Why is sound still like this?

[Christoffer Glans]

Coming out of a big production with two and three cameras for every scene I'm now drowning in the complexity of editing.
Now I'm wondering why there still isn't a good option for working with sound. Why isn't cameras able to include good audio handling? Enable a large quantity of audio tracks and a high fidelity? The audio professionals on set are still recording to an external device and we still need to sync in post. Now, this "should" work fine, but it never does, people miss to sync the timecodes on set, there are technical hiccups etc. etc.

So why can't we get a better sound workflow for productions? A sound recorder that doesn't record sound at all, instead a high quality transmitter for recording sound in camera and a camera that records the sound in high fidelity with many audio channels? It enables you to edit directly on set, with the files that are going to be used throughout post production with AAF exports for sound editors instead of relinking.

Why are we still using clappers with a clapping function? You just need the info written.
It's a bulky stone age way of working with film production. Shoot - edit - final output for VFX, sound editing & grade.
Let assistant editors sort out the footage, not spend their time solving issues created on set because of stress and pressure.

I don't know why this isn't changing for larger productions?

 

[Phil Holland]

Slates inform, so that's not really the issue. The clapper for the most part is a nice double check in case other things go haywire.

I worked on a very speedy gig this year and we didn't slate at all, but we did jam sync timecode and synced things up after wards. I tested the workflow extensively before even attempting this and it worked great.

I've also recorded straight into the camera and that works nicely as well. Just different workflows and tools. Having a dedicated recorder/mixer allows for more control and there's no reason to not feed that signal to camera wireless or via cord if you want it. Many productions do this and it sounds like this might be the missing link in your situation. That's a pre-production and production issue in my mind.

Again though, that clapper sometimes can be a life saver if you somehow forget a step or two during the day. Making movies is sometimes like working on a submarine. Having a few fail-safes is useful.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Informing scene and takes on the clapper is essential, but there are a lot of situations where the clapper gets left behind, shots made in a stressful, pressured point when light was falling and the shots just didn't have time to wait for the clapper.
This happens a lot, not just on small independent films, but larger productions as well. The timecode syncs most of the time, but for example, the Red One is purely awful at keeping the timecode synced during a days shoot, it drifts a lot.

The thing is that many sound designers want an AAF from the edit with the real sound that is going to be used, that cannot be done with in-camera sound because the fidelity and number of tracks are too low. Syncing in editorial, either manual or through timecode is a time consuming process and with the technology today, totally unnecessary.

I'm really calling out for a process that erase the need for having the clapper as backup. To be able to point and shoot without the clapper. As a director I also find it to disturb A LOT when working with actors. Maybe I'm building up a tension with them, building up something and I need to just point and shoot it, break, do a take 2 and so on, without disturbing elements.
It's a process that is bulky like a blunt instrument instead of precision technology. you save time, you save energy, you save performance, you optimize editorial work etc. there are so many good things to come out of something like this.

Have the sound guy/boom operator hear the sound through the camera to ensure there's no errors, have a high quality wireless system between the mic and the camera and when possible, just a cable. If there isn't a cable that enables high quality with many channels, then invent it. If there isn't any sound equipment that can send wireless sound to the camera and throughput back to the sound guy, then invent it.

That's what I'm calling out for, some innovation in a department that hasn't changed much since 35mm film, which is very very weird.

 

[Christopher Mills]

I believe I understand your call for some new thinking in how to handle audio, however, you appear frustrated with some very well developed production structure.
Billions of man hours of production just might not have been done incorrectly, after all.


Firstly, project structure:
If you are not able to maintain the order to keep track of slates, script supervision, and the record keeping involved, then you need better crew people.
If you are moving too fast to keep track of your picture and sound elements on a scripted project, you are moving too fast to create a good product.

If your actors are not able to ignore the elements of production, including slates, then they are not good at their craft. HOWEVER, it is a standard and well understood practice to snap a slate at the end of a take, if needed or desired by the production.

RE: technology.
If you're using a post production workflow, you are already selecting the best performances, and best looking image clips and then having picture post assemble them (the edit) and also color correct them.
Audio also benefits from this process. Most sounds, including dialog, need to be altered to sound the way you expect them to be heard in broadcast and in a theater. Timeode and other markers are how the pieces are identified in the assembly process.
It takes different mind sets and focus, not to mention tools, to process your sound and picture.
The part of the edit that would still not be interchangeable is the editor... sound editors may less color timing skill than colorists, a picture editor may be completely tone deaf..

There are actually devices that can record a picture feed and a large number of audio tracks, and timecode right now... The Sound devices pix260 comes to mind.

it is not a camera, and it is not a mixing panel. though it will accept signals from both.

 

[Doug Beatty]

Have the sound guy/boom operator hear the sound through the camera to ensure there's no errors, have a high quality wireless system between the mic and the camera and when possible, just a cable. If there isn't a cable that enables high quality with many channels, then invent it. If there isn't any sound equipment that can send wireless sound to the camera and throughput back to the sound guy, then invent it.

That's what I'm calling out for, some innovation in a department that hasn't changed much since 35mm film, which is very very weird.

I'm still waiting on an invention like headphones that will glow red so that terrible ADs won't have to consistently ask me if I'm rolling 15 seconds after I yell speed.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Christopher, I don't think you explained to us what your workflow is. NLE? What kind of audio files you are working with?

If you are working with BWF recorded on a SD or Deva you are also getting some metadata with those files. A lot of the dailies systems out there such as nextLAB are able to use that metadata when creating dailies. They automatically match timecode and create new synched clips for you. They also have good sync adjusting tools as well. Having said that, I just did dailies for a movie where I used Resolve to handle the color and conversion to DNxHD36 and then brought everything into Avid (Film Project) and autosynced there. In cases where the sync was slightly off (usually a frame or less) I could use the sync slip tool in Avid to adjust it a bit. All very fast. As for the metadata I used a method of custom columns for that which allowed me to bring over the naming from the BWF and I tracked the audio timecode as well.

As for the times when the production crew messes up. It happens but I agree with Christopher Mills. Good crews tend to make fewer mistakes, understand the needs of post, and do their best to get you what you need, even if it means tail slating. Giving you no slate, no timecode, and no reference track would be a sin.

The reason double system is preferred in most cases is because the sound recordist has full control over what is recorded. When going to camera, if something was changed on the camera (intentionally or unintentionally) and the sound recordist isn't aware of it (they missed it on the return perhaps) then this would be problematic and they would take the blame for something they may not have had control over. Best case scenario is to have the sound recordist handle the master recording, feed a reference (high quality if camera sound will be used, low quality if you don't want cameras sound to be used), timecode slate each shot, jam sync often, and have good communication between set and post.

 

[James McLellan]

I shared some of this frustration when I first ventured into the world of timecode, jam syncing and lock-it boxes. After all the effort shots would still be out of sync one-two frames. I have to say that with Premiere Pro CC's latest release and the waveform sync option I no longer jam sync. I do clap each shot though. I find that manually syncing the one or two shots that pp can't match is a much friendlier process. In this regard, in an emergency with no slate, all I have to do is snap my fingers into the camera scratch track and the sound devices and I'm good to go. I have washed my hands of timecode. Of course, I am not shooting the sequel to Avatar so take this with a grain of salt.

 

[Mike P.]

The fact of the matter is, all digital cinema cameras worth their salt (magnesium alloy?) have decent built-in audio recording. In the past, when the slate was necessary, cameras did NOT. You could literally have a dude yell the slate info off camera, and then clap loudly, to the same effect these days. On-camera button-mics are perfect for this, but you should be feeding a decent mix from the sound dept into the camera as well (just for redundancy).

Clip Metadata (that is, slate information) is quickly moving towards being done IN CAMERA… All that's necessary is an unobtrusive way (wireless?) to keep it updated every shot… Cioni is probably already doing this somehow.

Timecode with a sync box should keep within a frame or two at worst (easy to fix if it does happen to drift, but it shouldn't drift -- I don't know why camera manufacturers don't use the same crystal clocks in cameras that are in the sync boxes; it'd save the need for an extra piece of hardware). BUT in either case, pumping a wireless/wired reference track to the camera IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE, so I don't know why you're not using that for synced dailies (or whatever.) The ProIO in theory should cover a lot of these problems even better, and RED's 24/48 sound is more than adequate, especially if the sound guy is mixing the audio (and riding levels) for his own recording (and then that gets fed into the camera).

I completely understand your concerns. Fortunately there are currently ways to alleviate them.

Back in May we shot a feature with a.) button mic capturing everything (albeit poor quality, but good enough to match off board audio) into mic1, b.) a down mix of all the channels the sound recordist was capturing (fed into mic2), and c.) timecode jammed directly into the camera (no lockit box) from the SD744t (which was re-jammed every power-down, battery swap, scene change… as often as possible). The ironic thing; it was just as fast auto-syncing as it was to use the time code. So that was THREE levels of redundancy, which I was more than comfortable with, and the same workflow would have worked with multiple cameras.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I shared some of this frustration when I first ventured into the world of timecode, jam syncing and lock-it boxes. After all the effort shots would still be out of sync one-two frames. I have to say that with Premiere Pro CC's latest release and the waveform sync option I no longer jam sync. I do clap each shot though. I find that manually syncing the one or two shots that pp can't match is a much friendlier process. In this regard, in an emergency with no slate, all I have to do is snap my fingers into the camera scratch track and the sound devices and I'm good to go. I have washed my hands of timecode. Of course, I am not shooting the sequel to Avatar so take this with a grain of salt.

Taken with grain of salt because I think you are referring to an in-house style of shooting, meaning you control all aspects of production. In commercial production where many people may be involved at different companies, this approach would get you fired. Not saying it isn't a valid way of working, but it's also not the common way of doing things. I'm all for simpler and faster though. So who knows, maybe things will get easier, but having audio and video with the same time signature is not the worst thing in the world.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Making movies is sometimes like working on a submarine. Having a few fail-safes is useful.

Love this. This needs to be a quote.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I have my Masters in sound design and I agree, there are a lot of old practices still in use these days and sound, for the most part, hasn't advanced as far as cameras have. Quality has only recently moved up past CD quality 16-bit sound to 24 and 32-bit but the practices are still the same in regards to setting volume and microphone handling. With all of these faster storage options I don't know why we don't have HDR-like audio with 3+ simultaneous volume recordings to cover eveything from quiet mutterings to horrific screams, thus making for a much faster record-and-go workflow on set. Microphones are pretty annoying too, especially lavaliers, they've got to make those work better, I've yet to work with a set that's consistently recorded clear and undistorted audio. Now post is tricky sometimes and it comes down to a combination of recorders and cameras. Sync can still be off, usually after recording for long periods of time, it shouldn't in the digital age but it does and, again, I think that comes down to lack of advancement in the digital recording field. Slates help in that regard but stuff can still be off a bit so in that sense the slates aren't 100% for sound, however, they can be quite useful for the editor so there is that. I think it's just going to take some time and innovation and things seem to be moving along in that respect now that we're recording on SSDs and memory cards keep getting faster in shorter and shorter intervals.

 

[Christopher Mills]

Re: HDR style audio... Zaxcom devices do that...
Re: Lavs... good ones like the sanken cos11, DPA lavs, etc can record clear and undistorted audio... under ideal conditions. Those conditions include quiet wardrobe, good technical skill at placing them on the speaker, and talent that does not have odd body produced sounds, pacemakers, or other real world factors to interfere with designed performance.

Also.. just like RED prefers to provide a RAW image and grade it, audio editors and post producers 'grade' audio.. mixing, eq, repairs, etc are not real time processes..

The goal in film production is NOT to document exactly how things sound and look when you are there...that's attending a live performance of an unrepeated event.. or going on a tour, or to a lecture...
The goal is to create an idealized and planned impression on the audience, modify-ing and improving all the elements to our goal, then integrating them into a coherent whole.

We are not re-presenters of the actual... that's the news... "Record and Go" workflow is anethema to me and to many of my peers in the professional film making world. We provide the best sources for improvement possible..

Take a hard look at the credit roll of any theatrical feature film you have seen in the last 20 years, if not 30... All those people actually do things on films... That's why the film was a big experience..

There is no point in making sound recording be as point and shoot as your iphone camera. You only would end up with everything sounding the same.

 

[Doug Beatty]

I don't know why we don't have HDR-like audio with 3+ simultaneous volume recordings to cover eveything from quiet mutterings to horrific screams, thus making for a much faster record-and-go workflow on set.

You mean a multi track recorder? This can be done as long as you route your tracks and stage your gain correctly. It can't be done at the source, though.

With certain recorders, you can even pad your tracks in the digital realm to prevent limiter distortion or clipping. It's all done in the metadata - kinda like the highlight protection HDRx affords you. [edit: Chris beat me to it!]

Also, the 44.1 kHz (CD sample rate) standard went up to 48 kHz whenever DVDs came around ages ago and 48kHz sounds just fine for dialogue.

Bit depth has nothing to do with sample rate and everything to do with dynamic range. A properly recorded 16bit file can sound just as good or better than a 24bit file, but you aren't going to be able to push it too far in post. Kinda like color sampling in the video world.

I'd take a properly lit 8 bit h264 file over a 12 bit raw file that isn't properly lit any day of the week.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Exactly, didn't know about the Zaxcom, nice but perhaps not exactly what I mean. That's pretty spot on about the lavaliers too and that's what I mean, on one hand they're great for what they do but the design just leaves them open to so many interfering factors. Of course post processing factors into the equation and I'm certainly well aware of the corrective softwares and plugins but what I was trying to get across is that the quality of the recordings should gradually increase as well like we do with camera and screen resolution just so that the post processing phase becomes much more flexible. As Doug mentioned, there is a point where you can't process a clip anymore and I've certainly run into that more than a few times and ultimately had to resort to ADR.

 

[Ruff]

My best soundies use Zaxcom recorders, and send 2 channels wirelessly to the camera. There is perfect timecode sync and everything works smoothly on set and hands off easily for post.

For simple shoots we stopped with slates a long time ago. But they still have a very important place for drama's etc.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Coming out of a big production with two and three cameras for every scene I'm now drowning in the complexity of editing.

Have you done this before? Experienced post teams do know how to deal with multiple cameras and large numbers of audio tracks. It just takes skill and experience, patience and time, plus the right equipment. It's not rocket science. Having a good post supervisor to move the process along helps quite a bit.

Why isn't cameras able to include good audio handling? Enable a large quantity of audio tracks and a high fidelity? The audio professionals on set are still recording to an external device and we still need to sync in post. Now, this "should" work fine, but it never does, people miss to sync the timecodes on set, there are technical hiccups etc. etc.

You assume that the sound will always be perfect in camera. Anything that can screw up in a sound recorder can also screw up in camera. I can count on one hand the number of times sound on a sound recorder had problems or couldn't be salvaged; but I have often encountered shoots where we couldn't use camera audio for many reasons, including malfunction or somebody bumping the jacks or level knobs. Any time you have a situation where somebody can't reliably monitor the device doing the sound recording, there's going to be a possibility that sound will get screwed up. Multiply that times the number of channels, the more the odds increase of potential problems.

A sound recorder that doesn't record sound at all, instead a high quality transmitter for recording sound in camera and a camera that records the sound in high fidelity with many audio channels? It enables you to edit directly on set, with the files that are going to be used throughout post production with AAF exports for sound editors instead of relinking.

Bear in mind that in a proper workflow, the sound recorder not only captures timecode and a mix track, but also individual iso tracks that are identified with each character name in the scene, assuming the sound mixer is doing his or her job. All of this is mandatory for the dialogue editor and re-recording mixer, giving them many choices for the final. The sound mixer may also choose to make additional sound recordings when the camera is not rolling -- wild tracks for dialogue or effects -- which are often extremely useful in the final mix. Expecting the camera crew to handle stuff like this is madness -- they already have enough problems to worry about.

Why are we still using clappers with a clapping function? You just need the info written. It's a bulky stone age way of working with film production. Shoot - edit - final output for VFX, sound editing & grade. Let assistant editors sort out the footage, not spend their time solving issues created on set because of stress and pressure.

We routinely send two channels to the camera as a scratch track, but I'm not a fan of having editorial rely solely on that for the final because the sound circuitry within most cameras isn't nearly as good as that of most dedicated sound recorders. As I've said many times, if you shoot 200 takes a day -- which is a lot of material -- once you import the picture, importing the soundtrack and syncing each shot should take less than :30 seconds for each take, assuming the timecode is identical or close to it. That's 100 minutes per day, not even two hours. If you're really good at it, and most of the material is in sync, it'll take half that time. I know -- I've done it. It actually takes much longer to backup the material, organize the bins, check circled takes, and all the other myriad of tasks an assistant editor does.

Note that all this goes out the window the moment the camera shoots at a non-sync-sound speed, meaning it stops recording sound. And you'd be surprised how often that on-set audio still gets used for something from the sound recorder.

90% of your problems can be solved simply by hiring an experienced sound mixer for the set, and hiring an experienced supervising sound editor for post. That's what they do. I think the slate is simply part of long time tradition; one can argue (notably by Billy Friedkin) that the slate annoys and intimidates some actors; they opt to just slate at the end of the scene. Other directors and actors feel the tradition helps get the actors' adrenalin up and gets everybody aware on set. The standard tradition of "Quiet please! Roll sound, sound speed, roll camera, marker," etc. has been with us for a long time, and it didn't happen by chance. Rolling without an established procedure invites chaos and confusion. Way too often, I hear people yelling out, "are we rolling?" When everybody's on the same page and aware of the slate, everybody knows what's happening... even the catering people and the drivers.

Note that I've often commented that really the only people who care about the slate are the dailies person and the assistant editor (and sometimes the editor). I have, however, seen cases for big studio productions where executives look at the number of takes being done on each scene and use that -- rightly or wrongly -- to judge the progress of the director. One can make a good point as to whether a physical slate is necessary; there have been attempts to create a graphic generator that momentarily pops up in the camera file and flashes when a sync beep is created, but the labor and technical issues of getting this into the camera are tougher than you might think. Trying to deal with the nightmare of no slates and no identifiers -- which I have done before in post on documentary projects -- adds potentially dozens and dozens of unnecessary hours to the project, particularly when there is no timecode or timecode is wrong (and when it's wrong, it's usually wrong in camera).

My dream is having one system that unites five different departments on the set with common metadata: sound, camera, slate, DIT, and script supervisor. With the push of one button, all scene names and take numbers would be updated, along with correct identical timecode and information like lens selection, exposure, 3D settings, date, frame rates, etc. The problem is, you'd have to get Ambient, Arri, Blackmagic, Canon, Denecke, Fostex, Red, Sony, Sound Devices, and Zaxcom (at the least) to all agree on a single wireless system, and the chances of that happening are just about nil.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

When in the scheme of things did it become the responsibility of the camera department to record sound on the camera? I have asked Local 600 to get my AC's a new rate because of this.....
On set workflow is this: we have to shoot fast and I have to say that the more bloody wires attached to my Epic Dragons the more I get angry.

I am a DP and my camera crew deals with enough. Sound should be separate. On my current feature which I am shooting with 2 Dragons we do NOT record scratch on the camera and we have NO issues with doing dailies and DNX Avid files in sync....

Come on this is stupid....

 

[Nick Fury]

Hi Marc,

Could you please share here, your current setup and workflow, for a Nomad and, say two booms + wireless, using an Epic and perhaps a "toy camera?" Please include the IFB's and additional hardware, that you would use in an ideal configuration, through post. If you are too busy or not inclined to post to this, understood. Oh, I know that "it depends," already... ;-)

Thank you very much

Fury

 

[Phil Holland]

I am a DP and my camera crew deals with enough. Sound should be separate. On my current feature which I am shooting with 2 Dragons we do NOT record scratch on the camera and we have NO issues with doing dailies and DNX Avid files in sync....

Come on this is stupid....

On a good production with a solid crew much of what some people experience as utter hell in the epic battle between Man Versus Technology often becomes as easy as breathing on a relaxing summer morning.

This variation is often entertaining if you are very good at breathing and are watching people bang their heads against walls rather than using their production time more wisely.

Much of the rather routine processes of motion picture production is only as hard as people allow it to be.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I think sound recording is a completely different task then picture recording, in that sound recording is what has happened and what will happen, while a picture frame is a instance of a time. This tension in time (pictures being a compression of linear time to a instance, while sound is a bridge across time), is critical in creating a compelling film and is fundamentally irreconcilable from a recording viewpoint.