The Sound of the Brave ..

[Allan Black]

check this out, interesting stuff here ...

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/07/the-sound-of-brave/

Cheers.

[sy90]

I suggest watching all the videos from soundworks here http://soundworkscollection.com/ awesome bts stuff for sound from a ton of movies. I just wish they did more for location sound stuff hehe

[Allan Black]

I think Dolby Atmos in theatres will eventually lead to more adventurous film sound design. More multitrack recording on location, more special custom sfx etc.

All this will lead to the writers heading off in new directions.

It's a bit off topic here, but I loved the Brian Tyler bit. He didn't mention 'the luck of being in the right place at the right time' but he does talk about living with a studio in your house.

But through the economics of the whole thing, that's how most folk start out. Whether you get to the stage of affording what Brian was able to do is a giant step. Over the years I know of 2 great sound engineers who had bad car accidents driving home at 4am after late gigs.

This Tyler bit should be required viewing by young folk who are thinking about a career in the biz. Wherever you end up, learn to play an instrument at the start.

Cheers.

[Noiz2]

This was fun. I don't think anybody is going to start recording multi channel sound FX though. There was a lot of talk about that with 5.1 also. The problem however is that ti lies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how film sound tracks are built. Or maybe more accurately THAT they are built. The film sound "experience" is created not recorded and recording "3D" sounds locks you into placement that really doesn't work.

Now if someone comes up with a recording encoder that lets you record something in a 3D space and in post pull it apart and reposition it AND keep it sounding like it was well that would be different. Maybe.

The two key things that have kept surround recordings from being used are that they are near impossible to reorient with out loosing all the surround bits you want to keep, and track count.

Track count now is more of a logistics issue than a limit issue as it used to be but it's still a much smaller headache to deal with 24 tracks of backgrounds (8 mono and 8 stereo) as opposed to 96 tracks (16 5.1) or the Atmos ( not sure of the track count but 5 across the front, front and rear subs, overhead and at least two sets of surrounds... 12? - so that would be 192 tracks just for BGs).

But then my great grandfather didn't think planes would ever be a affordable mode of transportation so...

[Allan Black]

Good points Scott. Maybe if and when the writers come up with new ideas and concepts based on Atmos, more location multitrack jobs will eventuate,
even if to experiment and see what can be used.

And the cost of theatre seats, 3D costs more, so watch Dolby Atmos doesn't add to that. If so, will patrons pay for a 3D/Atmos show? ..
many baulk at paying for 3D.

One way to look at Dolby Atmos now is to equate it with the first stereo LP records, everything was presented hard left and right. There was no soundstage and now that seems very basic and uninformed.

How did that happen, there were brilliant recording producers working at the time, especially in the classical world. Maybe it was consoles built without pan controls and control rooms with no proper stereo monitoring. So do we need a new type or method of location recording? Maybe Dolby is working on that.

We're going to get some weird Atmos/stereo mixdowns on feature movie DVDs before they sort it all out.

I think I remember having a drink with your great grandfather, nice guy

Cheers.

[Noiz2]

What I suspect will eventually happen is that different styles will evolve for different types of films. Animation is certainly one place where "reality" doesn't have to play too big a role.

But 3D needs to evolve also. Having watched a number (in really good screenings with bunches of other industry professionals) I think it has some serious issues as a playback experience. Almost everyone felt their eyes getting VERY tired after an hour or so. Watching something long created headaches with a number of folks and pretty much everyone came out rubbing their eyes. I think it's because the three D is good enough it fools you and your eyes are trying to focus on different things in the scene as they would in a real three D world. But the focus is fixed and no mater how hard you try you can't get that blurry bit to focus.

I suspect to really make it work you are going to need really deep focus so folks can "focus" on what they want. Of course that has a big impact on the story telling aspect and cinematographers artistic contribution.

As for field recordings? The problem will always remain for narrative features is that you want to "create" the world of the film. We are almost never, except in doc.s, reproducing a real place. For instance say you have a scene at a cafe in Paris. Paris is a real place BUT the scene in your movie is NOT. It's a place and time that never actually existed except in the story. So just dropping some "Paris cafe ambience" doesn't work well. It's "right" but it's not "right" for the film.

I was around when folks brought in various surround recordings at Saul Zaentz and at Skywalker and screened them for the supervisors, mixer and designers. They all had the same result which was "they sound great, but how do we use this in a film?".

this stuff will get done, and has to some extent already, in low budget films. And if one ever comes out amazing then probably some of what they did will work it's way into the mainstream. And FX are sometimes recorded in multi track formats. But usually it's to be able to manipulate or get better coverage. Gunshots, arrow by's, cannon shots, etc. are often recorded at multiple points and then combined to make the "perfect" FX for a shot. And some of those may well be sent to interesting places in an Atmos theatre.

And 3D IS the place where a heavy surround will work the best. A traditional problem with using surrounds for anything important is that it will make your audience look in that direction. When the image is flat and in front that tends to take an audience right out of the story. With 3D you can actually have an image that looks like it matches the sound placement.

Maybe the best thing that may come out is the general improvement the system will make for all formats. Even today many films are mixed in stereo (actually LCR) and just toss a little something in the surrounds so they can call it a DD Surround "mix". In the US (in a major city) you have probably a just better than 50% chance of hearing a real discrete DD playback in a theatre that says it's doing a DD playback. Of those maybe 1/2 are actually set up close to where they are supposed to be. The weakest link by far are the theatres.

That said if you go rent/ buy a DVD of Grand Prix and watch with a good set of headphones or on a decent home system it is Thrilling. Your heart rate will go up and you can feel the cars.

It was recorded in mono and released in stereo and surround (but most saw it in stereo). On the other hand if you can see Saving Private Ryan in a really good theatre it is just amazing. again most of the FX are mono and most of the ambiences are stereo. There are no surround recordings, but it is an amazing surround mix.

On the flip side Woody Allen still mixes in mono.

Once folks get over the whiz bang aspect of Atmos I think people will use it where it works and use other formats where they work. And if they are all played back on Atmos systems they will probably all sound better.

How did you know my great grandfather was a bootlegger? ;~)

[Allan Black]

Agreed, Atmos and 3D have a way to go before they both seamlessly integrate for discerning viewers. The movies are still competing with folks leisure time which is gradually diminishing every week.

So I suppose it's understandable that movie promoters seize on every new 'advance' before it's fully developed but we suffer the bad examples of their progress, as well as the good. However, as you say, there are gems along the way and they make the whole thing worthwhile.

I'm looking forward to Baz Luhrmanns Great Gatsby, shot in 'Real D 3D' and very close to where we live, I nearly got the job of spell checker ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...d-Follies.html

They fixed it but I wonder what author F. Scott would have said.

How did you know my great grandfather was a bootlegger? ;~)

mmm no I don't think he told me that but I remember he asked me if I could drive a truck and liked to get some night work.

Cheers.

[Chadfish]

That was a great look at the audio for this new film. It makes me wand to see it now. I have to say that the scenes with the blond engineer woman sitting at the mixing desk drove me crazy! Her lip smacking sounds are a sound person's nightmare. I wanted to give her a class of water.

[Noiz2]

That was a great look at the audio for this new film. It makes me wand to see it now. I have to say that the scenes with the blond engineer woman sitting at the mixing desk drove me crazy! Her lip smacking sounds are a sound person's nightmare. I wanted to give her a class of water.

That would be Gwen the sound supervisor. She is one of the great stories. She was primarily an ADR and Dialog editor and managed to move in to supervising. A hard task coming from ADR or Dialog and a very hard task in the worlds biggest boys club. It's a little better now but when she was moving up there were a very small handful of women who were FX editors and almost none who were supervisors. As one pointed out there are no Oscars for dialog or ADR editing.

She is just sitting at the mixer so "we" will know she does sound ;~)

Just goes to show you can't hear your self! Since she was ADR supervisor on a bunch of films she would have been giving herself a slice of apple if she was on the other side of the camera.

Anyway, not "engineer" on this film she was Gary's boss ;~)