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 :)

Sound Mixer Hell

M

Marc Wielage

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
6,541
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Hollywood, USA
After a few difficult conversations with cheapskate indie producers over the past few years, I created this little cartoon just to highlight some of the problems in the fine art of rate negotiations:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6807847/

Important safety tip: this is not intended as a criticism of the Red camera or anybody who uses it. The point is, there are some confused filmmakers out there who seem to believe the camera is the be-all, end-all, and that actors, sound people, makeup artists, set designers, and other crew members are all secondary in terms of importance.

I've already had a couple of emails from DPs complaining that they've had similar meetings, where producers expect them to furnish a full-blown Red MX, lighting package, assistant, and grip gear for a couple of hundred a day. Just insane. Note that I have no problem working for free for (very) close friends or for charity projects, which I gladly do a few times a year. But for total strangers, uh-uh.

10,000 hits and climbing (so far), in less than a week...
 
Marc Wielage said:
Important safety tip: this is not intended as a criticism of the Red camera or anybody who uses it. The point is, there are some confused filmmakers out there who seem to believe the camera is the be-all, end-all, and that actors, sound people, makeup artists, set designers, and other crew members are all secondary in terms of importance.
Click to expand...

I believe it IS a lot of RED owners.....this is something people don't understand.
Just because the cost of HD has come way down in price, doesn't mean the cost of audio has come down....it has stayed the same. One good shotgun mic cost more then a Canon 5D with factory lens. One good wireless and we can buy 2 of these cameras. Now we have cheap cameras with a lot of young "filmmakers" that just add more cameras rather than working up story boards and shooting single camera. HA.... and then just wire up all the actors with wireless. We are overloaded right now with grads right out of film school thinking they can get crew and gear for the same great prices they did there student work for... free crew and a lot of the gear free.
JUST SAY NO
 
"One good shotgun mic cost more then a Canon 5D with factory lens. One good wireless and we can buy 2 of these cameras."

Yes, good audio gear is expensive (I know. . . I've bought quite a bit of it). But comparing a Schoeps CMIT-5Uto a Canon 5D is a bit like apples and oranges. You're comparing the very best audio against acceptable video. A more apt comparison would be Canon vis-a-vis Sennheiser. The relative quality is about the same, but the Canon set-up is much more expensive.

Stephen
 
I certainly do get it. I just don't like comparing an Acura (Schoeps) to a Chevrolet (5D Mk II for video).

The main point of the original video (which I did think was mildly amusing) was that sound is almost always slighted in indie productions. Everyone has their biases. The DP of my first film once told me "There's nothing difficult about sound. You just point a microphone at the actors and say 'action'." Obviously, this gent had exactly zero experience working with location audio. But that wasn't his job and so it wasn't his bias.

On the other hand, a lot of the sound recordists I have met over the past couple of years clearly have the opposite bias: "Any idiot can take a picture."

For some reason, the RED has assumed an almost demonic status among the RAMPS crowd simply for allowing people like little ol' me to make Hollywood-quality images. If we decide not to augment those images with Hollywood-quality location sound, then it's no one's fault but our own. BUT, the one certainty I have learned since starting making movies is that it is a lot easier to capture good video and good audio than a jaded DP or grizzled sound recordist would lead one to believe. Neither task is molecular biology, so let's not pretend that they are.

Stephen
 
This is an interesting topic. It is because of the Red camera that I've made quite a bit of money working part time as a sound mixer so I'm not going to complain about the price of Red or its great images.

On the other hand, I can show up to a shoot with the same amount of money invested in sound gear as someone has in a low end red setup and they're making decent rental rate, I'm getting my day rate. For some reason, I don't get to charge for my equipment the same as the camera man so yes, there a little disparity in this situation.

The upside is, if you consider the useful life of a decent HD camera to be less than 3 years before it's time to upgrade, that's not the case with sound gear. My sound gear will be going strong for many generations of Cameras so I can recoup it over time.

The truth is, the camera is the "sexy" equipment to buy. Sound gear isn't.
 
David, your comment about the relatively longer life of great audio gear is very well-taken. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of CMC441s working every day on film sets around the world. It's hard to imagine any non-film camera lasting even close to that long.

And then there is this: We're talking about making movies here. You can make a movie without sound (as they did for many years. . . and still do in the case of specialized films and, of course, music videos), but you can't make a movie without visuals. That would be radio.

:-)

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
David, your comment about the relatively longer life of great audio gear is very well-taken. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of CMC441s working every day on film sets around the world. It's hard to imagine any non-film camera lasting even close to that long.

And then there is this: We're talking about making movies here. You can make a movie without sound (as they did for many years. . . and still do in the case of specialized films and, of course, music videos), but you can't make a movie without visuals. That would be radio.

:-)

Stephen
Click to expand...

Yes, you can make a movie without sound. But if you make a movie with bad sound, nobody will want to watch the pretty pictures. I don't care how pretty they are, our tolerance for bad sound is very low.
 
I couldn't agree more. . . bad sound is VASTLY more distracting than bad pictures, which is exactly why I work so hard to get the best sound I possibly can given our budgetary constraints!

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
I certainly do get it. I just don't like comparing an Acura (Schoeps) to a Chevrolet (5D Mk II for video).
Click to expand...
Actually, the cartoon compares a Red to a Canon 5D -- and only for comedic effect.

The main point of the original video (which I did think was mildly amusing) was that sound is almost always slighted in indie productions.
Click to expand...
It's more a question of attitude. The sense of entitlement that some producers have just astonishes me. I understand low budgets and limited means, but offering somebody $55 a day for a feature production is just demeaning.

On the other hand, a lot of the sound recordists I have met over the past couple of years clearly have the opposite bias: "Any idiot can take a picture."
Click to expand...
I have never, ever, heard that said, in more than 30 years of working in LA. Quite the opposite. Anyone who actually has film & TV experience knows that every craft requires skill -- grips, drivers, even PAs. The more I learn, the more I realize that no job in our industry is as easy as it seems, especially when it's done well. And I find that, even if you're the new Orson Welles, you're far better off hiring someone better than yourself for the key positions: cinematography, camera operating, gaffer, sound mixer, editor, and so on.

BUT, the one certainty I have learned since starting making movies is that it is a lot easier to capture good video and good audio than a jaded DP or grizzled sound recordist would lead one to believe. Neither task is molecular biology, so let's not pretend that they are.
Click to expand...
I think that diminishes the skill of both professions. One neither has to be jaded or grizzled to realize that it takes years of experience to develop the skills needed to handle sound or lighting as a career. You can't pick this stuff up in a week or a month or even a year. I would compare it to being an architect or a doctor: you could sorta/kinda design a house, or sorta/kinda remove a bullet and patch up the patient, but the difference between an amateur and a skilled professional is profound. This is especially true in emergency "battle" conditions during production, when you get hit with weather problems, schedule changes, difficult locations, equipment failures, and so on. That's when hiring an experienced pro really pays off.

If you've ever worked on a film where a lot of the dialog had problems, required significant fixes in post, or frequently needed ADR, then no doubt you'll agree with the importance of hiring a competent sound mixer. The equipment alone is not the answer. I've often reminded producers, "I'm here to save you money in post. If we get it right on location, that will not only help your dailies, it'll also help you avoid significant expenses later on." As an industry friend of mine often says: "it's not about the arrows... it's the archer."

Too often, people wind up having to fix lots and lots of problems in post because they didn't head them off very early on. I've seen this many times in digital post, particularly with neophytes shooting digital. Sadly, they often don't know what questions to ask before they shoot, and they only find out they're in terrible trouble once the production is finished and the post process begins. And that goes for sound and picture.

BTW, more than 12,000 hits on this cartoon so far -- so apparently, it's struck a chord out there.
 
Sorry Stephen- I agree with Marc on this one, I DONT think you get it. This is about RATE not skill.

Funny stuff Marc...(but then again, not really) you should call these segments CRAIGSLIST FILMS.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
I certainly do get it. I just don't like comparing an Acura (Schoeps) to a Chevrolet (5D Mk II for video).

The main point of the original video (which I did think was mildly amusing) was that sound is almost always slighted in indie productions. Everyone has their biases. The DP of my first film once told me "There's nothing difficult about sound. You just point a microphone at the actors and say 'action'." Obviously, this gent had exactly zero experience working with location audio. But that wasn't his job and so it wasn't his bias.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Yeah.. you don't. Sometimes the Chevy is needed. I dare you to go to a movie theater and tell what mic was used in each scene. You are one of the offenders my dear. Didn't you have to spend $ here to have your dialog fixed? Wasn't it you that shot film without sound mixer?

http://www.jussitegelman.com/
 
OK, I'm going to chime in one more time. There are indie productions out there that want to use a chevy. All the better for me because then they can afford my rates. So I work on a 3 week indie and my income can pay for the 5d they are shooting with multiple times. What do I care, they're paying me the same rate as if I was mixing sound on a red shoot.

Someone who wants to pay too little isn't my client. I don't have a horse in their race. There's no sense whining about it, they're looking for a different sound guy, not me.

All that said, I have a full time job and have to take time off to work a film. So, it's easy for me to say no to low paying jobs because I already get my rate every day. It isn't a matter of eating or not or paying the bills or not.

I think everyone in this industry sound & camera departments need to keep a keen eye on the influx of micro budget films thinking they can get professional crews at college student rates. This is an issue that could ultimately affect all of us negatively.
 
Guilty as charged, Mr. Angel. We did hire a post audio expert. And an editor, too. Oh, and a colorist.

:-)

As it happens, the man we hired for our audio work—Jussi Tegelman—gets my highest possible recommendation as a talent, as a professional, and as a human being. What an amazing person he is! I consider it a signal privilege to have had him on our post team and you may be certain that we will do everything in our power to work with him again on our next film, as well. (We start production in a little over a month.)

Like it or not, some locations are just too noisy to capture pristine location dialog. In those situations, you have three choices: 1) Get a different location (which likely conveys another set of compromises), 2) do ADR (which I utterly loathe and will not do except under the most extraordinary circumstances), or 3) do the best you can under the circumstances and then do some post processing. We opted for the latter. And, just for the record, the vast majority of the time Jussi worked with us was on Foley and the final stereo mix.

And you know what? It sounds really good.

:-)

Stephen
 
I think about sound as 50% because the audience has two sensory paths open when they sit.

Every artist will be different of course, and many lean on visuals. Still, each time you start you have two mediums available with which you can reach the audience. I believe you should start with this in mind if you want to have the most impact as a story teller.

I LOVE it when I see two experienced boom ops on set! And strong budgets for ADR, follies, score and mixing. But important more than anything, a vision that doesn't stop at visuals and dialogue.

A big culprit are all these poor mixing jobs, due to an inability to understand the mixing process, and the importance of being able to afford hiring a mixing artist for a long enough a period for them to finish their gosh darnet job. You need to get the audience to set their volume right at the start of the film, and ride that level in a respectful and meaningful way on relation to the story, and do so all the way to the crawl.

The best movies always have great audio.
 
Hey there, Roberto. . .

I sure wish I had those big budgets you speak of. All we've got so far is big debts and a promise of still more to come! Good thing our films don't have car crashes, huh?

:-)

But, again, I totally agree with you. . . it's an amazing experience when everything works together to make a wonderfully harmonious whole. That's when it leaves the realm of "the movies" and becomes "real art." How I love those films!

Stephen
 
But big numbers aren't required for balance. Great films also have artists in the producer seat, artists that chose to collaborate alongside a man with a vision they deemed worthy of manifestation.

Hey there Stephen!
 
"Great films also have artists in the producer seat, artists that chose to collaborate alongside a man with a vision they deemed worthy of manifestation."

Well, I don't know if anyone will ever seriously confuse me with a real artist. . . but I sure am incredibly proud of all the people who have come alongside me to make my visions into reality.

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