "Kill the Soundman" I hope you saved that call sheet!

[BVS]

I went to a lecture last night by an Associate Professor who is doing research on noise induced hearing loss...one of the many interesting things to come out of it was the way the Audio Cortex in the brain has to work harder to associate what we see in a picture with the sound that is recorded for that scene...if the sound doesn't match the perspective of what we are seeing then it has to work harder to try and reconcile what we are seeing and what we are hearing...and in fact leads to disengagement with the film after a while..so there's medical evidence there to show that getting the perspective right keeps your audience believing what they are seeing.

BVS

[studiomprd]

" has to work harder to try and reconcile what we are seeing and what we are hearing... "

I've been telling my students that for years, JW calls it a "disconnect" when he speaks with them...

Oh, yes, it is real!

[Rick Reineke]

"disconnect"..

That is indeed a good description. Whether the viewing audience is realizing it or not.

Way-back-when before I started doing location sound, the "Spaghetti Westerns' and such, always felt like, there's

something wrong here. This ain't real, which is true .. but...

[old school]

That is indeed a good description. Whether the viewing audience is realizing it or not.

Way-back-when before I started doing location sound, the "Spaghetti Westerns' and such, always felt like, there's

something wrong here. This ain't real, which is true .. but...

This could also be said of Robert Altmans films when he was doing "The Wedding". One never knew where the person talking was half the time. He got better at it but some of his films suffered from lack of perspective IMO.

CrewC

[Richard Ragon]

My wife also complains about my 'disconnect'..

-Richard

[Rainier Davenport]

I remember a famous interview with Alfred Hitchcock, where the interviewer observed that Hitch would only shoot the first couple of lines of dialog in a wide shot, then move the cameras in and continue the scene. The interviewer asked, "why not just shoot the entire master scene from the wide shot, and then do it all over again from the medium angles?" The great director looked askance, then replied, "why would I ever waste that much film? We'll never use anything but the first few seconds of the wide shot anyway to establish the scene, and then the rest will be medium shots and closeups!"

I wish more directors thought like Hitchcock. Now, everything has to be a master, start to finish, even though they know only a couple of seconds of a 3-minute (or longer) scene will make it into the film.

The other reality is: a lot of ignorant, non-technical people wind up seeing the dailies the next day. If they can't clearly understand the dialog (especially in TV), there's a chance that somebody's going to scream and complain. Sure, we know the perspective is "wrong," but there are those productions for whom the style is to have close-miked dialog in a wide shot. My philosophy is, as long as you give them the option of a real boom with realistic (distant) dialog as an iso, the re-recording mixer has the option of using it.

I concede that it's a subjective call, and if there's no time to wire 'em, you gotta go with what you got. If they do masters from all the other angles, then you're covered.

--Marc W.

I just love to add when the wide coverage is being discussed, "Why don't we just Top and Tail it, with a head and tail slate?" and just look at the confusion this causes...