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

[L1N3ARX]

The last part puzzles me. Since you don't know the difference between Foley and PFX how on earth can you make the last statement. You have no idea what mics they used. A high priced mic means nothing in the wrong hands and wireless mics are used ALL the TIME in high budget films.

Well, I don't think I made a statement as to which mic was used in a Foley situation... sorry you lost me there. I was simply referring to the fact I would want my money to go towards capturing dialog properly on set and then Foley as well. I think logically... this of course wouldn't imply that Foley is recorded on set at the same time as dialog. I'm simply speculating on the fact that my budget won't accommodate a professional to do each and every job necessary for optimal sound.

I don't have experience making film at all; only doing simple video work. As this is my first time, just trying to get the facts I need before hand. A lot of this will help me in doing a couple 5-10 minute short films before I actually attempt any kind of feature. It's interesting you mention the car wouldn't be moving during a scene with dialog. I haven't found this to be the case in many behind the scenes segments / featurettes, and other times I've witnessed this being done on a set. Is not a lav mic or ADR common in situations where a vehicle is moving? It's still incredibly obvious these days if a moving car shot was done in a studio / blue screened, and I don't see it done that way every time. In film... man, I couldn't even begin to count how many times dialog is recorded in moving vehicles. Even take the new Total Recall as a recent example, plenty of dialog shot while the car was moving and not stationary in front of a blue screen.

I get what your saying in regards to ADR, but the more I read about it, the more it surprises me how common it seems to be in film. A couple months a go I watched the movie INK, and sent the Director an email asking what mic / sound setup they used. Anytime I see a low budget indie movie like this that has great audio, I like to find out how they did their sound, since that's usually the weakest link for any small production. Coincidentally I got a response email yesterday as I was in the midst of reading up on sound recording. Turns out all the dialog in the film was actually ADR. I see the value though of treating it like a measure of last resort, and getting the best possible audio on set, this makes perfect sense to me. Although, it seems like a pretty necessary option in situations that can benefit from it.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Turns out all the dialog in the film was actually ADR.

Most 'classic' italian films were 'adr' dialog, in the sense of 'dubbed'. All dubbing to a foreign language, is in fact 'adr', it's just that with English ADR for an English language production, there's a bit of lip sync on closeups that tend to be problematic.

In terms of dubbing, zee Chermans seem to be 'really good at it'... for the US made, German dubbed broadcasts that I've seen, because there does seem to be a concern about lip syncing as 'best as possible'... But back to the 50's and 60's Italian movies... I don't know where they got their 'voice talent', but very often it lent itself to a certain sort of 'comicalness', for the lower budget films...

I'm sure some purists will cack at the suggestion that 'adr' is 'dubbing'... but in terms of the process... that is uttering lines in a 'studio' then attempting to make they 'sound' like there in the location... it is essentially the same.

 

[paulears]

I'm getting really confused with this topic - It's clear the OP isn't using some of the phrases and terminology we're used to in quite appropriate ways? Things like the references to capturing dialogue and Foley on set? Odd comments about microphones suggesting the OP thinks expensive mics always sound better.

There will be huge differences in how a major studio manage their projects to how it can be done on a budget. Me - I'll avoid replacing dialogue if I possibly can, by attempting to get clean dialogue in the first place. Can we stop talking about sound effects as if the word Foley is interchangeable? Foley (or more accurately) Foley style, is a technique that can re-create sounds in the studio that sound realistic when in fact they are created from alternative sound sources.

The OP wants before and after examples so he can hear what has been done, but the danger with this is that the reason for the poor sound isn't known - so are you using lots of eq because the mics was a poor choice, or because of room reflections colouring the sound? Adding eq as a repair tool is a different skill to using it to enhance good sound, or using it to match scene to scene. To make sense of somebody else's clips you'd need the video to go with it, so you could see what was going on. Audio often involves what I call repair jobs - where the sole intention is to improve horrible recordings to something that can be used. Poor boom ops are my pet hate - those who seem to be unable to point a mic at a mouth consistently! Nasty thin, weedy recordings lacking any warmth at all - or worse, where they've not spotted noises in the background and accidentally aimed the mics at them.

I can't speak for others, but I've always found books on sound make little sense, because you get told things you can't at that stage, understand or link to examples. I honestly believe that most of my sound skills came from getting it wrong once, then not doing it again. I'm totally convinced that other people's work, without full explanation as to what you are hearing is almost worthless. Ask two people to set an eq curve, and they'll come up with different ones - there is no right one, just ones that work for more people than others. You want clean dialogue, and location sound effects if appropriate, also some location silence - which isn't of course silent. Then you can use sound effects and Foley techniques back in the studio. Door slams and gravel crunching and all the other crazy Foley type FX top it off.

A cheap microphone used properly can easily produce better sound than a really expensive and exotic microphone used poorly! I've seen students knowing nothing progress quickly and become good quickly and I've seen very knowledgeable students spend two years trying to 'unlearn' poor or bad technique - much picked up from others without context. Many times this kind of thing produces a set of rules that get applied, but the rules are based on faulty premise, so very often don't work. Sound people who slap compressors and limiters across every source and squash the hell out of the mix before they even listen!

 

[L1N3ARX]

I'm getting really confused with this topic - It's clear the OP isn't using some of the phrases and terminology we're used to in quite appropriate ways? Things like the references to capturing dialogue and Foley on set? Odd comments about microphones suggesting the OP thinks expensive mics always sound better.

I think I'm the one starting to get confused here. If you re-read what I wrote you'll find I didn't reference "capturing dialogue and Foley on set"; "expensive mics always sound better". Let me break this down in clear English as to not mince words.

I'm a low budget (wannabe) filmmaker that wants to create good audio for my film. Since the sound aspect of a film encompasses many tasks, recording dialog, mixing, sound effects, Foley etc, I may not have enough money to pay an individual or multiple people to take on these tasks. So, this leaves me with making the choice to pay someone to do the tasks I will not be able to do myself, out of practicality or lack of experience. This would be...

1) Recording dialog. Since I would be handling other tasks like directing and possibly DPing at certain times, this is not possible.
2) Foley and sound effects: I would like to incorporate these elements into my film and may not be able create sounds myself. Getting the rustling of cloth to sound just right, movement and sound of all the props etc etc. For extra clarification here, this would not be accomplished on set, at the same time or the same location. It would be done in a studio, on a sound stage or in another location at a different time altogether. Let's not revisit this, as it just seems like a waste of time talking about it.

On a side note, I don't care what mic is used. I made mention of not wanting to use cheap "lav mics" because I haven't heard dialog good enough to be considered "film-worthy" or at least what I'd want to use in a film myself. Thus far, I've only heard the best audio from some of the more expensive lav mics. Perhaps I'm wrong and just need to hear a good example. Anything in reference to expensive mics sound better was specifically aimed at lav mics and NOTHING else. For a condenser mic, I could care less if an Oktava MK012 (the mic I have), ends up being what I use indoors. It may be cheap but if handled right perhaps I can get great audio from it.

So, with that said, I've received good advice from most all of you and do appreciate the insight / examples. I've decided on getting a mixpre to add to my DR100 setup which I'll implement in making a short film or 2. When it comes time to shoot an actual feature, I'm going to hire the most versatile sound guy I can afford.

 

[paulears]

I just went back and re-read the last few posts and want to apologise for my post. I must have misunderstood as the things I thought had been said appear to not have been.

As some members of this forum can attest, there are cheap lav mics that sound good. Open minds are always a good thing.

 

[Gregg Juke]

Now that all of that seems settled, just a "bump" for my ADR question:

>>>>Hey Noiz (or anybody else that can answer factually),

What about the ADR that used to be done for "clean" versions of a film (for TV broadcast)?
I'm not sure if this is even considered anymore, due to ratings-creep and lax FCC standards, but back in the day, you could watch a film on Canadian TV (late at night) and hear the expletive in some dialogue scene, but the American broadcast of the same movie would have another line inserted ("Oh crap!" for example), which often sounded like the original actor, but of course the words didn't synch with picture very well, so you could always spot it.

Were those dub versions/edits done sort of ad hoc/after the fact if the film was being picked-up for television, or was this a "mix" version that was made during the original production during editing/post as an option for later? What about those dubs that obviously were _not_ the original actor, but were snuck/stuck in anyway? I'm not talking about foreign language Godzilla/Morricone-type stuff, but domestic films that needed ADR for broadcast... And finally, does anyone even bother with that step (FCC compliance) in this day and age?<<<<

GJ

 

[TyFord]

OK, http://www.hotflashmovie.com

remember, this is movie sound that you're hearing on the Internet.

Regards,

Ty Ford

 

[Noiz2]

I'm going to answer a few things.


RE:

I think I'm the one starting to get confused here. If you re-read what I wrote you'll find I didn't reference "capturing dialogue and Foley on set"; "expensive mics always sound better".

We may have gotten confused by what you actually meant but...
You did say

I won't ever use a lav mic, because anything other than the super expensive ones sound unacceptable for a film imo.

and...

I think out of all the potential tasks I would want to hire a recordist for, would first be boom work. I need to make sure for the shots that would be potentially difficult to loop, that I get it just right on set. Then if I can afford it, have the recordist get key Foley sound for things that I won't be able to find in a library or do myself.

So folks (including me) were not jumping to conclusions off in left field. The first I think we (I know I) read the “super expensive” as relating to all mics but that is not exactly what you say and is a bit of a jump.


The second case you are talking about hiring a production recordist and talk about them then also recording Foley. I think because of context it sounded like this would be happening at the same time. It’s still unclear if you wee planning to haul the recordist to a studio and do Foley or if you were going to have them record FX and were confused about the terms.


So you were a bit unclear in your writing and we read it in a way that apparently wasn’t what you ment.


Sorry.


--------


Cars are NOT driving on their own power on a big film shot when dialog is being recorded. There is probably an exception or two but not many. IF they are actually in motion they are ridding on a process trailer or similar rig.


And really you admit to having no film experience. You keep making the “audience” assumption that if you believe it it really happened. There are a bazillion CG FX that you see every day and never notice. Yes there are people who do them badly but that does not mean that the ones you don’t catch are “real”.


RE: ADR


Dubbing in a foreign language is NOT ADR.


Folks do sometimes refer to ADR as “Dubbing” but that is not an industry term.
In film “Dubbing” means recording, or actually “rerecording”. Mix stages were called dubbing stages, and sometimes still are. ADR is sometimes called “looping”. ADR lines are refered to as “loops”.


Anyway the point is ADR is ONLY replacing a line with the same line.


Those italian films folks talk about were not ADRed, they were dubbed. Most of them don’t actually have a script with dialog, the script dialog was written after the shoot.


BTS films are promo pieces done for film promotion. You need to be VERY careful about what you get from them. I have worked on enough films that had BTS films to be extremely skeptical of anything said or seen. And I have worked on BTS films for features. They are not documentaries on how to make a film, and largely are not even documentaries on how to make that film. They are advertising. Commentary tracks tend to be more “honest”.


I’m not going to argue with you. There are people who have responded with actual experience on sound post on big Hollywood films. If that is what you are trying to do maybe you should listen to what they are telling you.

 

[Noiz2]

Hey Noiz (or anybody else that can answer factually),

What about the ADR that used to be done for "clean" versions of a film (for TV broadcast)?
I'm not sure if this is even considered anymore, due to ratings-creep and lax FCC standards, but back in the day, you could watch a film on Canadian TV (late at night) and hear the expletive in some dialogue scene, but the American broadcast of the same movie would have another line inserted ("Oh crap!" for example), which often sounded like the original actor, but of course the words didn't synch with picture very well, so you could always spot it.

Were those dub versions/edits done sort of ad hoc/after the fact if the film was being picked-up for television, or was this a "mix" version that was made during the original production during editing/post as an option for later? What about those dubs that obviously were _not_ the original actor, but were snuck/stuck in anyway? I'm not talking about foreign language Godzilla/Morricone-type stuff, but domestic films that needed ADR for broadcast... And finally, does anyone even bother with that step (FCC compliance) in this day and age?

GJ

This is not ADR it's dubbed lines (just in the same language).

These are called "versions" and are done after the main mix is finished.

On a big film where you know you will have foreign releases and TV versions and airline versions you have a small crew make these other "versions".

For "foreigns" you need to remove ALL english. Europeans are not so picky but for Japan they don't even want english crowd sounds. This is the DM&E (Dialog, Music, & FX). Dialog is left as a reference track for convenience.

TV versions are probably still done. They are mixed with more compression and words that can't be said are changed out for "acceptable" versions. I have a list someplace of suggested substitutions and it's pretty funny.

Airplane versions often require picture recuts of the film also. They can only be so long and there can be no references to transportation disasters and such. They are also much more rigorous on words that might be offensive and religious references.

IF the versions are done much after the film is finished then you might find some weird things going on, as in the original actors may not be available or willing to say the words you need to substitute. You hear this sometimes when the voice suddenly changes to utter some BS word where you are expecting an expletive.


Some films, Hong Kong Action Films, Italian spaghetti westerns (or actually any of small market film language countries) don't bother recording sound at all during production. They shoot like a silent film and then work the script to fit the edit and record it all after the fact. It's not ADR it's dubbing because even it the "native" language they are not replacing dialog but creating original dialog in post. It can sometimes sound pretty good.

 

[L1N3ARX]

Cars are NOT driving on their own power on a big film shot when dialog is being recorded. There is probably an exception or two but not many. IF they are actually in motion they are ridding on a process trailer or similar rig.


And really you admit to having no film experience. You keep making the “audience” assumption that if you believe it it really happened. There are a bazillion CG FX that you see every day and never notice. Yes there are people who do them badly but that does not mean that the ones you don’t catch are “real”.


RE: ADR


Dubbing in a foreign language is NOT ADR.


Folks do sometimes refer to ADR as “Dubbing” but that is not an industry term.
In film “Dubbing” means recording, or actually “rerecording”. Mix stages were called dubbing stages, and sometimes still are. ADR is sometimes called “looping”. ADR lines are refered to as “loops”.


Anyway the point is ADR is ONLY replacing a line with the same line.


Those italian films folks talk about were not ADRed, they were dubbed. Most of them don’t actually have a script with dialog, the script dialog was written after the shoot.


BTS films are promo pieces done for film promotion. You need to be VERY careful about what you get from them. I have worked on enough films that had BTS films to be extremely skeptical of anything said or seen. And I have worked on BTS films for features. They are not documentaries on how to make a film, and largely are not even documentaries on how to make that film. They are advertising. Commentary tracks tend to be more “honest”.


I’m not going to argue with you. There are people who have responded with actual experience on sound post on big Hollywood films. If that is what you are trying to do maybe you should listen to what they are telling you.

I realize what your saying about the vehicle being pulled along by a trailer or another vehicle, I've seen this many times as well. But it's almost uncanny... I've seen this done in person on a set when I wasn't into film production myself, but just volunteering my time. I've seen it on a very clear unedited behind the scenes look at this exact type of shot. I've seen it done this way multiple times; perhaps due to the low budget / indie nature of the films. You seem like you probably work in larger hollywood type productions so maybe it just isn't common in the type of jobs you do. I just never made the ADR connection until recently... now that I'm trying to understand how sound recording works.

As to "Dubbing in a foreign language is NOT ADR" , not sure who your responding to there, but since I didn't bring anything up about dubbing foreign languages, I'll just assume that was someone else?

 

[Noiz2]

Someone else mentioned dubbing as being ADR. Not you, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Maybe I'm mistaken but wasn't the whole point of this thread that you wanted "Hollywood" sounding dialog?

If your looking for indi film sound ignore all my previous posts, because I'm talking about what a Hollywood feature sound track is and how you get there. You can get there on a much lower budget, but it takes knowing how it's done and how you can cut corners that wont be missed.

 

[Noiz2]

You seem like you probably work in larger hollywood type productions so maybe it just isn't common in the type of jobs you do. I just never made the ADR connection until recently... now that I'm trying to understand how sound recording works.

I think your missing the point. A "moving" car on a trailer is pretty quiet. You can record dialog in that situation. A "moving" car not on a trailer is LOUD and has a constantly changing background that makes post a nightmare. Inexperienced directors always want to shoot the "real" thing, expecting it to be like the movies. Movies don't use any "real" stuff (as a rule) so this is a really nonproductive approach.

I have worked on a number of very high budget films (so I do know what the sound post on a big budget Hollywood film is like) but I have also worked on a ton of low budget and student films (so I know the kind of assumptions new filmmakers make).

The bottom line on Hollywood is that some things they do are all about union requirements and wasteful practices (this tends to be more on the production side and almost always to the benefit of the "above the line" people) but a whole lot has to do with a hundred plus years of finding out what works and what doesn't.

Benefit from the money they wasted and do what works.

A lot of new filmmakers decide to reinvent filmmaking and they run right up against the fact that there is a reason you have people specialize in costumes, sets, lights, camera, production sound, post sound, and editing. It saves you money and time and you get a better film.

Those specialist do things the way they do mostly because it WORKS and that saves you money and time and produces a better film.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I can vouch for the fact that a trailered car pretty much produces unusable audio as well. The trailer creaks and groans almost constantly. I mean we recorded production sound and the dialogue was fairly clear, but the environment was so noisey we had to ADR the entire scene.

 

[Alex H.]

I can vouch for the fact that a trailered car pretty much produces unusable audio as well. The trailer creaks and groans almost constantly. I mean we recorded production sound and the dialogue was fairly clear, but the environment was so noisey we had to ADR the entire scene.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization based on a single, worst-case-scenario experience.

I've recorded dialog in a vehicle on a process trailer and have had no issues. If you have a crappy trailer, yeah, the sound is going to suck. But if you're working with a trailer that is designed and rigged (and properly maintained) specifically for this type of work, it shouldn't creak and groan.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization based on a single, worst-case-scenario experience.

I've recorded dialog in a vehicle on a process trailer and have had no issues. If you have a crappy trailer, yeah, the sound is going to suck. But if you're working with a trailer that is designed and rigged (and properly maintained) specifically for this type of work, it shouldn't creak and groan.

And if frogs had wings.....
Not many of us can afford a purpose built trailer. I doubt one even exists to rent in my area of the world. The fact that I even went to the expense to trailer the car at all rather than try some crappy green screen, rear projection, etc... solution probably puts me in the top 5% of people who frequent this board.

 

[Alex H.]

Not many of us can afford a purpose built trailer. I doubt one even exists to rent in my area of the world.

I know of at least one here in Knoxville that would travel to Nashville for a paid gig. Plus, the Tennessee Film Commission keeps an online Production Directory where you can find just about anything you need.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I know of at least one here in Knoxville that would travel to Nashville for a paid gig. Plus, the Tennessee Film Commission keeps an online Production Directory where you can find just about anything you need.

At probably the cost of the entire rest of the days shoot...
You can do anything with enough budget. In THIS case, spending a grand total of $200 to trailer the car and having to do ADR was the best solution for us, on this project. I would have loved some crane shots and to hire Johnny Depp as well. Those weren't in the budget either.

I think we can just decide to agree that usable audio CAN be recorded in a trailered vehicle IF you can afford a purpose built trailer designed just for that task.

 

[Noiz2]

I think we can just decide to agree that usable audio CAN be recorded in a trailered vehicle IF you can afford a purpose built trailer designed just for that task.

Is the OP not asking how Hollywood gets the dialog sound it does???

This isn't a thread about how indi films sound like indi films, except maybe in a bad way.

You don't get nice clean production sound with out everyone working for it.

If the director/ producer actually cared about sound they would not be using a noisy trailer to haul a car.

If you can't afford anything else you can shoot moving shots in the car and then shoot dialog with the reverses and close ups in a stationary car and then.... wait for it EDIT.

Most of the horrible sound that flows in to post is avoidable. And 99% of the time it's not $$$$ that is missing it's the folks who make the decisions not really caring, till they are in post and it's too late.

As in nobody tested the trailer or brought oil??? So yes indeed if nobody gives a sh&t you will need to ADR everything. But then they won't have any post budget either so the ADR probably won't sound very good.

And then it gets dumped on sound. "They just weren't very good", when in actuality they never had a chance.

If sound is not part (a big part on a low budget film) of your pre production planning AND scouting then you just can't say "sound is important to me" with any credibility.

And a whole lot of the issue with new filmmakers is that they see all these BTS films and read all the puff pieces in industry rags or newspapers and Believe what is written because it matches the illusion they saw in the theatre.

It happens on the visual side also. Folks do incredibly dangerous "stunts" because they "see" the stars in films do them so how hard can that be. People believe CG all the time. They think they see the "FX" but they only see the ones that were either badly planed, or badly executed, or are just physically impossible (I put that in the badly planed category). But you know THEY are pickier than most of the audience who buys some incredibly unbelievable shots.

It's great for the audience it can be disastrous for a filmmaker.

The sooner you realize it's all a magic trick the sooner you will start doing better at creating the illusion.

They really don't use a saw on human flesh to "cut the woman in half".

 

[Noiz2]

...The fact that I even went to the expense to trailer the car at all rather than try some crappy green screen, rear projection, etc... solution probably puts me in the top 5% of people who frequent this board.

Two issues I have with that is that using the trailer with out doing a test or planning for "fixing" the possible issues is a little like getting a decent mic and not plugging it in and then saying if you can't afford the best mic you need to ADR.

It's great that you made the effort but the failure is not an indicator that it couldn't work just that you didn't get it to work.
I'm not saying it would have worked but from your description I don't think it had much of a chance.

The second is that "crappy green screen" is not a given unless you do it badly. Again you have seen a tone of composited scenes that you never noticed.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

What brought that screeching diatribe on, that time of the month....

We DID know the trailer would be noisy. It was the best solution visually, and looks amazing. There is no mic on planet earth at any price that was going to get clean dialogue on that (might I add quite nice and fairly new) trailer. We had to make a production decision (you know what you do when you're operating with a thing called a "budget") that the best solution was to get the best production audio we could, but be prepared for the fact there was a high probability we'd have to ADR it. Like one about about 1000 of the same type of decision you make every day in producing films.