Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

What's more important? Sound? Or Light?

J

Jason Ing

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
As I was reading a thread in the audio forum and, as usual, the silly debate and posturing of how important, equally important, or more important sound is then the picture, yada, yada... it reminded me of a true story.

When I was a film school student, I took a sound class that was taught by Tom Holman (who is he, you might ask? Ever heard of the THX sound system? THX stands for Tomlinson Holman's eXperiment).

Anyway, Tom started his class in the most memorable manner that I ever had the pleasure of witnessing:

Tom stood before the class in the plush theater classroom and patiently waited for his new students to walk in and settle down.

He waited... and waited... until every student uncomfortably became aware of the loudness of the smallest sounds... a muffled cough, a notebook paper being turned and readied for taking notes, the searching rustle of a backpack or purse, and the disrespectful whispering conversation of two students chatting... all of that, quickly died down until it seemed we could almost hear his smile as he began his first lecture of the semester...

"There is an ongoing debate on set between the 'sound' guys and the 'light' guys," Tom said, "What is more important? Sound? Or Light?"

Tom paused just long enough for each student to form an answer in their heads. (And, I confess, as a photographer I thought, "Light, of course"; I have since humbly changed my opinion and believe both are important.)

"And to that question, I say this." Tom said.

"And God SAID..."

... Let there be light!"

:)

And for the rest of the semester, we watched and listened to movies as Tom analyzed the sound and helped deaf students hear again.
 
There are a couple ugly movies i still like. I can't think of any movie I'd sit through with shitty sound.
 
IMHO *All* aspects are equally important - if one is bad it will spoil the others. however brilliant editing can fix mediocre light with outstanding music, its more difficult vice versa.

sidenote:

Last year, i had the joy and honor to work for the German Academy.

The project was to build showcase of excellence and knowledge, for all the aspects: music, sound, editing, camera, production, direction, acting.... and only 2 per category were picked.

Long discussions took place to decide which movie to put in which category, and i think that it is interesting that my favorite sound endet up in the "editing" category.

have a look:
http://vierundzwanzig.de/schnitt/interview_mit_uta_schmidt
 
Shawn Booth said:
I think Lucas said it - an audience can forgive a poor picture but not poor sound.
Click to expand...

The only exception to that rule I can think of is Shaft. The sound mix on that is horrible. People still love the film.

davide
 
Often, what is most important is based upon which performs poorest. In the case of a bad image, one would be inclined to elevate its importance, in the opposite situation, sound might be judged most important.

Good is subjective, bad is obvious.
 
The way audio sounds doesn't vary that much from movie to movie. But the picture can really vary. And if you have a bad picture, people can just think it's supposed to be that way. But if you have bad audio...
 
But if you have bad audio...
Click to expand...
You ADR all the shots. :)

Like in those hong kong action flicks. Or Lord of the Rings (apparently almost all the dialogue is ADR?).

There's definitely a different in quality in the ADR work.

2- Of course for low-budget indie films, bad audio can really kill you.
 
In the indy, low budget world, sound has always been a nemesis. When you can't afford to rent good sound equipment or an experienced person to run it, it becomes an uphill battle. More resources go to shooting the film because there are little resources to begin with and if you're going to get one thing right, well, it's probably the picture.

But I think these days, people are more aware of sound recording techniques and the equipment has become affordable and accessible, so there may be a shift towards getting it right or at least close, even on low, low budget films. That's a good sign. Audio post is becoming more accessible too, giving these films a chance to clean up some of the problems encountered on set.

Sound recording in the professional realm is still incredibly challenging, but you have skilled people doing it, with a lot of high end gear and top of the line post tools. Most of the time they get it right at this level. And it can go a long way to helping picture. The only thing that slightly worries me is that some of the mixes in the past few years have been very loud, almost similar to how they have been pushing music to the top in the CD world, trying to be the loudest. In film, it hasn't been this extreme, but I do feel like they've pushed my ear drums a bit far at times.
 
I completely understand and for the most part I am on board with Tom Holman's point, certainly as far as 99% of contemporary cinema goes. However, I've gotta go with light here. NOT because sound isn't important, or is subordinate to the picture. BUT, as it pertains to cinema:

If you have light but no sound, you have silent cinema:

Either it's of the pre-1930 variety, which, thanks to filmmakers like Carl Dreyer, FW Murnau, Sergei Eisenstein, Buster Keaton, DW Griffith, etc. has some amazing masterpieces

Or it's of the later avant-garde variety, with filmmakers such as Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Nathaniel Dorsky, and Peter Hutton, which has delivered some even more astounding masterpieces.

If you have just sound and no picture?

You have either radio, music, or sound design/sound art. Which can be amazing, impressive, and moving.

But it's not cinema.
 
It's also attitude. A lot of first time indie directors fawn over their DP as if he were a rock star often relegating their sound recordist to second banana or worse status. You can improve the quality of your movie's production sound 100% with a little bit of respect and attention paid. If the sound recordist says there's a plane or some other noise that's going to ruin the shot, pay them due and hold the shot until that thing can be fixed or waited on- assuming it's transient enough or fixable in a reasonable period. Because in my experience some actors suck at ADR and you wind up wishing you'd just waited another moment rather than pushed the go button and 'got that shot...'

Noah
 
I've read in a book that the sound mix is 70% of the movie. Personally I agree with that statement. I think people can generally detect bad sound a lot sooner than they can detect a composite that's not looking 100% realistic or lighting that could be made a little better by different placement. When watching Star Wars A New Hope the first thing I notice is the horrible sound recording and the ugly noise in it.

It's pretty amazing what the right music score or song will do for the images being shown too.

I agree that you should give 100% work towards both sound and lighting. But if you're on a really tight budget on an indy film, and you're looking at either purchasing a new mic, like an MKH-60 or 50, or a new HMI, I think you would add a lot more production value buying the mic instead of the HMI.
 
Why isn't thier sound footage for audio section like footage/field test section?It would be good to hear which mics and sound devices would complement Red One. :whistling:
 
Ayoji said:
Why isn't thier sound footage for audio section like footage/field test section?It would be good to hear which mics and sound devices would complement Red One. :whistling:
Click to expand...

Cuz it's not a priority... :shiftyph34r:

Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top