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 :)

Convince Me Not To Record Sound In Camera

The whole thing depends what the external equipment is.

If the recordist you've hired is going to use a good preamp, AD/DA and word clock it with a Big Ben -or if he is going to use a word clock at all, use his gear... If not, record it with both. No reason to have to work on syncing everything up if you listen to the tracks in a clean environment and you can't tell the difference (on set with your iPod headphones does not count!), dont waste your time using the Recordist's tracks- the camera's audio already synced. Product over process.

I don't have a RED, so I can't tell you what that end is like, but 4 channels of 48K at 24 bit uncompress is decent- you wont get laughed out of a studio during mixdown. If your recordist can record at a higher rate, that is something to consider and use. ALWAYS INSIST ON 24 BIT AUDIO! If they cant or wont do 24 bit (storage concerns are common) dont hire them again. Ever. Any mixdown guy, worth his or her salt, will tell you 24 bit is best. But, if you're going to skimp on the mix-down and mastering, a recordist is a waste of time and money too. Any dude with a boom can tell if something sounds natural, because that's what you're going to get- the most natural sound.

BTW, when I say mixdown guy, I'm excluding guys who mix exclusively in a DAW (commonly called 'in the box'). If they come out to a console (live sound console doesn't count) (this is called 'mixing out of the box') or a summing mixer (hybrid mixing), then they likely have an ear worth trusting and knowledge worth relying upon.

Keep in mind. Everything from start to finish is all AES/EBU with a quality word clock over BNC in hollywood. Ok, maybe not on set, but like what, 90% of dialogue in a major motion pictures is ADR'ed. You can bet that's a very expensive solid state preamp, into likely an Apogee AD/DA clocked with a big ben in a legit studio.

Rule o' wrist, (any 'Boon Dock Saints' fans out there?) if the audio is going to stay in your NLE, dont waste your money on any thing but a good mic.

If you're going to worry about mixdown at a decent place, dont talk to your recordists about how to record, talk to the mastering guy about what he thinks is best (gear, processes, and what and how he wants tracks from the mixdown- how many stems does he want? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_mixing_and_mastering]). He is the one who will be polishing it, dont shoot him in the foot before the game has started. Most mixdown guys think they know whats goin' on, but truth be told, Mastering gear has changed so much, mixes from a mixdown guy just become references if they get stems, if not, little can be done besides shaping the whole thing and a compression, but there is no balance control - which you need after compressing and limiting.

And dont ever master with your mix guy. And if you cant leave with a copy of session files and audio tracks, dont go to that studio- Simple as that. Back that crap up every time you leave the mixdown session ON YOUR OWN DRIVE! Forrest Gump was right -Shit happens, and at $25- $100 an hour, not even God can afford to re do mixes... Even if the studio will comp the time, do you have that extra time in your post production schedule? For $100, go get a 500 gig external drive and back that S up.

You wouldn't take a feature shot on a Mini DV to a colorist or editor who commonly works on 4k footage and be shocked when he says it is junk or be surprised when you don't have depth of field? Dont do it to your audio.

Focus on the process, not a step on the process.

Billy
 
Billy,

I'm guessing you come more from the music side than the film side of sound...
1. Films don't have mastering engineerings. They're mixed in a calibrated stage with 2-3 re-recording mixers.

2. Especially if the audio is going to be all NLE, having a location sound mixer is best, as otherwise your only real option is to record iso tracks and you'd need to dig through each track to find what's the best source. Better bet is a mixer that can record iso tracks, but mainly he gives you a single additional track that is a mix of all available mics done during the take. This is the best chance of a "use this track" post production plan.
Example: If there's a plant mic on a table and the actors then walk into a close-up, a mixer watches the actors and blends between the plant mic and the boom mic during the take. Or between lavs. Save so much time in post (although the track isn't usually 100% perfect, it's almost always better than any single track is by itself)

3. The "mastering" position you're referring to is generally the "Supervising Sound Editor" who helms the audio side from start to finish (ideally). Their main job focus is in post audio though. On the set, location sound mixer has the job to get the best audio possible. If more tracks are needed, it's his call to get them. If he likes a certain mic, it's his call.

4. A good mic means very little compared to the support gear. Boom poles, shock mounts, headphones, mixers, hypercardiors, windjammers, blimps, lavs, wires, ect... the list goes on and on about the tools that are used to capture the best audio. Not to mention the expertise required to use the gear.

5. "but like what, 90% of dialogue in a major motion pictures is ADR'ed." If you're working on an action film with a director that hates sound to his bones, then maybe. The amount on most films is much less than that. Even films as varied as Meet the Folkers (with many people talking at once) to Dark Knight (action) managed to use very large amounts of production sound in their final mixes. It varies drastically from film to film though.
 
Alex Donkle said:
Billy,

I'm guessing you come more from the music side than the film side of sound...
1. Films don't have mastering engineerings. They're mixed in a calibrated stage with 2-3 re-recording mixers.

2. Especially if the audio is going to be all NLE, having a location sound mixer is best, as otherwise your only real option is to record iso tracks and you'd need to dig through each track to find what's the best source. Better bet is a mixer that can record iso tracks, but mainly he gives you a single additional track that is a mix of all available mics done during the take. This is the best chance of a "use this track" post production plan.
Example: If there's a plant mic on a table and the actors then walk into a close-up, a mixer watches the actors and blends between the plant mic and the boom mic during the take. Or between lavs. Save so much time in post (although the track isn't usually 100% perfect, it's almost always better than any single track is by itself)

3. The "mastering" position you're referring to is generally the "Supervising Sound Editor" who helms the audio side from start to finish (ideally). Their main job focus is in post audio though. On the set, location sound mixer has the job to get the best audio possible. If more tracks are needed, it's his call to get them. If he likes a certain mic, it's his call.

4. A good mic means very little compared to the support gear. Boom poles, shock mounts, headphones, mixers, hypercardiors, windjammers, blimps, lavs, wires, ect... the list goes on and on about the tools that are used to capture the best audio. Not to mention the expertise required to use the gear.

5. "but like what, 90% of dialogue in a major motion pictures is ADR'ed." If you're working on an action film with a director that hates sound to his bones, then maybe. The amount on most films is much less than that. Even films as varied as Meet the Folkers (with many people talking at once) to Dark Knight (action) managed to use very large amounts of production sound in their final mixes. It varies drastically from film to film though.
Click to expand...

Alex-

Product over process.

#2 sounds like it'd be very problematic to phase issues... 3:1...

I'm the type of guy who would rather track as much ISO'ed stuff as I can and mix it later. That's the best way to insure the highest quality. And that's what I'm saying too- 4 channels on the red is enough to act as your iso'd mixer. If whatever the Recordist is using is a higher quality recorder- then go for it.

When I refer to a mastering guy, I'm talking for non-standard reference for equipment and process for the best quality. I'm just saying, if you're lost, talk to them.

There must be some mastering step. Someone must master the levels.

And you're right- Radio/Music...

I will give you the ADR stuff. That was a shot in the dark with hints of blind assumptions; the few things I have worked on have had that much ADR in it (gennies, airplanes, plain-ol' nasty sounding rooms, so on so forth).

And I see your process as more of an ideal "if you're in a place with those resources," where as my situation is more available in shall we say, podunkville. Music studios are a dime a dozen.

Ya, good supporting equipment was an unspoken assumption with the 'good mic' statement.

The other factor to consider, isn't what is ideal- it is the case of this particular gentlemen's post.

I'll tell you this, it seems that music guys are more critical of the actual fidelity of audio. Digital audio has changed the way audio production should be dealt with and those methods sound very analog...

You can't turn a blind ear to the impact an AD/DA and word clocking has on digital audio...

Billy
 
Audio

Audio

But seriously, we've been having trouble playing back clips in camera when there is embedded audio. Build 17. The clips are fine, you just can't watch them in the camera.
Click to expand...

Solution is to upgrade to Build 20. Problem solved.
 
I'm with Raul. . . we usually do both, but on smaller projects with a really small crew, we always just go straight into the camera.

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