if you could ADR everything, would you?

[Sabovic Adis]

If you could ADR everything (without changing budget) in an environment without noise on a Neumann U-87... would you?

Doesn't make any sense.
You absolutely need the noise - Foley... :ihih:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Most directors would agree on getting the sound on set for performance reasons. One of the few to think otherwise is John Boorman, who has extolled the advantages of ADR in terms allowing the director and actors another pass at adjusting the performance vocally, free of the distractions on a movie set. Boorman would often cite classic Italian movies, which he felt had a lot of visual style because they were free of the concerns about getting good audio. But he is in the minority on this and the truth is that in his later pictures with less action and more talking, he might have preferred the audio recorded on set, I don't know.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Post-dubbed movies like "Excalibur" have a certain odd vibe in terms of the way that dialogue sounds but in fantasy setting like that, I don't think it hurts the film, that unreality.

Most of the dialogue on the Enterprise bridge set in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" had to be ADR'd because of the 16mm projectors used for all of the monitors on set; I read somewhere that Leonard Nimoy was the best at looping his own dialogue in that group, the most comfortable working that way (whether or not he preferred it.)

 

[Sabovic Adis]

In my expirience the "musicians" do it best - got good sense for tempo, timing, dynamics, tonality...:biggrin:

 

[Marc Wielage]

why not spend the money on a good sound man instead.

One can often make a good argument that it costs less money to get the sound right the first time, rather than spending more money to do it all over again in post.

 

[Elsie N]

One can often make a good argument that it costs less money to get the sound right the first time, rather than spending more money to do it all over again in post.

And conversely, one could argue it is cheaper to do ADR than reshoot a scene that had an unknown problem or just didn't work originally. '-)

 

[Akin A]

No! The acting would be horrible.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

No! The acting would be horrible.

Less natural, different, more stylized, but not necessarily horrible unless you think the acting in all the Sergio Leone westerns is horrible, or the acting in John Boorman's "Deliverance" and "Excalibur" for example. Or "Patton", I heard that most of that sound was replaced in post. Probably most of "Lawrence of Arabia" too ended being post-dubbed. And certainly most of the sound in Kurosawa's famous samurai movies had to be added in post.

 

[Marc Wielage]

And conversely, one could argue it is cheaper to do ADR than reshoot a scene that had an unknown problem or just didn't work originally. '-)

I again say that some ADR is necessary for all movies & TV shows. But -- to answer the o.p.'s question -- I think it's a very bad idea to go into a project with the idea that you'll loop every single line in the entire show from start to finish, because it just sounds like crap. Modern audiences are not going to go with the entire thing done this way. Even heavy ADR shows like Star Wars and The Hobbit still used vast combinations of location sound and ADR, along with a lot of wild lines, for the final mix. And no matter what, you still need some kind of decent basic location sound just as reference so that the actor knows how to time all their phrases for ADR in post.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

ADR is used much more than people who are not working in sound post realize, and if done properly it can sound very good.
Regardless, it is a fix and it requires additional work, which can be avoided in most cases, and as any fix should not be relied upon.

 

[David Battistella]

Most directors would agree on getting the sound on set for performance reasons. One of the few to think otherwise is John Boorman, who has extolled the advantages of ADR in terms allowing the director and actors another pass at adjusting the performance vocally, free of the distractions on a movie set. Boorman would often cite classic Italian movies, which he felt had a lot of visual style because they were free of the concerns about getting good audio. But he is in the minority on this and the truth is that in his later pictures with less action and more talking, he might have preferred the audio recorded on set, I don't know.

Italians still don't care that much about sync. It's a style thing, and you still see it in some "modern films". Terrance stamp tells a great story about how Fellini had his actors count from one to ten durning scenes to suggest lip movement for later audio, but that became a sort of sophisticated theatrical style all in itself.

I thinkm it it is because Italian cinema, to some extent is born out of the theater, puppetry and street performance that lends itself to the suspension of belief, so sync matters a lot less than in a,eric an cinema which tends to demand something much more real. (Starting, sort of with the actors studio)

its all a fairly interesting cultural dissection.

David

 

[Christian Moriarty]

Short film "Near" shot entirely as scratch VO and ADR as effect.
This approach allowed us to select locations that were normally unusable.
https://vimeo.com/87731879
The Post side of syncing allowed the Director to improve the inflections and performance.
Each actor was recorded 1 at a time - on different days.
Sound Asylum & Tim Fowler in Tampa supervised.

 

[David Battistella]

I gotta say, I am sorta for ADRing everything from about the last three Mathew McConaughey movies though. Interstellar felt like a mublefest at times.

 

[Greg M]

And conversely, one could argue it is cheaper to do ADR than reshoot a scene that had an unknown problem or just didn't work originally. '-)

Yes, but the OP asked about ADR for the entire film not one scene. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Elsie N]

One can often make a good argument that it costs less money to get the sound right the first time, rather than spending more money to do it all over again in post.

And conversely, one could argue it is cheaper to do ADR than reshoot a scene that had an unknown problem or just didn't work originally. '-)

Yes, but the OP asked about ADR for the entire film not one scene. Makes no sense at all.

Yes, but I was commenting on Marcs one-liner... which makes no sense at all. '-)

 

[David W. Jones]

I prefer AVR. :coolgleamA:

Get great audio from set, but shoot video with the lens cap on.

Then go back and replace all the black scenes with a secondary video shoot matched up to the primary audio.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Yes, but I was commenting on Marcs one-liner... which makes no sense at all. '-)

Which one-liner would that be? It's always better to get the sound right there on location than to spend weeks and weeks in post laboriously recording all the dialogue over again. You have to record the audio anyway just as reference on location; all it takes is the effort and ability to do it well.

Nobody was talking about reshooting a scene -- that's a total non-sequitur. Again: ADR is a normal and necessary part of every major TV show and feature film, and you're going to need it for a line here, a line there, and -- yes -- sometimes an entire scene. But the whole feature? That's just crazy talk.

I worked on Rome for HBO, shot at Cinecitta in Italy from 2003-2005, and those were very noisy, bad sound stages with all kinds of jets flying overhead, traffic noise, air conditioning rumble, you name it. All the takes were dutifully synced up in dailies... but the final broadcast show looked largely ADR'd to me. One of the reasons that the show was cancelled is that it went quite a bit over budget, and I would bet that the sound contributed a little bit to that. But I would totally agree that the Italian crews I worked with were not used to capturing really good, usable sound on every scene. This would not fly in LA, NY, Vancouver, or London.

 

[M.Halsell]

It may be a short film, looking for maximum production value. Or could have been a audio/microphone related question. I'm just as curious as the rest about the application..

But specific to ADR, in past sessions, we commonly use a 3 microphone system, reconding on 3 separate channels: 2 shotguns and 1 Lavalier, shotguns boomed overhead and chest high & at different distances and the LAV placed traditionally.

If not recording in a optimal acoustic environment, try to keep the noise floor under -50dBfs. Gives software sound suppression the best chance of success. And again, pitch and performance are the two elements that can give the right emotiv to sell good ADR.

 

[Marc Wielage]

But specific to ADR, in past sessions, we commonly use a 3 microphone system, reconding on 3 separate channels: 2 shotguns and 1 Lavalier, shotguns boomed overhead and chest high & at different distances and the LAV placed traditionally.

I don't think this is a good idea, because of the potential for somebody to mix the two booms together and throw that signal completely out of phase. There are scenes that need two booms, but that would be two actors that are (say) 10 feet apart, look at each other, and speaking in different directions. For that, you need two booms or you'd need to use wireless lavs on each actor, or both. Boom ops and sound mixers routinely argue as to where the best position is for the mic, but I'd say it depends on the specific mic, the actor, and the conditions. Typically, I'd aim a little lower than the mouth but not quite at the chest, but a cardioid mic would need a different approach than an extremely directional shotgun. The real problem is how to compensate for actors' movements and what happens when they start speaking off-mic.

Relative noise floor is not necessarily just a number. Viewers can accept a degree of background noise provided the actors speak up and the noise is justified by the scene itself. I've seen surprisingly noisy traffic shots shot in NY where the dialogue used in the final was actual location sound. All they needed is for the actors to speak up, and the audience would see, "ah -- there's cars and trucks all around them." The trick is for the sound editor to cut all this together in a way that's believable; the John Purcell book on recording dialogue that I mentioned earlier goes over this in great detail.

 

[Elsie N]

Which one-liner would that be? It's always better to get the sound right there on location than to spend weeks and weeks in post laboriously recording all the dialogue over again. You have to record the audio anyway just as reference on location; all it takes is the effort and ability to do it well.

Nobody was talking about reshooting a scene -- that's a total non-sequitur. Again: ADR is a normal and necessary part of every major TV show and feature film, and you're going to need it for a line here, a line there, and -- yes -- sometimes an entire scene. But the whole feature? That's just crazy talk.

I worked on Rome for HBO, shot at Cinecitta in Italy from 2003-2005, and those were very noisy, bad sound stages with all kinds of jets flying overhead, traffic noise, air conditioning rumble, you name it. All the takes were dutifully synced up in dailies... but the final broadcast show looked largely ADR'd to me. One of the reasons that the show was cancelled is that it went quite a bit over budget, and I would bet that the sound contributed a little bit to that. But I would totally agree that the Italian crews I worked with were not used to capturing really good, usable sound on every scene. This would not fly in LA, NY, Vancouver, or London.

Post #25.

And I get what you are saying... that your previous posts would have better explained your position. But I've come to understand that few on REDuser have "followers" that read their every post, so each post stands on its own for the most part.

Many people will post in a long thread after reading the OPs thread-starter and sometimes the last page of a thread.

Such are the ways of a forum.