Schoeps MK41 questions

[Tyler Black]

I'm about to shoot a short with a sound op that has several years of experience, but on low-end jobs. I'm considering renting a Schoeps MK41 and I know it's got a narrow pickup pattern.

Shooting Conditions:
Primarily indoors with 2 actors speaking in the scenes - 17 pages of script

Questions:
Is it going to be difficult for an audio person with no experience running this shotgun to pick up two people speaking back and forth on one mic? Should I play it safe and use something with a wider pattern? I own a Sennheiser ME66, but I was trying to go for a little more quality for this... even though it's only going to go to festivals.

Is it worth spending the money on the Schoeps if it's only going to festivals?

Thanks

 

[Dave Blackham]

I'm about to shoot a short with a sound op that has several years of experience, but on low-end jobs. I'm considering renting a Schoeps MK41 and I know it's got a narrow pickup pattern.

Shooting Conditions:
Primarily indoors with 2 actors speaking in the scenes - 17 pages of script

Questions:
Is it going to be difficult for an audio person with no experience running this shotgun to pick up two people speaking back and forth on one mic? Should I play it safe and use something with a wider pattern? I own a Sennheiser ME66, but I was trying to go for a little more quality for this... even though it's only going to go to festivals.

Is it worth spending the money on the Schoeps if it's only going to festivals?

Thanks

The MK41 has got a wider polar pattern than the MKE66 so you should be fine there, its more like a Sennheiser MKH50 in pattern. Also they dont phaze on pans like the 66 or 416 mics will, if you can try to get the CCM version, its very small and you will have much more head (ceiling) room to operate a pole. The MK41 has a definite dead spot about 30 off axis to the rear and has an appreciably live spot at the rear on axis as its hyper cardioid. This is more pronounced than the 66 at the back end, the front lobe is no tighter than the 66. Also the Schoeps are more 'euphonic' sounding than the Sennheiser mics. We have many of both Sennheiser MKH and Schoeps MK ranges of mics here and like them both.

Id say go for it.

Dave

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

The CMC641 (or CMC5 or CMC4, as the case may be) are the shizzle for audio recording. You cannot go wrong with this combination indoors.

Let me also STRONGLY, STRONGLY, STRONGLY recommend that you also buy a boom pole holder from B&H for $20. If your actors are sitting around a table, this will be money very well spent. You'll just be able to set the mic up over the table and get wonderful, boom-free audio and never have to have a human touch the pole at all. Having had boom operators AND used a boom pole holder, I'll go with the holder whenever I can. It is not that boom holders can't do a better job under ideal conditions, because they can. It just so happens that what you gain in a slight directional change (movements of the boom pole) you more than lose in booms and other sounds you'll have to clean up in post. Use the holder. They are amazing. And so is a Schoeps with an MK-41 capsule on top!

Stephen

 

[Rob Castiglione]

I have the Schoeps MK41. A very natural sound and forgiving. Even if the boom person is off axis you will get very good sound.

 

[Tyler Black]

Thanks everyone

 

[Trailangel]

The CMC641 (or CMC5 or CMC4, as the case may be) are the shizzle for audio recording. You cannot go wrong with this combination indoors.

Let me also STRONGLY, STRONGLY, STRONGLY recommend that you also buy a boom pole holder from B&H for $20. If your actors are sitting around a table, this will be money very well spent. You'll just be able to set the mic up over the table and get wonderful, boom-free audio and never have to have a human touch the pole at all. Having had boom operators AND used a boom pole holder, I'll go with the holder whenever I can. It is not that boom holders can't do a better job under ideal conditions, because they can. It just so happens that what you gain in a slight directional change (movements of the boom pole) you more than lose in booms and other sounds you'll have to clean up in post. Use the holder. They are amazing. And so is a Schoeps with an MK-41 capsule on top!



Stephen

WRONG!.... boom holders are for interviews. Drama requires a "Boom Operator".. not holder. The problems you have with handling noise is that you didn't buy a good enough shockmount, or didn't hire the right soundperson!!! :smiley:

 

[Sound Sorcerer]

Obliviously Stephen is not a professional Filmmaker. :hand: And as the previous poster clarifies, "Boom Holders" are for interviews or situations alike when you're dealing with a "talking head" on a stationary position. I do own a so called "Boom Holder"; but for drama, feature & other TV work I always recommend to hire a Professional "Boom Operator".

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to claim "professional filmmaker" status just yet, but I'll let my first feature film (which is coming out this fall) speak for itself. :smile5:

The bottom line is that there are an awful lot of scenes in many a film, particularly dramas, where the actors never once get up and move around. . . virtually all table conversation shots, for example. In these cases, anything you gain by having a slightly more directional move on the boom pole, you'll almost certainly lose with slightly higher noise levels, particularly if the boom operator has to make a quick side-to-side move. Advantage: Boom pole holder. In addition, ANY close-up shot where the actor isn't moving much (which is the vast majority of close-ups by my unofficial count) is also a candidate for a boom holder. Since the camera is in so tight, there is virtually no possibility that the actor's mouth could move sufficiently off-axis to present a discernable audio challenge. And if they move in for more emphasis into a shot, a static boom pole will naturally capture the slight volume and ambient/direct ratio differences inherent in the move.

I'm not saying that a great boom operator isn't worth their salt. I'm just saying that the vast majority of low-budget indie productions (such as the one mentioned by the original poster) don't have the coin to hire one. In these cases, a boom pole holder will make a huge difference in the final production value.

On the other hand, I'm getting to the point where I definitely prefer using digital wireless lavs on all of my actors anyway. We found that our Lectros and Sonotrims cut so well with the MK-41, that it was quite difficult to tell the difference between them. . . except, of course, that there was a lot less ambient noise from the lavs. We are going to be laving every actor in "Terminal." Those Sonotrims are literally amazing.

Stephen

 

[Trailangel]

Not very many Boom Ops in Iowa or wherever you are, huh?
The bottom line is there are an awful lot of scenes, as well as many takes where the actors move, camera moves, everybody moves......many more moving scenes than not. And sometimes the next take director would like just a bit different. "Move your head just to the left!" And you can start to see why the lockdown boom holder is a bad idea.
Wally! We are trying to help you!
But there is a Newbie's POV of movie making.... and it's called "I know how to reinvent the wheel" And this doesn't work. People have been making moving pictures for 100 years and pretty much know what works and what doesn't.

Film is a language... you must STUDY IT AND KNOW IT!

Wireless Lavs....an over used tool.
I can still hear one audio mentor's voice in my ear, even though he passed away 10 years ago..... PERSPECTIVE!

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

From Jim Jannard:

"Real names...

We don't have a ton of rules here... be respectful, give us your real name, etc.

Many of you have done what we asked many months ago and modified your screen name to your real name. But some haven't. Now is the time. Please.

I'm going to ask the moderators to help as much as possible. But you have to step up or please post somewhere else."

Guys?

Stephen

Jim

 

[Tom Visser]

On the other hand, I'm getting to the point where I definitely prefer using digital wireless lavs on all of my actors anyway. We found that our Lectros and Sonotrims cut so well with the MK-41, that it was quite difficult to tell the difference between them. . . except, of course, that there was a lot less ambient noise from the lavs. We are going to be laving every actor in "Terminal." Those Sonotrims are literally amazing.

Stephen

Some people just don't have ears, and it's hard for me to say this without sounding like I'm insulting you, for that's not really my intent, but your comments about the non-necessity for a boom op and preference of lavs over a boom mic, are really pretty far off. Digital wireless and lavs have come a long way, but it is still very much a compromise in sound quality compared to proper boom mics. I will give you that no boom op is probably better than a bad boom op, but maybe for some reason your productions are not being given the opportunity to acquire good sound people, perhaps due to some preconceived notions of what it takes to get good sound and putting too much credit to having purchased a few good mics and not also acquiring the people with the right skills. This of course is complete conjecture and a bit unfair on my part, but there must be something that explains the discrepancy of your experience with others, and I for one do not believe that it is due to the inherent weakness in having a human touch a boom pole or the lack of performance of a good shotgun or hypercardioid versus a lav mic.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Ill just add to this, its very important. Any lav is likely to be in in the wrong place so perspective is incorrect and audio is compromised, not to mention problems with RF link, rustling clothing and all manner of other problems. Learn to use a pole and use a mic with suitable polar pattern as your primary source of sound. Lav and radio mics have their place and I own 20 of the best, Im not against them, but they are not a first choice of mic.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Tom, Dave, etc.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. And you're right, Tom, you certainly are being unfair in judging what you have not seen (or heard) or, even more importantly, haven't been present to sufficiently understand the inherent limitations involved. But whoever said life was fair?

Most of the time when we shoot we are in actual locations with real activity all around us that we can't control (not created sets where we can control every aspect of the production) and we almost always have to get in and out of these locations much too quickly to do any "set sweetening." In these instances, we have found that lavs very often have given us what we want better than the booms (CMIT5-U and CMC641). And this would be true regardless of who was holding them, by the way.

It's like anything else, you pull out the best tool for the job at hand. In our case, and in my artistic judgment, the best tool for the job has often turned out to be the Sonotrim lavs. Now, we do boom whenever and wherever we can. That's the beauty of a having a multitrack recorder. It just turns out that I, personally, often prefer the sound captured by the lavs. But you're right, sometimes there is noise in the lavs that isn't there on the boom, and it's nice to be able to cut between them. But most of the time, it's the other way around. I have almost never regretted shooting with just the lavs, but I have often regretted shooting with just the boom.

Again, I agree with you. In a perfect world (or on a perfect set), I'll go with a great boom mic every time. It just turns out that the world I shoot in, which usually involves using fantastic, free locations I can't control, can't be made close to perfect very often at all.

Stephen

 

[Alex Donkle]

Tom, Dave, etc.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. And you're right, Tom, you certainly are being unfair in judging what you have not seen (or heard) or, even more importantly, haven't been present to sufficiently understand the inherent limitations involved. But whoever said life was fair?

Most of the time when we shoot we are in actual locations with real activity all around us that we can't control (not created sets where we can control every aspect of the production) and we almost always have to get in and out of these locations much too quickly to do any "set sweetening." In these instances, we have found that lavs very often have given us what we want better than the booms (CMIT5-U and CMC641). And this would be true regardless of who was holding them, by the way.

It's like anything else, you pull out the best tool for the job at hand. In our case, and in my artistic judgment, the best tool for the job has often turned out to be the Sonotrim lavs. Now, we do boom whenever and wherever we can. That's the beauty of a having a multitrack recorder. It just turns out that I, personally, often prefer the sound captured by the lavs. But you're right, sometimes there is noise in the lavs that isn't there on the boom, and it's nice to be able to cut between them. But most of the time, it's the other way around. I have almost never regretted shooting with just the lavs, but I have often regretted shooting with just the boom.

Again, I agree with you. In a perfect world (or on a perfect set), I'll go with a great boom mic every time. It just turns out that the world I shoot in, which usually involves using fantastic, free locations I can't control, can't be made close to perfect very often at all.

Stephen

Stephen,

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion and maybe lavs do work better for your style, but I think the statement "I'm getting to the point where I definitely prefer using digital wireless lavs on all of my actors anyway." just comes off as a little insulting to boom ops and mixers who have done tons of both and both consistently prefer boom in most cases. I think your statement sort of implies that it's a "more evolved" taste to like the sound lavs over boom, instead of just working better for your style of shooting as you later explained.

However, I must ask, how much have you listened to the raw audio (before post can work some time and magic into matching them) cutting between the two in a true, calibrated dubbing stage? Not just a pair of headphones or a friends set of Mackies, but a real stage.

 

[Tom Visser]

Tom, Dave, etc.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. And you're right, Tom, you certainly are being unfair in judging what you have not seen (or heard) or, even more importantly, haven't been present to sufficiently understand the inherent limitations involved. But whoever said life was fair?

Most of the time when we shoot we are in actual locations with real activity all around us that we can't control (not created sets where we can control every aspect of the production) and we almost always have to get in and out of these locations much too quickly to do any "set sweetening." In these instances, we have found that lavs very often have given us what we want better than the booms (CMIT5-U and CMC641). And this would be true regardless of who was holding them, by the way.

It's like anything else, you pull out the best tool for the job at hand. In our case, and in my artistic judgment, the best tool for the job has often turned out to be the Sonotrim lavs. Now, we do boom whenever and wherever we can. That's the beauty of a having a multitrack recorder. It just turns out that I, personally, often prefer the sound captured by the lavs. But you're right, sometimes there is noise in the lavs that isn't there on the boom, and it's nice to be able to cut between them. But most of the time, it's the other way around. I have almost never regretted shooting with just the lavs, but I have often regretted shooting with just the boom.

Again, I agree with you. In a perfect world (or on a perfect set), I'll go with a great boom mic every time. It just turns out that the world I shoot in, which usually involves using fantastic, free locations I can't control, can't be made close to perfect very often at all.

Stephen

I think in those instances where you noted that there is uncontrollable background noise, a lav mic is preferred and although I would still boom it too, it would mostly be for a guide track or to provide some ambience which can be subtly mixed in later by the post remixer. Boom mic would probably be a wide pattern or omni mic and not too tight to the talent. I think you were being unfair by attributing your own personal working environments to an industry wide "standard". ...but why are you shooting in such environments? I guess you aren't using lighting either or is sound considered so unimportant that tech scouts discount the needs of the sound department? What you are describing, a noisy environment, attributing that as a problem to the boom op and mic... doesn't seem fair either. It really comes down to, if your going to shoot in a noisy environment, there is going to be noise and even a lav isn't going to totally ameliorate that. So when it comes down to it in post, hey why is there so much noise on these tracks! Is the answer, "because we used a boom op and a boom mic"? No, it is because, we failed to properly scout locations or make the appropriate location choices in pre-production. If your not working on narrative stuff, it is quite understandable, but if you are, then the fault really seems to lie outside of the sound department, in my opinion.

If there wasn't a true need for lavs, then we wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars procuring them, but I think that one important distinction in our viewpoints is that I try to acknowledge that it takes someone who critically evaluates a shot, from a sound perspective, and then chooses the right tools at his disposal to do the job, rather than focussing on the issues in a human / tool perspective. There are hammers and there is duct tape. Both are useful, sometimes you only need one or the other, sometimes they compliment each other nicely, but you couldn't do you job as a handyman with only one on your tool belt.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

We aren't so far apart, Tom. . . and, by the way, all I shoot is set-shot narrative.

The issue in our case is always cost and inherent trade-offs. If we had more money, we'd be able to make more time. We'd be able to make things quieter. We'd be able to make things better. And the list goes on and on. It is clear that our original poster had a problem with the budget, too, hence my recommendations. If he didn't, he wouldn't have posted here in the first place.

Maybe you are used to only dealing with super big-budget Hollywood productions, but those of us spending in the $300,000 range for a feature film have to make hard. . . very hard. . . choices. Saying things like "No, it is because, we failed to properly scout locations or make the appropriate location choices in pre-production" aren't terribly helpful, either. No, we didn't fail. We simply picked the most amazing locations given the constraints handed to us. If we could build a film set, sure it would be better, but we can't, so we do the best we can. It isn't just the video. And it isn't just the audio. And it isn't just the script. And it isn't just the actors and performance. It isn't any one of those things, it's a mixture of all them. And anyone who says that a film is only as good as its weakest link hasn't seen "Once" (which is easily the most poorly-shot film I've ever loved).

As for lights, sure we bring in lights (we've got a very good selection of HMIs, Kinos, tungstens, etc.), but we bring in precious few in some cases. We try to make the light we have naturally in the scene work for us (by using scrims and reflectors), but as you well know, that sort of minimalist treatment seldom works with audio. If the jerk down the street with the loud stereo can't be convinced to turn down his rap, then that's an issue best dealt with either in post (as ADR, which I positively loathe) or on the set (using, as you note, and we do, lavs). We have choices that have to be made. We could choose a less interesting indoor environment, or we could attempt to make the scene work within the constraints we actually have to work with. Even working indoors isn't a panacea to sonic excellence, as some places have HVAC systems so old they simply cannot be turned off (or the owners won't let you turn them off because the folks in other areas will complain). That boom is going to suck that sound up bigger than life. Lavs again. It's just the right tool for the job in these exceptionally ambient environments.

The bottom line is that we have a lot of good tools to play with here at NEVER2LATE Productions, and we get better and better every day in learning how to use them. We'd love to be able to hire the best of everything, and people who don't think I would obviously don't know Stephen Pruitt. But if anyone thinks that "Works in Progress" won't land in Sundance (which we highly doubt it will, by the way) because we decided to opt for wireless lavs instead of a boom, I gotta feel sorry for him.

Over and out on this end.

FYI, we just officially announced our next (poorly recorded) feature film ("Terminal") today.

Stephen