Why "One Man Band" sound mixing is a bad idea:

[Christian Dolan]

http://www.syncsoundcinema.com/2013/06/han-duo.html

 

[Justin Barham]

So true. Thanks for posting.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I don't disagree with his perspective but he offers no evidence to back up his assertions. Just an opinion, no facts. Who will he persuade?

 

[Julio Quintana]

I don't disagree with his perspective but he offers no evidence to back up his assertions. Just an opinion, no facts. Who will he persuade?

Agreed. He just points at the camera department and says, "That's not fair!". The cinematographer has a ton of creative considerations to deal with in addition to the technical. Location sound recording is almost exclusively technical, similar to the responsibility of a first AC.

Obviously a one-man sound department isn't ideal, but comparing it to the camera department is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Agreed. He just points at the camera department and says, "That's not fair!". The cinematographer has a ton of creative considerations to deal with in addition to the technical. Location sound recording is almost exclusively technical, similar to the responsibility of a first AC. Obviously a one-man sound department isn't ideal, but comparing it to the camera department is a bit of a stretch.

If you see how much equipment a first-class sound department has to bring on location, you'd change your tune. Granted, it's not the same thing as nine 9X PARs, a Technocrane, and 150 C-stands, but it's still a lot of expensive, complicated gear that required a lot of finessing and adjustment.

And the bottom line is: you can't boom and mix properly at the same time. One or the other is going to suffer. My selling point to producers is often: "With a boom op, my guess is that we'll save between 30 and 45 minutes in delays per day." That will easily pay for the boom op's time and much more. Heck, a big movie spending at least $50,000-$100,000 per day, just saving five minutes is a huge factor. And the ultimate improvement in sound quality is not subtle.

I get that there are tiny projects and inconspicuous news/documentary situations where a minimal crew is mandatory, particularly in a riot or battle situation. But for scripted material, it's insane to have 4 grips, 3 gaffers, an assistant cameraman, a D.I.T., a camera operator, and a DP... and then one sound man. It's grossly unjust, particularly on a set with a lot of actors and a lot of setups. I simply won't work on a job like this, because the compromises are too excessive.

 

[Julio Quintana]

If you see how much equipment a first-class sound department has to bring on location, you'd change your tune. Granted, it's not the same thing as nine 9X PARs, a Technocrane, and 150 C-stands, but it's still a lot of expensive, complicated gear that required a lot of finessing and adjustment.

And the bottom line is: you can't boom and mix properly at the same time. One or the other is going to suffer. My selling point to producers is often: "With a boom op, my guess is that we'll save between 30 and 45 minutes in delays per day." That will easily pay for the boom op's time and much more. Heck, a big movie spending at least $50,000-$100,000 per day, just saving five minutes is a huge factor. And the ultimate improvement in sound quality is not subtle.

I get that there are tiny projects and inconspicuous news/documentary situations where a minimal crew is mandatory, particularly in a riot or battle situation. But for scripted material, it's insane to have 4 grips, 3 gaffers, an assistant cameraman, a D.I.T., a camera operator, and a DP... and then one sound man. It's grossly unjust, particularly on a set with a lot of actors and a lot of setups. I simply won't work on a job like this, because the compromises are too excessive.

You're right. I was addressing the "Han Duo" argument that compares the sound department to the camera. But although his argument is weak, his point is still valid. No reason to have only one person in the sound department of a large budget production.

 

[Mark Britton]

I simply won't work on a job like this, because the compromises are too excessive.

"You did a good job getting mostly acceptable audio when we understaffed you. We'll be sure to hire you back next time with a bigger budget!" - Said no Producer Ever

 

[Christopher Mills]

Absoulutely not a stretch to compare camera dept to sound

Absoulutely not a stretch to compare camera dept to sound

Agreed. He just points at the camera department and says, "That's not fair!". The cinematographer has a ton of creative considerations to deal with in addition to the technical. Location sound recording is almost exclusively technical, similar to the responsibility of a first AC.

Obviously a one-man sound department isn't ideal, but comparing it to the camera department is a bit of a stretch.

I am experienced in both departments, and I assure you that the sound mixer is the Director of Audio Acquisition.. and many of that department's tasks are physically not doable by one person by themselves..

Also, their package is likely to have many more components than a camera package.

If you want to play the dollars card.. my sound cart and package (it's NOT a "kit") cost way more than a your average Epic package...

We refer to one man band jobs as "bag" or "ENG" jobs, and very little mixing is possible. These are usually single or two channel sources, sometimes sent to camera, more often not..

If you are filming narrative fiction, you want 2 or 3 people in the department to get it right. The camera type is immaterial to this need.

You need
A recording device and signal path expert (Mixer)
A microphone management and placement expert (Boom operator)
And a timecode and wireless equipment manager and free roving technical support person (Sound Utility)

Roughly similar to our picture quality control staff of:
DoP
Camera Operator
DIT

It's absolutely not as simple as "press record and hope for the best"

Like all large projects, moving picture creation has division of labor and hierarchical structure for good reasons.

A one man band plays few tunes well, they are impressive in their effort, not their results.