Why is sound still like this?

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree with Peter -- sound is the responsibility of the production recordist, so if he's sending audio to be recorded by the camera, how can he ensure that it is recorded properly at the right levels, etc. if he's not in control of the camera? Back in the early days of HD on the F900, we were all recording sound into the camera and there were many takes where there was no audio recorded because every time there was a new camera set-up, the mic got disconnected from the camera in order to move the camera, and sometimes it wasn't reconnected, with much blaming going on between camera assistants and boom operators as to whose responsibility it was to make sure audio was hooked up correctly. And after the take, the production mixer couldn't check a take unless the camera department played it back on the camera, which they did not have time to be doing. And wireless sound is not 100% reliable either.

I don't get editorial assistants complaining about doing editorial assistant work like syncing sound to picture. Honestly, DP's and camera assistants should be responsible for audio on a narrative production?

Camera crews are asked to work very fast and deliver decent, editable footage, so it's a danger to shift responsibility for audio recording from the sound department to the camera department when they are running around trying to get set-ups done as quickly as possible.

 

[soren k jensen]

System thinking

System thinking

While I understand the needs of productions with larger crews and planned actions, the big market of docs, eng etc. could well use a tight system of integrated sound and picture. The Pro IO is a good start, but ideally we need an integration of e.g. AES42 controllable mics, at least 4 digital inputs with remote control of gain. Think Zaxcom/Zaxnet functionality wrapped into the Red UI. As it is now, you can do a complex workaround with AES42 mics and Wireless, Zaxcom Nomad into Pro IO, Thus having both dual system and onboard, synced digital audio in the R3D's. But it is not exactly lightweight or elegant, and it is a bit costly.
I believe that integrated smart audio, a Redmote Pro that controls IS Canon and Nikon FF lenses on a Motion Mount and increased system integration is the way forward for those of us that shoot guerilla style. Red is not just a camera for Cinema. It holds very smart future possibilities. Oh, and I wouldn't mind autofocus in the future ;-)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Many of you speak about having the right equipment and having the right people. To have experience and to know what you are doing. But the fact is that not all productions have the budget or people to cover all those aspects. As I also said, in some productions, time is an enemy. You may need to get the shot and don't have time for a clapper, you don't have time to check everything, you just need to go.

Many of you also speak about having a good post production supervisor, having a good post production team. Once again, all films don't have the budget for it.

I speak out of experience, not experience as in how things have been done and is always done, I think that is a narrow way of looking at improving workflows. I'm experienced in several layers of a film production and I see how it's not very optimized at all with the current technology that's out there.

As an example, as I described, we shot this movie on scarlet, epic and red one. While the scarlet and red one had their time code synced during the day, the red one drifted all the time, it's ability to handle timelock is absolute shit and it has created unnecessary work hours for my assistant editor and putting me on hold with my editing. But not only that, the whole thing about syncing the video with audio in editorial is such an unnecessary process. People defend the process because it's all that they know, that is why I'm calling out for innovation throughout the workflow chain, not just a new simple audio recorder of some kind.

The arguments doesn't convince me. Like that the audio technician on set can't monitor the audio getting into the camera. So, as I said before, make it so that is possible.

Make an audio recorder, recording as usual as backup, but with a high fidelity, high quality wireless sending to the camera. Make so that the camera has a built in ability to receive wireless audio and wireless throughput back to the audio technician for monitoring. Make so that the camera is able to store the metadata for sound, all channels, with the correct scene and take number separately from the video track name, or if necessary and wanted, have the audio technician mark both audio and video with the correct scene, slate and take. If he already marks his clips with this information, why not let the video have the same name. Make it so that post production, like Avid, have the software tools able to analyze problems and flag them, make it so that Avid can organize video clips so that they create a bin structure according the the file name scene, slate and take automatically.

All these unnecessary processes we do both in production and post production is in my opinion the result of a lack of innovative thinking throughout the industry. Every department do and develop technology for their own purpose and workflow, not necessarily collaborating with the other departments. The bridges between the departments are not fully developed and they just feel like something developed in haste. Someone does something and others need to adapt instead of working together for a common goal, a common workflow.

I do not settle down for good enough. I want to able to shoot - edit - send to sound, grade and VFX - online. With no in between processes. No transcoding, no syncing process, minimal editorial organizing, no relinking to original files etc.

We are writing on a forum that is based on a team of people who didn't settle for "good enough" who challenged the industry by saying that it's stuck in old thinking. They have been criticized and mocked but they changed the industry and I don't think that if you ask a professional today (a professional, not a fanboy), if they would want to work in a world where Red wasn't developed, I don't think they would say yes, even if they didn't believe Jim and his team at all when they announced their ideas.

This is not about how professional the team is, how good the current technology is or how you "should work" based on that current tech. I wrote this because I'm sick of "how it is" and I want to invite new thinking. If there is any place for such a request, this forum is the right place, not 100-year old companies, not patent-lazy business people who want to sell their "new" and "improved" next-gen equipment for professionals. Next-gen for me is a fluid workflow without having technology stopping you. Whatever you might say about handling the workflow correctly it's still a time consuming and extremely undeveloped way of doing things.

So, I know how things are done, I know how the workflow is done, I just think it's a unnecessary, time consuming and bad. I want a next gen way of making movies, fluid, direct and without compromising any creative work. Because saying things like the clapper isn't disturbing an experienced actor is a very narrow view on filmmaking. What about amateurs cast in a movie because of their ability to portray without acting skills? Don't you think that the technology around them is disturbing their performance? Of course it does and of course it's unnecessary.

The usual way of making movies is in some way based on an opinion that people's experience makes them machines, able to perform at the peak of their knowledge whatever is around them, this is a very narrow view on what experience means, especially for creative areas.
Take away the unnecessarities of a production and maximize people's ability to use their head to create, not to solve problems or manage stuff because there isn't a very good way to do workflow.

Why defend unnecessary parts of filmmaking? I don't understand that. Just, throw your ideas on the table, your innovative thinking about workflow on a large scale, not just for your department. How can we maximize everyone, not pleasing everyone, maximize.
How will we make movies in the future if we who make movies could change the technology we use today.

That's the thought I'm throwing out there.

 

[Doug Beatty]

While we're at it, why are there light ballasts that make noise and produce heat. All lights need to be silent, cheap, daylight balanced, rugged, lightweight, foldable, compact, flicker free.

And let's not forget lenses. Why do I have to keep changing them if I want to go tight or wide and why doesn't the Epic automatically nail the focus 100% of the time. Can't there be a lens made that it's ultra fast and sharp or smooth depending on the look you want without having to put on a matte box with filters. Those things have been around for centuries and it's too slow to have to keep sliding filters in and out and then swinging or the matte box to change lenses. Just make one lens that covers everything and be done with it.

And what about batteries. Why do I have to wait 4 hours to charge bricks only to have therm run out of juice in 3? Can't cameras store enough energy to run 12 hours and then recharge them at the end of the day?

Not every shoot can afford the time it takes to make battery changes and my actors get REALLY mad when they have to wait around.

 

[Nick Morrison]

And wireless sound is not 100% reliable either.

Agreed. I was on a shoot in LA two months ago, with wireless audio piping into the cameras. When I got back into edit, turns out the wireless wasn't always effective. There were dropped takes.

If it wasn't for us using old school CLAPPERS, it would have been a bear to sync it all up.

 

[Nick Gardner]

One thing to think about, it's way more efficient to pay an assistant editor for a week to sync audio that in is to pay the entire crew, and actors OT when you aren't moving as fast as you should be on set in an effort to make posts job a little easier. Honestly there is nothing to syncing audio with a clapstick. I's fast and easy. Yes i've done it. It was a pain in the ass on a stienbeck, but it's pretty damn easy on a computer. The system in use by many productions is double system sound. It's the best quality, most efficient way to work on set. Way, way better for docs as well. Recording sound to camera is ridiculous on docs. When it's double system sound the sound guy can be off recording wild sound while the camera is shooting highspeed broll, and you don't have to tie up the camera if you want to do wild lines or VO. Plus no cable mess to dance around.


Nick

 

[Marc Wielage]

Many of you speak about having the right equipment and having the right people. To have experience and to know what you are doing. But the fact is that not all productions have the budget or people to cover all those aspects.

I'll stop you right there and say sometimes, there's a point where you have to stop and say, "we don't have enough time, money, and people to do this right. Let's wait until we can solve those problems to avoid any technical issues on down the line."

I've worked on enough modest-budget productions where we were able to solve these issues just by hiring the right people and having reasonable expectations. In truth, almost 50% of it involves choosing decent locations with minimal sound problems, and the rest of it is just knowing how to get the mic in the right place and know how to deal with potential timecode issues and other problems relating to power and local RF interference. My joke is that often the sound mixer's #1 job is problem solving -- not recording sound per se.

Laying all this on one person's plate is far too much to handle, unless you have a very simple project -- like one guy talking to one camera for five minutes. I concede that there are documentaries where it's impossible to have a large crew, but any crew that can afford a gaffer, an electrician, and an assistant camera operator should also be able to afford a dedicated sound mixer to handle audio.

One thing to think about, it's way more efficient to pay an assistant editor for a week to sync audio that in is to pay the entire crew, and actors OT when you aren't moving as fast as you should be on set in an effort to make posts job a little easier. Honestly there is nothing to syncing audio with a clapstick. I's fast and easy. Yes i've done it. It was a pain in the ass on a stienbeck, but it's pretty damn easy on a computer. The system in use by many productions is double system sound. It's the best quality, most efficient way to work on set. Way, way better for docs as well. Recording sound to camera is ridiculous on docs. When it's double system sound the sound guy can be off recording wild sound while the camera is shooting highspeed broll, and you don't have to tie up the camera if you want to do wild lines or VO. Plus no cable mess to dance around.

Very, very wise words. Well-said. And in truth, a decent assistant editor can sync up a day's worth of material in 90 minutes or less, assuming no more than 10 hours of material. It's a very bad idea to wait until the very end of the project to start syncing dailies, because you won't know of any major issues (file corruption, audio glitches, missed lines, even bad performances) until that time, and by then it's too late.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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... ;-)

I would record on a 10-track Sound Devices 788t, record dedicated wireless tracks from all actors with speaking parts (if possible), get a boom iso on channel 1, and create a useful mix for dailies on track 1. (I'm generally not a Nomad guy, but that would work as well, as would the Deva or any number of high quality sound recorders.) I'd send a wireless track to a Lectro SRb and lash it to the side of the camera if the camera department doesn't find it in the way; if they do, we scrap it and just shoot "film style." I get a Denecke SB-T timecode generator, slave it to the SD788, then attach that to the Red and let the camera run in external timecode mode. Non-timecode cameras would have to be synced manually, though we can always provide a wireless scratch track for backup (which I recommend).

We also use a timecode slate just to provide a backup in case the timecode is wrong in the camera or drifts for some reason (which rarely happens in my experience). Each iso track is identified with the character name or microphone type -- for example "Boom 1," "Boom 2," "Joe," "Charlie," "Sally," "plant mic", or whatever, as required for the scene. We work out with the editor or sound supervisor as to how to keep the track layout consistent to help the post process later on. I listen to every microphone in a rehearsal and make notes as to specific actor cues and which mic will sound best for any given moment in the scene. In the case of no time and no rehearsals, we punt and hope for the best. I also make it a point to get wild lines when possible, particularly for difficult locations or issues with mic placement, to give the post sound department as many options as possible. Sometimes a given scene may use boom, lav, and wild lines all within the same scene, all mixed in the re-recording session to sound as seamless as possible.

For two booms, I'd use the same technique only dedicate track two to the second boom and then mix it as necessary. I typically work with wireless boom, to make sure the boom op is out of the camera department's way and there's no risk for anybody tripping over the cable; the boom op gets a dedicated wireless feed of just this microphone on its iso track. For IFB's, I take the mono mix out of one of the 788's six outputs and send that to a Comtek transmitter, and hand out up to 12 Comtek receivers for the director, script supervisor, and anybody else who needs to listen to dialogue.

After wrap, I hand off a CF card with all the WAV files to the D.I.T., and later I email PDF sound reports to the editor and post supervisor that list every scene and take, with timecode noted. I include notes on any take with issues, like "plane noise," "background traffic," "light hum," or anything else that will be noticeable. The sound report plus the scripty's notes will help the assistant editor or dailies person put the material together so that the editor can start organizing bins and cutting scenes the next day. I also keep a backup of each day's sound material on a separate computer just in case of disaster -- which has only happened once in six years, and it was lucky for the client that I had kept the backup a year after I thought the project was finished.

After the picture editor finishes several rough edits (using the mix track only), they finally lock the edit for each reel, then hand that off to the post sound department. The dialogue editor takes all the available tracks and reconforms the reel in Pro Tools, fine-tuning the audio and fixing each word and phrase to optimize it for both sound quality and performance. In some cases, the dialogue editor also massages the files to minimize noise and maintain consistent levels, but some re-recording mixers prefer to do this on the mix stage. I've seen it done both ways, but I generally advise the dialogue editor to provide both to the re-recording mixer and let them choose once we're in the final mix.

The final sound mix is done to locked picture, also in Pro Tools, and done reel-by-reel. We break it down to 20-minute reels to facilitate changes, which can be difficult for color-correction, VFX, sound, and other departments. Once the final mix is approved, we lay back each reel to a longform high-res file (typically ProRes 444) for delivery. Before delivery, we QC the entire film to make sure sound sync and levels are consistent, and also make sure the distributor or network gets all the additional tracks (M&E, foreign versions, additional footage, etc.) as required by the contract.

This is a very standard process that applies to every commercial, TV series, or feature film I know of. Every sound mixer has individual variations on specific practices, and there are a thousand little tricks everybody uses to work faster or more efficiently. I know you know a lot of this already, Nick, but maybe this will help others understand part of the sound process and why it's so integral to good filmmaking, and why a lot of these steps are important and necessary.

 

[James McLellan]

I said it before and I will say it again. In my mind timecode jam syncing is going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But not far off. Between date/time stamping files and waveform syncing I see this as inevitable. Apparently I should be fired for even thinking this but as a small operation timecode is already dead to me. I work much faster now than before and need less crew. Things are changing. That said the old way of organizing files is comfortable for a large part of the market and the tech is still a few years away from the big operations from adopting it. Sadly Steve will now fire me.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I said it before and I will say it again. In my mind timecode jam syncing is going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But not far off. Between date/time stamping files and waveform syncing I see this as inevitable. Apparently I should be fired for even thinking this but as a small operation timecode is already dead to me.

You apparently were not around during the days when there was only film and a Nagra that could do 60Hz sync -- no timecode, no nothing. The sound had to be transferred to mag, then synced up by finding the physical clap by ear, then matching it to the slate clap by eye. Very, very time-consuming. But we got the job done. Tens of thousands of hours of TV shows and movies were done this way for about 50 years, and somehow they managed.

The day you do a large multicamera project, you'll be glad you have timecode. And you'll want to have lots and lots of timecode jam boxes to make sure all the cameras have absolutely identical timecode with a sync reference. Without that, all the cameras will be free-wheeling, each one X number of frames out from the other cameras. This is a nightmare to deal with in post. It can really hurt 3D productions, where each camera has to have shutters phase-locked together.

Note that with good equipment, they can actually guarantee less than 1-frame accuracy in a 12-hour period, so that means jam once at the beginning of the day, then go all day without having to re-jam. I don't think this is asking for a lot. I typically bring my generators to the local factory office to have them realigned every couple of years to make sure they're OK, but even then, I try to jam once at the beginning of the day, then once again at lunch break. That's pretty easy and doesn't trouble the camera crew too much.

While you're changing the entire structure and concept of workflow, James, how about having the camera record all its files with scene and take numbers in the file name? Imagine having Scene 56A Take 6 appear as "56A-06.R3D" in the directory. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? But this is not currently how it works with any known camera I'm aware of. And again, knowing the stress and amount of work the camera department already has, I honestly wouldn't want to burden the crew with having to enter that information every time. Note that sound can provide that ability right now on quite a few recorders, making it trivial for editorial to locate these files at a moment's notice because the WAV files already are named correctly (and have lots and lots of metadata).

Again, I would suggest you have a meeting for a few hours with an experienced post supervisor who can go over the road map used for many successful TV series and features films and show you how and why a given workflow can function effectively. The thought of simplifying it may be appealing on the surface, but what you may forget is that dozens and dozens of people have to deal with the files from the camera department and sound department on down the line: the DIT (for backups and file management), dailies people, assistant editors, studio execs, the editor, producers, even actors, as well as visual effects people, the color-correction department, titles (and subtitles), promo people, network execs, dialogue editors, sound effects editors, music editors, and the re-recording mixer. Everybody has to stick to a known workflow to make sure everybody understands how and why the files are named a certain way and located in predictable places, particularly if this is a longterm documentary, TV series, or a feature film with a long schedule. It's even more critical if multiple facilities in multiple cities are involved, so that everybody is on the exact same page in terms of file management, LUTs, file-naming protocols, version numbers, and all the other minutiae that make the post process work.

If I can suggest a basic book that covers a lot of these principles in depth, read Barbara Clark's Guide to Postproduction for Film & TV: Managing the Process. It's very dated (finished in the late 1990s), but the essential gist of it still holds today. The other thing you can do is just meet with a local post house, have a sit down meeting, and have them go over point by point what they would suggest for a given workflow and where time and money can be saved, where mistakes typically happen, where you can cut corners, and where you can't. I can't swear they'll do this for free, but there might be a way to work out an arrangement. And they may have sample block diagrams to show you what's worked for them in the past, and what might be improved upon in the future.

I can tell you I wound up encountering several frustrated clients during my years with Complete Post in Hollywood where they went off to shoot their show or feature, then they became bewildered and overwhelmed when they were confronted with all kinds of expensive problems and fixes in post. In many cases, if they had asked simple questions prior to the shoot -- like, "will this work? Are we doing this the right way? Is there a faster method to accomplish the same goal?" -- we might have saved them days of work and thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, all we could do at that point was patch up the holes as best we could, throw in a few free hours, and tell them it's a valuable lesson learned. Contrary to belief, most of us hate it when clients wound up spending far too much time and money in post, especially when it was all due to simple problems with sync and timecode that could've been sorted out easily. A lot of that just boils down to hiring good, experienced people who can handle challenges, know how to test the workflow, and ask for help when needed.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

In my mind timecode jam syncing is going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But not far off. Between date/time stamping files and waveform syncing I see this as inevitable. Apparently I should be fired for even thinking this but as a small operation timecode is already dead to me....

I shoot with TC since I work with digital cinema cameras.

From the directors perspective: No slate necessary! Good for the actors and other talents, especially those who are not trained to work with film-crews and their routines. Not slate means no clap nor disturbance and anything that will kill the atmosphere.

From the cameraman perspective: No one who bothers me with tethering.

From the Soundman's perspective: No wireless sound system that might work or not. I can position myself where I want. No cable that might come into my way, I'm free!

From the editor's perspective: Syncing is as easy as it gets, just feed Resolve or RedCine X with sound and picture files and let the software do the job.

-----

Waveform syncing requires the sound source to be recorded by the camera mic. This is impossible for many shots.

TC syncing will stay with us for the next 2 decades.



Hans

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

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.

In 1 out of 10 Shoots I have here and then problems with TC syncing. This happens mostly because a) the sound man missed to sync the camera(s) or b) the software has bugs like currently the new builds of RCX has. But if the sound man knows what he has to do and the software works as expected TC-syncing works reliably.

Hans

 

[James McLellan]

You apparently were not around during the days when there was only film and a Nagra that could do 60Hz sync -- no timecode, no nothing. The sound had to be transferred to mag, then synced up by finding the physical clap by ear, then matching it to the slate clap by eye. Very, very time-consuming. But we got the job done. Tens of thousands of hours of TV shows and movies were done this way for about 50 years, and somehow they managed.

The day you do a large multicamera project, you'll be glad you have timecode. And you'll want to have lots and lots of timecode jam boxes to make sure all the cameras have absolutely identical timecode with a sync reference. Without that, all the cameras will be free-wheeling, each one X number of frames out from the other cameras. This is a nightmare to deal with in post. It can really hurt 3D productions, where each camera has to have shutters phase-locked together.

Note that with good equipment, they can actually guarantee less than 1-frame accuracy in a 12-hour period, so that means jam once at the beginning of the day, then go all day without having to re-jam. I don't think this is asking for a lot. I typically bring my generators to the local factory office to have them realigned every couple of years to make sure they're OK, but even then, I try to jam once at the beginning of the day, then once again at lunch break. That's pretty easy and doesn't trouble the camera crew too much.

While you're changing the entire structure and concept of workflow, Nick, how about having the camera record all its files with scene and take numbers in the file name? Imagine having Scene 56A Take 6 appear as "56A-06.R3D" in the directory. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? But this is not currently how it works with any known camera I'm aware of. And again, knowing the stress and amount of work the camera department already has, I honestly wouldn't want to burden the crew with having to enter that information every time. Note that sound can provide that ability right now on quite a few recorders, making it trivial for editorial to locate these files at a moment's notice because the WAV files already are named correctly (and have lots and lots of metadata).

Again, I would suggest you have a meeting for a few hours with an experienced post supervisor who can go over the road map used for many successful TV series and features films and show you how and why a given workflow can function effectively. The thought of simplifying it may be appealing on the surface, but what you may forget is that dozens and dozens of people have to deal with the files from the camera department and sound department on down the line: the DIT (for backups and file management), dailies people, assistant editors, studio execs, the editor, producers, even actors, as well as visual effects people, the color-correction department, titles (and subtitles), promo people, network execs, dialogue editors, sound effects editors, music editors, and the re-recording mixer. Everybody has to stick to a known workflow to make sure everybody understands how and why the files are named a certain way and located in predictable places, particularly if this is a longterm documentary, TV series, or a feature film with a long schedule. It's even more critical if multiple facilities in multiple cities are involved, so that everybody is on the exact same page in terms of file management, LUTs, file-naming protocols, version numbers, and all the other minutiae that make the post process work.

If I can suggest a basic book that covers a lot of these principles in depth, read Barbara Clark's Guide to Postproduction for Film & TV: Managing the Process. It's very dated (finished in the late 1990s), but the essential gist of it still holds today. The other thing you can do is just meet with a local post house, have a sit down meeting, and have them go over point by point what they would suggest for a given workflow and where time and money can be saved, where mistakes typically happen, where you can cut corners, and where you can't. I can't swear they'll do this for free, but there might be a way to work out an arrangement. And they may have sample block diagrams to show you what's worked for them in the past, and what might be improved upon in the future.

I can tell you I wound up encountering several frustrated clients during my years with Complete Post in Hollywood where they went off to shoot their show or feature, then they became bewildered and overwhelmed when they were confronted with all kinds of expensive problems and fixes in post. In many cases, if they had asked simple questions prior to the shoot -- like, "will this work? Are we doing this the right way? Is there a faster method to accomplish the same goal?" -- we might have saved them days of work and thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, all we could do at that point was patch up the holes as best we could, throw in a few free hours, and tell them it's a valuable lesson learned. Contrary to belief, most of us hate it when clients wound up spending far too much time and money in post, especially when it was all due to simple problems with sync and timecode that could've been sorted out easily. A lot of that just boils down to hiring good, experienced people who can handle challenges, know how to test the workflow, and ask for help when needed.

On top of being condescending you missed my point entirely. I have manually synced hundreds of hours of footage myself and after that jam-synced for several years. I have always wondered about the cost effectiveness of the system. Especially one that drifts. The lockit boxes and timecode slates are one thing but the personnel to manage it an entirely different cost. Now I have disposed of all of it with waveform syncing. As I said it is new tech and not ready for the $20 million dollar shoot but is easily ready for the $1 - 2 million dollar shoot. If you are interested I can explain in depth how the system is likely to evolve in a way that will eliminate the need for timecode even on large shoots.

 

[James McLellan]

I stopped jam syncing in October by the way and syncing has been much smoother with virtually no work. The slate is not going anywhere anytime soon though. That will be needed for some time.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I have manually synced hundreds of hours of footage myself and after that jam-synced for several years. I have always wondered about the cost effectiveness of the system. Especially one that drifts.

I have never had a single frame of drift with any of my systems in 7 years, film or digital. In the post projects I've worked on in the past 20 years, we'd typically see 1 or 2 frames of drift in 6 hours, which is not a big deal. What is a disaster is when timecode sync slides over time, usually a pulldown issue or a bad reference issue, sometimes even both. That's very bad, but even then, there are ways to fix it.

The lockit boxes and timecode slates are one thing but the personnel to manage it an entirely different cost. Now I have disposed of all of it with waveform syncing. As I said it is new tech and not ready for the $20 million dollar shoot but is easily ready for the $1 - 2 million dollar shoot.

That's been done for about six years now. As far as I know, Technicolor's Bones Dailies system and MTI's Cortex Control Dailies systems both have had waveform syncing for a long time, automatically finding a clap pulse just by jumping to the loudest "spike" at the head of the file:



We called this system "clapfinder" with Bones Dailies, but I believe it's been bought by another company. Colorfront Express Dailies can also sync the same way, and it's very widely used by both D.I.T.'s and post houses. In truth, doing it manually need not take more than about :30 seconds per shot, as I think I said before.

We've used our techniques on very modest projects in the $250,000-$500,000 range, though the most recent project I worked on was a $5 million pilot. The considerations are the same, and (in this specific case) we used a very similar sound set up with the $250,000 project I wrapped in March that was used on the $5M pilot: 8 wireless channels going to a Sound Devices 788 recorder, 6 actors wired, 1 wireless boom, 1 mix track, wireless hop to camera. Everybody using identical timecode. Never a problem with sync.

I've often said, timecode is the train tracks on which the entire production runs. Without that... the train falls off and stops. I lived in a world without timecode -- the way we did post in the 1970s and early 1980s -- and it was a nightmare, particularly trying to keep track of specific reel numbers, using ink applied to the edge of film workprints, and manually cueing 35mm mag tracks to clap with the on-screen sticks. In some ways, those days were a nightmare. I can think of documentary projects where I synced about 90% of it entirely by eye, by reading lips, because they had no timecode and the crew opted not to slate. (The director later guessed we had used up about 8 hours of billable time, about $5000 in the 1980s, because the crew had not used slates.) In the end, it didn't matter; the show looked and sounded great, it made money, and everybody was happy. That's all that counts.

If you hire a good editor (and even a modest-priced assistant editor), 90% of your problems can be taken care of. A good post sound department (dialogue editor, SFX editor, and music editor, plus the re-recording mixer), can handle almost anything you throw at them, assuming the essential dialogue is OK. It's reasonably straightforward to do and not as costly as you might think. This is a case where just because one guy can do everything doesn't mean they should do everything. Many of the arguments I see on the Red group boil down to two things: 1) why can't I do this for no money? or 2) why does it have to be done this way? #1 usually boils down to, "you get what you pay for," and there is a point below which quality begins to suffer. #2 usually boils down to inexperience and not asking the right questions or hiring the right people. I've dealt with all of these things. Both are solvable, but it takes effort and imagination, and sometimes time and luck. Skill and experience help most of all, and I'm often grateful for working with people far smarter and more knowledgeable than I am to fix big problems before they snowball into disaster.

The great thing about working in post -- particularly in LA -- is we get exposed to a lot of different ways of doing things. I think it's important to always keep your eyes open and be cognizant of constant changes in the industry. People like Michael Cioni get that there's a revolution going on, and lots of alternate workflow methods that have merit. A dozen companies have sprung up doing on-set dailies, immediately killing a big piece of traditional post-production companies almost overnight. Things change. The smart companies and the smart people survive by hanging in with these changes, knowing how to take old methods and transform them to new situations. As much as I think I know about this side of the business, I'm always excited to learn new stuff and solve new challenges. In particular, I learn a lot from DPs and very much sympathize with their struggles to make the day, get enough coverage, and satisfy all the powers on set.

I think a lot of picture-oriented people are intimidated by sound, and I understand that. Sound can be a mysterious business. Everybody seems to know what bad sound is, but few grasp how to get good sound. Having straddled both the field of color in post and of sound on set (and in post), I'm amazed by the similarities in both parts of the process. The art of color-correction (and color software) has many parallels to the art of the re-recording mixer in the final mix. It's amazing how much goes on that is frighteningly similar, even though one is just for picture, and the other is just for sound. Neither has to be intimidating or complex. Once you learn Resolve or Speedgrade or Baselight or whatever, you realize that all color correction processes share many similarities; you learn Pro Tools, and you begin to understand the process of sound editing and mixing.

All of us are afraid of or ignorant about the things we don't know. One last thought: when I worked for Cinesite some years back, I was fascinated by the visual effects process and convinced it was incredibly complicated. Much to my surprise, the Cinesite guys were absolutely terrified of audio. I laughed and said, "no, audio is easy! VFX is hard!" And they countered with "no, no -- VFX is easy! AUDIO is hard!" So it's all about your point of view. I think we wound up learning a lot from each other, and it was a positive experience overall. (And having a good grasp of effects, color, editing, and sound, I think all of them are hard in some ways, and all of them are easy in other ways.)

 

[Christopher Mills]

Basic thinking on this subject

Basic thinking on this subject

Like Marc, I regularly work with both audio and picture, though mostly in field capture of both. In addition, I have a couple decades of experience producing projects that have entertained and returned results to their investors.
The OP misses two main points:
1) protocols are developed for valid reasons to acheive a desired result in the delivered project
2) planning is essential to all budget projects, and is better than free, it conserves the resources of all projects.

Now on to my latest rant.
Good production is not random, spontaneous, or magic.
It is not the result of accidental inspiration from amateurs.
Neither is good architecture, good writing, good theater, good music, good manufacturing, or good poetry, amongst many others.
All human creative endeavor benefits from practice, attention, and discipline.
When you couple these with vision and inspiration, you get great results.
When all you have is vision and inspiration, without hard work, you get one person's fantasizing and wishful thinking.

This forum is an outgrowth of the production of some very useful tools for image capture that can deliver amazing results. Due to the price point, there are a lot more high end image capture tools available to amateur film makers. Many of those amateurs will never seek training in their craft, and at best will read the operating instructions for this tool.

In the last 25 years, hammers and portable power tools have also gotten a lot cheaper and a lot better. At the same time, broad based training in the use of those types of tools has diminished.
Thus a much higher percentage of the population has those tools. However, the average owner of those tools is a terrible carpenter or handyman, as they have no protocol training in how why and when to use which tool.

 

[James McLellan]

Wow Chris. Pretty insulting post. I reassure myself in thinking that if you knew me on a personal basis you would be less condescending. Don't get me wrong. It's all true. It's just the connotation and the subtext that is disturbing. Cheers folks.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

i'm all in for a multichannel transmitter and receiver made by red , that sends from an external device to the camera where it get's recorded multitrack on the camera aswell.
and additional a wireless listening feed that enables crew to monitor

 

[Christopher Mills]

Wow Chris. Pretty insulting post. I reassure myself in thinking that if you knew me on a personal basis you would be less condescending. Don't get me wrong. It's all true. It's just the connotation and the subtext that is disturbing. Cheers folks.

Not meant to be condescending, but meant to be a firm statement of my point of view. Afraid I do really talk this way when confronted with crew practicing poor protocol. I will start with "this is what should be done, and why." Especially if they are working for me.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Like Marc, I regularly work with both audio and picture, though mostly in field capture of both. In addition, I have a couple decades of experience producing projects that have entertained and returned results to their investors.
The OP misses two main points:
1) protocols are developed for valid reasons to acheive a desired result in the delivered project
2) planning is essential to all budget projects, and is better than free, it conserves the resources of all projects.

Now on to my latest rant.
Good production is not random, spontaneous, or magic.
It is not the result of accidental inspiration from amateurs.
Neither is good architecture, good writing, good theater, good music, good manufacturing, or good poetry, amongst many others.
All human creative endeavor benefits from practice, attention, and discipline.
When you couple these with vision and inspiration, you get great results.
When all you have is vision and inspiration, without hard work, you get one person's fantasizing and wishful thinking.

This forum is an outgrowth of the production of some very useful tools for image capture that can deliver amazing results. Due to the price point, there are a lot more high end image capture tools available to amateur film makers. Many of those amateurs will never seek training in their craft, and at best will read the operating instructions for this tool.

In the last 25 years, hammers and portable power tools have also gotten a lot cheaper and a lot better. At the same time, broad based training in the use of those types of tools has diminished.
Thus a much higher percentage of the population has those tools. However, the average owner of those tools is a terrible carpenter or handyman, as they have no protocol training in how why and when to use which tool.

If we had a LIKE​ button on this forum, I'd click it. Well-said, Chris.