Boom op a luxury anymore?

L

lambert

Well-known member
In this mumblecore world should we just get the best wireless we can round up and be done with it (and forget the boom for the most part). Especially if the director and editor know and understand the difference in sound perspective between lavs, booms and plants and their relationship to various shots?
Many producers of narrative t.v. shows have already made that call.
 
In that case the art of booming will die out .. schools won't teach it shotguns will ice up .. most will go fishing and the remaining few will jack their prices up to kill it. Sad.
Cheers.
 
do we even need a sound mixer anymore? Use a p.a. to wire up some zaxcom on your talent and run 'em into a dr-680 and hope for the best. 12-13k gets you 3 tx/rx, lavs and a recorder.
If the p.a. forgot to turn on the recorder no big thing pull the micro sd cards from the tx. Is this going to be the thinking for producer/directors?
 
lambert said:
In this mumblecore world should we just get the best wireless we can round up and be done with it (and forget the boom for the most part). Especially if the director and editor know and understand the difference in sound perspective between lavs, booms and plants and their relationship to various shots?
Many producers of narrative t.v. shows have already made that call.
Click to expand...

Most TV shows don't use boom ops?

That...seems incorrect to me. Any data to back that up?

And as for "the best wireless..." Huge, huge, huge problem there. The BEST wireless lavs are, at times, decent products. But the best you can "round up" (I'm assuming you mean mics-on-a-budget?) -- you're going to be left with shoddy, worthless sound. WIRED LAVS can work in SOME situations for the indie shooter, but I think it would be a really tough shoot (if not impossible) to have every bit of dialog recorded on wired lavs.
 
It's more often and often. Producer/directors who do those knid of "company, commercial, educational" stuff think they can get away with a wirelless mice directly connected to the camera.

I hope that concering film/movie... directors and producers still be aware of the need of a boomoperator AND a productionmixer (and even 2, 3 4 boomoperators if that's needed.
(it's better to have a good 2nd boomoperator then noisy wirelles).

But yet... producers/directors are so afraid of money... But then I wonder.. does a producer or director needs to have 54065405604456076046 assitants ?

Sometimes I see: "wanted, 1st AD, 2nd AD 3th AD.... but a soundguy is to expencice....
Where are all those AD's needed for ???

Soundguys ARE needed... end of discussion. And yes also for company movies, publicities, educational, informational stuff they can be a big help.

That's my "free thought" about it.
 
"Most TV shows don't use boom ops? "
I said "Many producers of narrative t.v. shows have already made that call. " Many have or use much much less than in the recent past.
You don't think the trend is to wire everyone when they walk on a set and maybe you use a boom maybe not? If its going to slow things down you skip it as a producer. Where do you stick the boom op on a three camera run n gun narrative like Southland (the sound team does a great job on that show and maybe they boom every shot but I doubt it). Obviously you still have boom ops but they are being used less and less and many non-union shoots are skipping them all together or bring them in as needed.
That seems to be the trend (its good enough for Margie in Iowa). ER wired everyone when they walked in the door (multi camera shoot in tight quarters). Jim Wexlers (academy award winner sound) site Jwsound has extensive discussions (its all working sound pros for film and tv) about wiring everyone on multi-camera shoots and leaving the boom op on the sidelines. The cable puller is no longer on the sound team why not get rid of the boom op.

No I'm not meaning mics on a budget (lavs in the 150-500 range) (zaxcom or newer lectro). Zaxcom just dropped their prices(actually new products cheaper and do more), still a kings ransom but when your cameras a thousand bucks maybe you can spend some more cash on some decent wireless that will last you for a decade or you could sell off after a couple of shoots and not lose much. Which is easier and more effective and give you better sound. On a three or four camera dslr shoot, what choice is the producer going to make. Good wireless or a p.a. swinging a 416 (the dp and camera ops sure don't want a boom)?
My point is that for a long time booming was the first choice for the sound mixer arsenal, now especially on low budget shoots is it even necessary. I'm just asking the question.
 
I'm doing a super low budget production and while there was on one hand, an appeal initially to use lavs because of just this sort of thinking, ultimately it was so clear that there was just no substitute for good real, proper mics and a boom op - we have a tiny crew but I'd say that if you're going to go to the trouble of shooting something with a camera, you have to take the sound at least, if not more seriously than whatever you do with the camera - if I only had a 2 person crew, it would be camera operator and sound operator, you can find ways around most everything else, but I can't imagine doing a narrative production without a boom op and proper mics.
 
"real, proper mics and a boom op"
Did you have zaxcoms with dpa 4071 or cos-11ds, enough for every actor speaking in each scene(it sounds like it is hard wired)? I can assure you they are real proper mics that have been the original audio source for many scenes with academy award winning actors. I'm in no way claiming that it is always the best choice, far from it. But it may be the best choice for ultra low budget shoots as long as all involved understand the strengths and weakness of the gear.
 
lambert said:
"real, proper mics and a boom op"
Did you have zaxcoms with dpa 4071 or cos-11ds, enough for every actor speaking in each scene(it sounds like it is hard wired)? I can assure you they are real proper mics that have been the original audio source for many scenes with academy award winning actors. I'm in no way claiming that it is always the best choice, far from it. But it may be the best choice for ultra low budget shoots as long as all involved understand the strengths and weakness of the gear.
Click to expand...

Obviously good wireless gear and lavs exist - however, I think with everything else that can go wrong on a production, throwing wireless into the mix is just asking for trouble - especially on a low budget production, it doesn't make sense to me to use the most complicated gear where the most can go wrong on a production with the least money, I say keep it simple.
 
Hiro Nakamura said:
My clients always want minimum expenses, maximum qualities.
Click to expand...

That's what's happening now. Everyone wants a 530464054640646045646460804 billion dollar value movie/film/companyfilm but only wants to pay 2 dollar for the coffee.

For me: low costs = low quality, bad image, bad sound... simple as that.

If they want quality ---> pay more.

But there's always one stupid guy who says "I do it at very very low price"
 
I respect everyones opinion who has posted so far.
"For me: low costs = low quality, bad image, bad sound... simple as that.ect"
Sometimes thats good enough. In my original posting I mentioned the Mumblecore movement.
It may be hated by many for various reasons but some of the production methods have leaked into many low budget films for better or worse.
As far as high end wireless complicating a production, I would think just the opposite.
"But there's always one stupid guy who says "I do it at very very low price"
And its going to continue to be that way. Only now the top tools are (relatively) inexpensive and high quality that production companys/filmakers may buy top quality wireless, multichannel recorders and just bring in production mixers at reduced rates or do it in house. You've seen this trend already with 5dmk2 being used in situations where 2 years ago a RED would have been the choice and 2 years before that film. Now its a 800 buck camera. Its opened up opportunities for many filmakers while limiting many good and qualified people to make a decent living. The next trend will probably be to have your film mixed outside the country for pennies. The new Cedar plugin is around 4k.
 
Wireless most definitely adds more potential problems to your shoot... transmitters go bad, batteries die, static and noise is introduced... I dont think the boom op is going to die... just was at a 'school' 16mm shoot and only booms were used. That is whats still being taught - and the results are ideal.

lambert said:
You've seen this trend already with 5dmk2 being used in situations where 2 years ago a RED would have been the choice and 2 years before that film. Now its a 800 buck camera.
Click to expand...

Your joking right?

You can't say the 5D and t2i are adequate in situations that a RED or real video camera would blow its doors off. Whats happened is people are cheap, always. They have become familiar with the trade offs and work arounds when using a DSLR.

Its some peoples cup of tea to stick their camera in the refrigerator between shots - not mine.

dre83 said:
For me: low costs = low quality, bad image, bad sound... simple as that.
If they want quality ---> pay more.
Click to expand...

exactly!
 
Last edited:
"You can't say the 5D and t2i are adequate in situations that a RED or real video camera would blow its doors off." For sure the (5dmk2) been adequate for many filmakers for their specific needs. Its good enough for many, doesn't mean its great, doesn't mean its not a compromise, just means its whats being used whether we like it or not.
"Whats happened is people are cheap, always. They have become familiar with the trade offs and work around when using a DSLR."
Sure and its been adequate for their needs?
"Its some peoples cup of tea to stick their camera in the refrigerator between shots - not mine."
And it doesn't change the fact that many will see it as adequate for their needs.
 
Even in shows that are going more towards wires
a boom op is just as valuable today. His role can shift a bit in that
now he needs to master the art of wiring someone correctly (or an entire cast, every wardrobe change)
he is still going to "boom" every scene for the added "air" in the tracks.
And close-ups...etc..etc

If a sound mixer had to take on every responsibility during a "real" show
they would never make it.
 
So I don't even know what the Mumblecore movement is. lol

Anyway, looked it up.

I guess I'm missing, though, where a movement about ultra low budget filmmaking = wireless audio equipment.

Wireless equipment, by its very technology, demands that it be MUCH more expensive than wired equipment.

For the BEST possible sound on an ULTRA low budget production you MUST either use WIRED LAVS or a SHOTGUN MIC.

And, honestly, a lot of ultra low budget indies will have a self-educated boom op on set, not necessarily a professional. Clerks boom op was, literally, "Whoever grabbed the boom pole"

On the highest levels, the most expensive films, is there the chance that more wireless lavs are being used? Maybe. But lavs don't sound anything like a boom mic. You're contending with a piece of fabric between the actor and the microphone -- and that's not even addressing that no matter how perfectly you position, loop and moleskin a lav, you're almost without fail going to have occasional fabric/movement interference. Not to mention how you have to limit your wardrobe choices if you insist on miking your talent.

Wireless lavs should not be used in narrative filmmaking in the micro and ultra low budget picture. The equipment is too expensive and results in far, far, far more pitfalls than does a well-placed boom.
 
"Even in shows that are going more towards wires
a boom op is just as valuable today."
In no way am I disputing the value of a boom op and sound mixer.
The original question did reference mumblecore films which many have very compromised sound. We can debate whether Joe Swanbergs films are "real" films or "real" productions. The fact is they are here and the production methods or lack of are being copied by many filmakers for better or worse. Instead of sticking a boom mic on a camera (which many mumblecore style films have done, with limited success (artistic and financial). Isn't it at least possible to consider using decent wireless and plant/boundary mics instead of a boom? Many of these filmakers are making narrative films with a crew of one or two. Many times nudity is a part of the film where a large production team may complicate the performance. Many can dismiss them as little more than home movies (valid argument perhaps) but maybe we should recognize the limitations of these and try and discuss methods to make them work within the limitations of their budgets. I should have been more clear and not veered into a discussion of current industry style practices which are tried and true and work well. I apologize.
 
"The equipment is too expensive and results in far, far, far more pitfalls than does a well-placed boom." Too expensive. I think that is very debatable.
What about a well placed boundary mic, placed underneath a tablecloth. You don't necessarily need a boom op for that. A schoeps blm-03 would probably do at least equal if not a superior job to the highest quality boom with two people seated at a table. What about interior car shots, are you booming those?
"You're contending with a piece of fabric between the actor and the microphone "
Not necessarily, b6 or mke-1 can often hide in plain sight above the fabric or in the hair.
 
Until they make a wireless lav that sounds as good as a hyper/shotgun on a boom pole there will bee boom ops and mixers using the latter because they simply sound better. There is always someone compromising and cheaping out. So? There is also always someone going for top quality. It's just physics. You can't make a lav with a .14" capsule sound the same as a hyper with a 1/2" capsule.

Reality shows are about capturing the drama as it happens. You need everyone wired to ensure nothing is missed. But that's throw away TV. A real work of art - a Film, is usually done in a controlled setting where you can actually know what the talent is going to do. So it's reasonable to use a boom, and it just sounds better when done right.

If it sounds better it's better. There are always people who want things better, so the boom is not going anywhere. Not until they invent little floating mics that hover over the talent, automatically position themselves for optimal sound while staying out of frame, and send a wireless signal that is cleaner than wired. That would be awesome! Until then wireless is a compromise.
 
Chadfish said:
Until they make a wireless lav that sounds as good as a hyper/shotgun on a boom pole there will bee boom ops and mixers using the latter because they simply sound better. There is always someone compromising and cheaping out. So? There is also always someone going for top quality. It's just physics. You can't make a lav with a .14" capsule sound the same as a hyper with a 1/2" capsule.

Reality shows are about capturing the drama as it happens. You need everyone wired to ensure nothing is missed. But that's throw away TV. A real work of art - a Film, is usually done in a controlled setting where you can actually know what the talent is going to do. So it's reasonable to use a boom, and it just sounds better when done right.

If it sounds better it's better. There are always people who want things better, so the boom is not going anywhere. Not until they invent little floating mics that hover over the talent, automatically position themselves for optimal sound while staying out of frame, and send a wireless signal that is cleaner than wired. That would be awesome! Until then wireless is a compromise.
Click to expand...

+ 1

For the last time, there is no such thing as a high quality wireless set up on an indie budget for making narrative film. Doesn't exist. For 1K there is NO WAY you can have a wireless system that works anywhere in the same universe as well as a hyper/shotty + boom pole for that same 1K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top