how much audio is wireless vs. boomed on big budget productions?

Tim Young

Tim Young

Active member
for those who know, how much do big productions boom these days? i've been paying attention to films i've been watching lately, and for a lot of the scenes it seems like it would be hard to get good audio with a boom, either because of movement, how wide the shot is, actors being in a car, etc. so i was thinking that less audio is boomed these days than i was thinking. anyone know about what the breakdown is? i'm planning on getting a wireless lav system soon, so i was just curious. thanks.
 
For what kind of work? Narrative, reality, documentary, news? In reality and documentary, wireless is always less obtrusive once it's up, but it can kill your spontaneity.

Most common in field reality and documentary is a single system direct to camera through a breakaway cable direct from the audio technician's 3 or 4 channel mixer. He usually has 2 - 6 wireless kits available or on his person. Depending on the requirement, the extra units can be placed on the camera for wireless stereo mixdown from same.

For narrative, there is usually a production mixer with multi-channel or multi-track double-system recording to an external device like a Deva. There will be multiple wireless systems available based on the requirements based on the breakdowns and applications. We commonly hide Tram or Sankens and Lectro wireless on the talent under clothing, up the neck or in the hair.

Additionally, you'll have a minimum of one boom operator and cable utility if not two teams of two.

Features and single-camera film narrative commonly have a regular 1st unit team of five technicians for audio. Wireless is everywhere.

e
 
i was asking about narrative. thanks for the reply! is it feasible to still go directly into the camera with a wireless system? i'm doing single camera low budget shorts. right now we go directly into our dvx. i'd like to get the added quality of doing a separate system, but our crew is so small that it's really not feasible yet. i've been exploring the idea of something like the sound devices mixpre. the problem is that right now when i say our crew is small, there are 3 of us. one DP/camera operator, 1 guy directing, and 1 guy on sound, which means boom pole operator. i also have a macbook and boom recorder, and have being trying to figure out broadcast waves (i really want to avoid manually syncing everything), but there aren't enough of us to have a mixer/laptop operator and a boom operator. so i'm wondering if it would be a huge mess to go to a wireless receiver then to the mixpre, then to the camera, and i'm wondering if the mixpre would make a big enough difference in the sound quality. i know i just added about 5 questions to my original, but if anyone would like to offer some advice it would be appreciated.
 
Using a mixpre gives the boom op the ability to hear what he's doing and also adjust levels as needed... which are two crucial functions on set. This control and monitoring will impact your sound quality more then any gain in technical specs.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to hear the difference between running a mic directly into the DVX and running a mic > mixpre > DVX... unless the dialog volume changes significantly or unless a boom op has no other way to hear what he's doing.

A boom op that can't adjust levels as needed is limited... a boom op that can't hear what he's doing is crippled.
 
wierless could be everything between 0-100%
even shotes you see you think they used wierless may come as complete adr track .
comersial i did aweek or 2 ago was completly wierless exept places wher my schoeps used on stage as a prop mic :-)
the only one place that the wierless was not good as it was on small girl singing we made wild recording on the spot ,
so actually there is no rules and not actual numbers
 
overlandfilms said:
Features and single-camera film narrative commonly have a regular 1st unit team of five technicians for audio.
Click to expand...

Could you describe what the 5 sound crew positions typically are? Thanks.
 
he did , 1 mix , 2 boom ,2 support .
usually in real life the secend boom is done by the third and the cable puling if it nesseraly done by pa .
the 3rd person does the dirty jobs - cleaning cables , changing batteries , bringing the coffee and if he is good on these , they give him to hold the stick and dump the data to dvds when the go to drink after hours ;-)
 
MattinSTL said:
Using a mixpre gives the boom op the ability to hear what he's doing and also adjust levels as needed... which are two crucial functions on set. This control and monitoring will impact your sound quality more then any gain in technical specs.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to hear the difference between running a mic directly into the DVX and running a mic > mixpre > DVX... unless the dialog volume changes significantly or unless a boom op has no other way to hear what he's doing.

A boom op that can't adjust levels as needed is limited... a boom op that can't hear what he's doing is crippled.
Click to expand...

thanks matt. the way that we do it now is that i run a 25 foot XLR from the boom to the camera, and a 25 foot 1/8" headphone cable in the opposite direction from the camera to the boom operator so he can monitor the sound. i have the cables attached with zip ties about every foot or so. i set both left and right channels to that input, with the record level of one of them set lower than the other, so if the hotter channel overloads, i can use the audio from the other channel. it's seemed to work pretty well so far. my thinking with buying a mixpre is that it seems like i'm getting some high frequency noise in the audio that i assumed was from the camera's preamp, since i don't get it recording into my laptop with a firewire soundcard. does that sound like it would be preamp noise? if it wouldn't improve that aspect of the sound quality, would the mixpre really be that much of an improvement over the way i'm doing it now? i guess i just haven't seen the need to "ride the levels" based on what we've done so far, so i'm wanting to know exactly why that's necessary. maybe it's because the way i'm doing means that 2 tracks are needed for each channel. thanks for the help!
 
Oleg is correct on that. The 3rd Audio often pinch hits between utility and a second pole in larger or more spread out scenes.

On your question over crews of three. Absolutely, you can certainly mix down wireless from your boom operator if he's got his mixer in a PortaBrace around his neck. It's heavy when you start getting into four systems, but it can and is often done.

e
 
Oleg 2 said:
wierless could be everything between 0-100%
even shotes you see you think they used wierless may come as complete adr track .
comersial i did aweek or 2 ago was completly wierless exept places wher my schoeps used on stage as a prop mic :-)
the only one place that the wierless was not good as it was on small girl singing we made wild recording on the spot ,
so actually there is no rules and not actual numbers
Click to expand...

Yep, correct.

Got a lead on a Scheops CMC6 Mk41?
 
no - but you can put an add on my junk yard or ramps :-)
also Taperssection.com is a nice place to ask but there they usually comes in pars .
sorry why do you want waist your money ? for dialog schoeps doesnt have any more benefit then any other good mic
 
Tim Young said:
thanks matt. the way that we do it now is that i run a 25 foot XLR from the boom to the camera, and a 25 foot 1/8" headphone cable in the opposite direction from the camera to the boom operator so he can monitor the sound.
Click to expand...

Even without a mixpre, you can get rid of all those cable loops by using a cheap headphone amp at the boom op side. Get a used Shure FP12 or a Rolls Rolls PM50 sOB. You can find either one for less than $50 and they're pass through devices which won't alter the sound in any way. You can even daisy chain them with a FP supply and use plugin transmitter to go wireless. Yet no rmote control over the input levels to the camera, but the boom op would be monitoring the audio at least.

Lutnik
 
so as far as sound quality goes, will there be much of a difference between running directly into the camera vs. using a mixpre vs. using a sound devices 302? how about vs. using a mixpre/302 with an external recorder? i do like the idea of the boom op having a meter, being able to adjust levels, and having a cleaner headphone feed, but is there going to be a sound quality advantage of using the preamp of the mixpre/302? is the difference between the mixpre and 302 just the number of inputs?
 
Last edited:
with a really small crew, especially when some of them have little or no experience you can certainly do a boom and/or wireless directly into the camera.

i did a short a few years ago (first one i did that was for someone elses story) and it went on to play in a LOT of film festivals.

all we used were two dvx-100a's and a 416 (sennheiser boom mic) on a gitzo 577c pole.

i had the sennheiser wireless then but it wasn't needed.

i can't remember which director said it but one of the BIG NAMES, perhaps Scorcese but i can't remember, was quoted in an article saying that in his most recent movie at that time...

this is not an exact quote but 99%...

"100% of the sound in this movie was done with wireless, there is wireless available that is good enough and the sound people need to get that"

i am in the low budget indie and no-budget shorts world and i JUST bought a pair of lectrosonics...

411a's for receiver and drumroll...SM's for transmitters!

i was gonna go with the SMD for the extra battery life but the SM is just too damn cute when it is that small!

my only problem was that initially they sent me one SM with the +10 and another without the +10 but today they sent me a replacement with +10 and both SM's have sequential serial numbers.

i don't know why but i thought that was kind of cool.

i also got a cs3e to replace my 416 (thank you Oleg for all the answers to my questions and the advice)

so now i have to start really practicing lav placement with various wardrobe options that are tricky.

wireless is the future.

i did a tiny no budget short last summer and i told them that i had only documentary quality wireless and only 2 sets (senn g2 and g1)

it was a 6 page script and nothing called for wireless...

there was a problem where we couldn't shoot a pivotal scene because of a camera issue (no polarizer for crucial in-car shot)

so an impromptu scene was written where you had a walk-and-talk with two adult and one young child.

the framing was such that the boom mic couldn't get within 10-14 feet of the actors.

i was called incompetent and unprofessional by the director because i didn't have at least 4 or 6 state of the art wireless sets in my kit!

this was a freebie weekend short where they paid for my hotel.

i mean come on, even a set of 401 receiver and 400 transmitter and a sanken cos-11s lav will run you well over $2k

so your supposed to be investing $8k just for wireless?

the future to me looks like lots of WIDE short and/or multi-camera where every shot is a master and a medium.

matthew
 
I work on a lot of major films and shows and i say 95% is boomed unless it can't be done...ie on the beach, in a car...etc. Not to mention a majority is using COOPER 308 mixers on the set and not sound devices mixpre. They try to boom it before using lavs because it comes out better overall.
 
Last edited:
There really is not statistic on how much wireless vs boom is used. It depends on the production, shot, and professional's preference. Sort of like asking how often a 25mm lens is used on big budget productions.

Generally wireless are used as little as possible but more and more directors are asking to wireless all the time (from Matt's quote I guess Scorcese has joined the choir). I believe they like the presence when listening in their headphones. The problem being wireless take a lot more post processing to sound good in the final mix (directors generally not being privy to this).

The one statistic I have read is that the amount of ADR needed on films has been dropping over the years in correlation to the wireless technology improving.

Cheers
 
smithy said:
I work on a lot of major films and shows and i say 95% is boomed unless it can't be done...ie on the beach, in a car...etc. Not to mention a majority is using COOPER 308 mixers on the set and not sound devices mixpre. They try to boom it before using lavs because it comes out better overall.
Click to expand...

i would say , that you are wrong .
some mixers just dont like that the wierless sound would be in the movie , so the ****ing the takes that later goes to adr .
if you will watch the west wing about 100% of walk and talk come from the wierless .
wierless are your best friend as other wise the production curs you for your unusible boom sound .
you just need good systems , know how to wire and work properly

about the mixers - cooper doesnt sound better , its just much easy to work with faders .
yesterday i did a presentation for la burge and all my sound was from wierless as the d p worked with top light and 2 cameras all the time .
not to mention that when i had the opportunity to boom it was also wierless (mbho mic) as i really hate using cables :-)
 
lectro , the zaxcom worked as a wierless sender to the camera on the crain just for back up as sometimes they didnt ran the main ones (g-2 as return sender ) .
The director was areally nice guy and asked me to wire every one so we will go home early as possible, not really helped :-)

these who visit La burge in Paris would able to hear it in IAI(israeli aviation industry) boot
 
I was visiting the set of a feature being shot here in scotland I was interested in this question too.

This mixer was doing things I would have thought quite dangerous - he was using wireless on everybody all the time at the same time as booming. the dangerous thing was that he was mixing the radios with the boom on the same channel (they were recorded seperate too though). I asked him about phase issues and he said that you do have to listen out for phasy takes and make a note, but I would have thought that it would be trickey NOT to have a phasey take doing that. he said mostly he mixes 75% wireless and 25% boom to give it some air. I would have just left the mixing to post had I not seen this done.

I'm going on set again tommorrow so see what else I learn! I already learned that I want wireless boom - thats real nice.

below is a pic of video village + the sound lounge
02052007311.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top