Can anybody show me some of their work recording sound for film?

[Alex H.]

Please?

That's a much better way of asking rather than snark and condescension.

And I don't think these are separate. Yeah... it could theoretically be done, but it's not as easy as showing layers of VFX compositing. Further, the original question in this thread was one that assumed (or at least indicated) that there's a difference between dialog recording for indies and shorts, and dialog recording for bigger budgets. The truth is, not counting no-budget projects from amateurs and hobbyists who have little or no experience in sound, it's not the dialog recording that makes all the difference if it's recorded properly. Most of these posts have explained the differences between production and post, and that was an important distinction to make (and also directly addresses the OP).

But again, most of us don't have reels and don't have stuff to show. A reel for production audio is useless because the end product sounds nothing like the raw tracks and thus won't be an accurate representation. And the visual people who post the video breakdowns of VFX and grading are generally the ones who have the rights to the material... they're the ones who hired us for sound.

[mentatDUKE]

Audio is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.

Color grading is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.
VFX is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.
Cinematography is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.


Look. Film-making is composed of several crafts. A craft is inherently teachable and observable. Let's not artificially mystify this stuff guys. The audio section of this site can be just as good if not better than the lighting and cinematography sections. Let's start working on solutions and step our game up. These are technical skills. We've been way too theoretical about all this. Posting work for peer review and illumination is one of the hallmarks of this site. The sound forum should start becoming more like the other sections.

[Noiz2]

Disappointing thread. I see a lot of excuses and justifications. All the guy's asking for is for someone to show their pipeline. Everyone else does it (vfx, color grading, makeup). Sound guys are exempt, eh?

A simple pipeline, folks:
raw recording --> pass 1: noise reduction --> pass 2: compression --> pass 3: EQ --> pass 4: FX

Let's not pretend its overly complicated.

Not exempt. There is an entire thread dedicated to the workflow. However your example above shows a complete lack of understanding of a films sound post workflow.

And I'm sorry, unless you are doing ENG or quick turn around projects it is a lot more complicated than you seem to think.

Movie studios are the cheapest folks on the planet. If they thought they could do your cookie-cutter approach and still make money at the box office they would have done so a LONG time ago.

But the OP didn't ask how to make it sound like a no budget indi short. He wants to make it sound like a Hollywood film. He can use your pipeline to get the sound he doesn't want. It will work every time.

[Noiz2]

Color grading is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.
VFX is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.
Cinematography is too dynamic to equate it to presets, and everyone's process is a bit different.


Look. Film-making is composed of several crafts. A craft is inherently teachable and observable. Let's not artificially mystify this stuff guys. The audio section of this site can be just as good if not better than the lighting and cinematography sections. Let's start working on solutions and step our game up. These are technical skills. We've been way too theoretical about all this. Posting work for peer review and illumination is one of the hallmarks of this site. The sound forum should start becoming more like the other sections.

Well please do. Professionals can't generally show stuff since they don't have the rights to most of the stuff they work on.

But I'm not sure you are asking for what the OP wants. I don't see a lot of raw footage posted, except as a camera test. It sounds like what you want is links to bits that have been finished. That would be post not production.

And there is a fundamental difference between visual and sound crafts. Cameramen can grab a camera and shoot with onboard mics (because they don't particularly care how it sounds). A sound guy with gear doesn't have a video camera that tags along with the mic. So sound folks are almost always working on other peoples projects when recording with picture.
The above cameraman has no problems posting his footage, the sound person is going to have to get permission AND the footage to post his clips. Very different thing.

So production clips are probably not going to happen. Post clips are more possible, though a lot of directors don't want clips of their films floating around so...

So your really then stuck with clips done by filmmakers not sound people, and does that really accomplish much? maybe, but not what the OP was asking.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

There's this on youtube:



And 5 additional installments that follow this book:

Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art

[Noiz2]

Here is a fun look at sound post, and some "raw" footage.

[davefisk]

I've worked with VFX people, camera people, all that jazz... One of the reasons (at least to me) that you don't see much deeper behind the scenes stuff on sound is because workflow and gear can be extremely varied from one crew to another. Yeah, you'll see that on LOTR they recorded all kinds of cool stuff and they assigned guys to cut just arrows flying around, but how educational is that if you want to know how they did that? There is a bit of black magic involved in sound, and it takes a lot of practice and experience to get good at it. Another reason you don't see a lot of people in BTS stuff, especially on the lower budget side of things is that, while it can be pretty inexpensive to get camera gear and a good computer to get good visuals, audio equipment is still really expensive if you want the high end stuff. Production sound mixers that are working on union gigs on episodic television or bigger budget features have invested at least $100K in audio equipment, meanwhile the picture is being shot on a 5D (Act of Valor is a perfect example). To be able to properly cut and mix audio, I need a really capable system, and if I want to go with Pro Tools, and have an arsenal of plug-ins, I can easily spend $40 to $50K. Even then. You can have all this gear, and if you don't know how to use it, it's worthless. Then there are the techniques. I can show you "how I boomed this particular shot", but that's just one particular shot. There are lots of scenarios that boom ops have to deal with, and it's a very demanding job on production... probably one of the hardest. I can put a camera on my steadicam, and I'm going to shoot and pull focus the same way most of the time. Not so with booming. Same goes with production mixing. When it comes to post, it's a different animal for each project. I've cut a whole episode of Fear Factor in one day, and I've spent most of a whole day creating a sound for a super weapon for a video game. I can say "yeah, I used pro tools and sound toys plug ins, plus a big sound fx library to do this", but each layer of sound has lots of different things done to it, and that's not something you can easily show in a video, and even then, it only applies to that one individual sound file, which makes up just a small part of a whole sound. It's not about applying a certain filter to change the visual element. I guess the overall gist here is that there is SO much...so many little parts that make up the whole that to get into the nitty gritty and show you how it is all done for real is just too involved and would take too much time, AND it would take a lot of education on basic audio principles to even understand what is being said. Watching me cut sound fx over my shoulder isn't going to really help you with anything. You have to learn by doing with sound. Sure, there's the "how do I handle this specific situation" question, and those are great, but a 4 step pipeline isn't really representative of what the actual audio process is like on a properly funded project.

[unclebob6958]

I'll just condense it all for the OP...

Getting the "Hollywood" dialog sound is a three step process.

Step one is a highly experienced Production Sound Mixer and an equally experienced Boom-Op utilizing their talent and years of experience in conjunction with the best equipment available to capture clean, clear dialog.

Step two is a highly experienced Dialog Editor utilizing their talent and years of experience to edit the dialog. S/he may use dialog from the unused takes to comp together the perfect dialog performance.

Step two "B" is a highly experienced ADR mixer utilizing their talent and years of experience to work with the talent to get the best possible ADR performances.

Step three is highly experienced Re-Recording Mixers utilizing their talent and years of experience in a custom built, multimillion dollar dubbing facility selecting from the best outboard and software noise reduction, EQs, dynamic processing and effects processing (on what can be a moment by moment basis), combining the dialog with Foley, sound FX and score/music to provide the audience with the best sonic experience possible. The dialog does not live in a vacuum, it is just many parts of a huge sonic puzzle that needs to be fit together into a cohesive whole.

Every one of these professionals will have their own work flow and personal favorite equipment/software choices. As with almost every other filmmaking discipline sound-for-picture is an art-form that transcends "by-the-book" explanations.

I don't mean this to be a snarky comment/explanation; quite aside from the near impossibility of posting examples, it conveys the difficulty of answering the question adequately.

When I was at the beginning of my own audio post learning process the best answers were to more specific questions - "I'm having trouble with XYZ. I'm using ZYX gear and have YXZ plug-ins, and no, I can't afford to buy anything else. I've tried to solve the problem by doing A, B, C and D. What am I doing wrong, and is there anything else I can try?" I would get "this is what I would do" answers that gave me a few more avenues to explore or ways of changing my thinking/approach.

[Noiz2]

UncleBob is about right. But he leaves the rest of the sound out of the picture.

Now that can seem undoable for a small budget film.

On a small budget film you can get there, it just take more time. The person(s) you hire still need experience though.

I have a powerpoint presentation on post work flow from big budget to small budget. I'll see if I can figure out a way to make it viewable.

the takeaway is you can get a "hollywood" sounding track on a low budget. It doesn't take a million dollar mix stage. BUT it DOES take someone who knows sound AND knows the difference. It also takes time or money. The man-hours stay the same so if your trying to get a 20 person crew quality out of a single person you need to give then 20 times the time. Not quite because you can be more efficient with a micro budget. But do figure at least as much time as you took to edit picture.

And the "bad news" is that we don't use a magic button, we use years of experience.

If you are really good you never make the same mistake more than twice. It takes years to make enough mistakes that I'm not working up to my "quota" on your film.

A non sound person or someone with out experience has a VERY slim chance of creating that "Hollywood sound". And it is never going to happen on a NLE.

[L1N3ARX]

Thanks for the input everybody. I'm currently writing a script to a feature I hope to shoot by the end of this year. The sound questions I guess had more to do with hiring the right guy. When it comes down to it, I'd like to know a little about sound before I hire someone to take care of it for me. Like with video, I'd have a very good idea of what kind of DP I want; this is only because I'm familiar enough with cinematography to give me experience in selecting the right person.

With sound, since this will be a minimal crew, likely with only one guy to take care of sound, I don't know what to look for yet. I've seen some pretty amazing indie shorts that quite frankly just don't have the level of sound I'd expect from a hollywood film; where there were multiple guys taking care of different aspects... booming, mixing, post etc. On the other hand I've seen some indie films done with the most absolute bare-boned crew you could imagine; with the one recordist booming and doing Foley / post... and it sounds... absolutely perfect, like it was a big budget film with millions of dollars to spend. It's hard to identify what I need to look for.

Is it booming the mic at just the right distance and angle to properly pick up the vocals? Is it more in post where the dialog is adjusted until it has that sound? As I search for a recordist, looking at his past work, what exactly am I judging? His boom work? The quality of the mic, the post work?

Do any of you have an example of what dialog sounds like before and after adjusting it in post? I don't mean paid work or anything, you guys made it pretty clear why you can't do that, just some random tests you might have done. Like when I record myself on an oktava MK012, it sounds very nice, rich and clean. But, nothing like what you'd expect from a film. Maybe from a radio advertisement or a voice over on a documentary or event... but not at all a film. To me film dialog has a completely different tonality and feel that distinguishes it from other types of productions.

The closest analogy I can make is this. Watching an HD sporting event on TV vs a film with an artistic style. We all know the 2 look completely different and for good reason. However if I didn't know anything about cameras or cinematography I'd have no idea what that difference really is... it would certainly be perceptible but not identifiable in what characteristics intrinsic to each medium are causing the division between them. Each might very well look professional, but they're for 2 different purposes. I want to know what makes film dialog so distinct from other types of audio recordings, and what I need to look for when hiring a recordist to give me the exact sound I'm looking for.