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

L1N3ARX said:
I want to know what makes film dialog so distinct from other types of audio recordings
Click to expand...

What makes dialog 'distinct' is the person who listens, both 'native speakers' and 'assimilated non-native speakers' are very much tuned to very subtle effects, a slip smack here, a slight nasal tone there... etc. all feed into the human's processing.

On the other hand squealing tires... the Wilhelm scream... while there is a need for quality... do not give the human listener the same sense if there is some form of distortion... in fact some sound FX are very much distorted... to induce a 'visceral' response in the human...

Then there's the recent 'Bane' character in "The Dark Knight Rises"(2012)... where perfectly hearing people would probably like to have had the Wife's closed caption device...

There is the recording of sound, but as a 'director' you will also be concerned with the delivery... if the actors mumble, or have certain speech patterns that are difficult to 'hear' in the resulting track, those should be addressed on the set... or heck, change 'accent' mid dialog, or from shootings to shootings(In "Mrs Doubtfire"(1993) there's a funny exchange between Pierce Brosnan and Robin Williams about the William Character's 'english muddle' accent...)... the sound may be marvelous... but it fails anyway.
 
I realize delivery, the way certain words are used together, the accent, and many other things will have an effect on what one will perceive to be dialog from a film. While these are the more creative elements of dialog, which I fully appreciate, I'm only concerned at this moment specifically with the tonality of film dialog vs everything else. Like if you pop in a movie, any "hollywood" film really, I find even ignoring all other aspects of sound design, that the sound of the dialog is different in a very obvious way (at least to my ears).

Who knows, maybe it has more to do with eq settings than I think. Perhaps any well captured dialog by a recordist who's using decent equipment and knows what he/she is doing can sound exactly like what I need. It's likely that it only needs to be modified in certain ways to get the sound I'm after. Like how grading can have a massive impact on how "film-like" digital footage appears, I'm sure in post many things can be adjusted to get the desired sound.
 
I think I put it in another thread, but my audio guy will have (by the time it's done) will have 400 plus man hours in a 22 minute pilot. That's pretty typical. It's a long arduous process if one person is doing the whole thing (Foley, ADR, edit, mix, etc....)
 
L1N3ARX said:
Who knows, maybe it has more to do with eq settings than I think. Perhaps any well captured dialog by a recordist who's using decent equipment and knows what he/she is doing can sound exactly like what I need. It's likely that it only needs to be modified in certain ways to get the sound I'm after. Like how grading can have a massive impact on how "film-like" digital footage appears, I'm sure in post many things can be adjusted to get the desired sound.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the availability of 'film' oriented 'sound people' outside of known film making regions, such as So. Cal, San Francisco, Chicago, New York. I'm sure every region has some set of people who are able to work on 'film' sound projects.

But I suspect that many more are like the ubiquitous 'videographer', doing event or corporate work. They make a living, so they are successful in delivering a product that the customers appreciate in a 'remunerative way'... but they are not 'film' sound people.

In the same way many event/corporate videographers, now using DSLR's or the like, don't light things for 'film'... but for 'interviews', setup 3-point lighing get good enough somewhat 'flattish' light, and move on to the next project.

And in the 'event/corporate' environment that is what one has to do... taking 5 hours to setup for sound/lighting a corporate interview(*)... would spell doom for such a service provider. And spending 10 manweeks (from a previous post that 400 manhours of sound work was estimated...) on a 22 minute corporate video... more doom.

*Some time ago, when I was able to attend one of the local filmmaker's meetings, a corporate video maker presented one of his more 'unusual' corporate videos. The company had requested a 'star trek' parody like setup, with corporate 'brass' in the key bridge positions... it was shot in a day... and probably is about the most 'complex' corporate video i've seen... Most of the look like the crew had about 15 minutes to setup, shoot the CEO making his 'statement', maybe another hour around the company, and then get out of town...
 
Last edited:
If you want to know how to get the right sound person, then ask around. You said you saw some shorts that sounded awesome...contact the people that made them and ask about their sound crew. Look at people's resumes. That's usually how it works.
 
For production you have to ask around. It's really hard to tell otherwise. There are people with great equipment who don't know how to use it and folks with equipment folks would roll their eyes at but get great results.

For post as for some samples. If you like their style and you get along (this last is VERY important for all your folks - there is going to be stress and you need a team that will work through it) then ask about process. You can probably find a way to work with whatever they use but you should plan that out before you start editing.

Generally you are going to give them a video and an OMF. But some systems won't import an OMF. So getting them the audio can be a problem.

If your looking for Hollywood sound it is as I mentioned all about the post and a full track. I'm going to be working on something soon and I will see if I can post anything useful.
 
The difference with audio vs other disciplines (at least as far as dialogue is concerned) is that it's all about fixing problems, not creating with a vision in mind. In post we use dynamics and eq primarily to fix problems, which means that there really is no standard chain or process. It doesn't help that a lot of dialogue you hear in big budget productions is ADR (re-recorded to the video after principal photography) which happens in a controlled studio with much closer microphone distances. It really is a different world than the visual aspects of production/post. Basically the important points are as follows:

1: Use a good microphone placed as close as possible to the source (12-18" is about right if you can when booming). Point the mic between the speaker's mouth and chest, and be careful to always be as on-axis as possible. A gross simplification (but good starting point) is to use a shotgun outdoors or in large rooms with few reflective surfaces, and a hypercardiod small-diaphragm condenser indoors or in small, reflective spaces. Always record at 24-bit and keep your levels as high as possible without ever risking clipping.

2: Eliminate as much background noise on set as possible. Use sound blankets on reflective surfaces and in corners to help in hollow, "echoey" rooms.

3: Record room-tone in every location that you shoot in. You'll use this to fill in gaps and pauses, and make your dialogue sound seemless as you cut between takes and coverage. Your dialogue edit should sound like a single conversation recorded at once, not a sequence of chopped up audio files.

4: EQ and dynamics have a specific purpose. EQ will allow you to tame problem frequencies (or hums, buzzes, drones, etc in the background) or make broad, tonal changes to your dialogue tracks. Use EQ to make something brighter, eliminate sibilance, give a voice more low end "oomph", etc. Dynamics (compressors, expanders, etc) are used to control the dynamic range of your tracks (the range between the loudest and softest parts). These are not magic tools that can work wonders, and should only be used when you need them. Audio post is not grading. Your job is to eliminate problems so that things sound clean and clear, not to make broad stylistic decisions or dramatically change the way the sources sound.

5: Rich sound and believability are a function of Foley and sound design, not production sound. Every scene in a big budget film has potentially dozens of audio tracks added in post. Ambiences (birds chirping, traffic, people in the background, wind or weather, etc), footsteps, breathing, rustling clothes, fingers drumming on tables, etc. are all added during post. It's rare to use anything but dialogue from the production tracks, and even then ADR is pretty damn prevalent when there's a budget.

The biggest obstacle standing between most low budget productions and good sound is a lack of understanding of how tedious and time-consuming the process is. If you want your project to sound good, be prepared to spend hundreds of hours on audio. There's no shortcut and no template.

Your best bet is to ask specific questions about problems or situations you are facing. There is no best mic, recorder, plugin, or eq setting for all situations, but there is usually a best XXX given a specific situation and set of resources.
 
Another misconception is that a mixer or editor can do much to "sweeten" (more of a music / studio recording term) dialogue tracks. EQ and compression can do a lot to fix problems and make a track sound as good as possible, but a single track from a single microphone isn't going to sound dramatically different afterwards (unless the source is very problematic). The real magic is in combining that dialogue track with background tracks and fitting it into a mix. The types of changes that an audio editor / mixer can make to individual assets pales in comparison to what a colorist can do to a video file. Instead your job in audio is to create a fully-fleshed out sonic world for you dialogue tracks to live in.
 
@stefancolson, thanks, that's a lot of good information. Reading your post and doing even more reading online, I'm coming to the conclusion that if you have the time and budget, ADR might be the best way to go. Obviously there are reasons why you'd might want to capture a very hard to replicate performance on set, but outdoor dialog and wide shots seem to be very appropriate times to use ADR. I started screwing around in Adobe Audition (unfortunately the only audio program I can afford atm), slowly adjusting various eq settings. I found a guide which had a couple basic tips like boosting treble at around 6k among a few other things... and wow just fiddling around for a few seconds I really got close to the sound I wanted to hear.

So... I'm really starting to think about how I want to go about recording sound now. I have a DR100 and it has an issue with my Oktava MK012 when sucking phantom power, the gain noise is just a bit too much. When I go high as I can on medium it's way to quite to capture anything at only a few inches above my head, but on high, lowering the gain wheel down to around 6 gives me the perfect volume but too much hiss. I was contemplating for a while upgrading to a DR680, but I just bumped into something pretty cool. It's a mod that swaps out the amps for higher quality ones among other adjustments to eliminate the gain hiss. This is a really attractive idea atm, since I was about to upgrade if only for better amps anyway.

I'm thinking this. To prepare myself in the case that I can't afford a professional sound recordist to take care of all my audio needs, which of course would be an insanely demanding job, I'll have to think where I'm going to spend my money. 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... my last question here is when doing ADR... what do you guys use to record? If it's a controlled environment where you can relax and have everything the way you'd want it, I imagine a multi track recorder / station would be the way to go. They seem to be a whole heck of a lot cheaper than other high quality portable recorders. With that said, how good can I expect dialog to sound captured through a multi-track recorder like this > http://www.amazon.com/Fostex-mkII-Track-Multitrack-Recorder/dp/B000K67USE/ref=zg_bs_11975311_9 Is it even worth it to get a station like this? How would the amps compare to a portable recorder like my DR100? Thanks for the valuable information / advice.
 
ADR is normally done in a studio to DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) software like audition. You could use the same recorder and mic if that's what you have access to, though high-end studio mics into more of a recording studio signal chain (standalone mic preamp, compressor, eq, and analog to digital converter) is more the norm.

ADR is difficult and often maddening to do right. You'll have to have your talent repeat the same lines many times while watching their original performance on a monitor, and then you have the issue of matching your ADR to your production audio. With a small budget it's almost always easier/less expensive to just get as much right as possible while shooting and turn to ADR as a last resort, rather than relying on it.

Seriously, 9/10ths of the battle is just getting the boom as close as possible to talent and making sure that the room sounds ok. The rest is Foley and sound design. Worry about good boom operating and the rest is gravy. There are no shortcuts or easy ways out, just record it right in the first place and your life will be much easier.

I'd also recommend that you spend money on a mixer instead of modifying your recorder. That will solve your gain/hiss issue, and will be an invaluable tool through multiple different recorders. Something like the Sound Devices mixpre or 302 will give you fantastic sound quality and reliability.
 
stefancolson said:
I'd also recommend that you spend money on a mixer instead of modifying your recorder. That will solve your gain/hiss issue, and will be an invaluable tool through multiple different recorders. Something like the Sound Devices mixpre or 302 will give you fantastic sound quality and reliability.
Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know. I'm still curious though, with a mixpre being about $600-700 used, if it might be worth looking into the mod. I wonder if anyone on these boards has ever modded their Tascam recorder with new amps? Would be really interesting to hear a before and after.

Doing ADR, I realize would be incredibly hard; Although I don't have a problem with this. I am absolutely relentless when it comes to spending my time and effort on personal projects like this, and getting the most out of whoever I work with professionally. If it will give me the best sound in certain situations, then that's definitely what I'll do. Just need to find a decent sound guy in my area that knows his stuff.
 
I'm not familiar with that particular mod, but those types of modifications usually improve sound quality quite a bit. That being said, I still think it makes much more sense to upgrade the front-end that you will use for far longer than you will stick with a particular recorder, especially considering a mixer will give you added functionality as well. If the Sound Devices is a little pricey then this PSC will still be an improvement: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300798-REG/PSC_FPSCDVMIX3_DV_PROMIX_3.html
 
L1N3ARX said:
...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... my last question here is when doing ADR... what do you guys use to record? If it's a controlled environment where you can relax and have everything the way you'd want it, I imagine a multi track recorder / station would be the way to go. They seem to be a whole heck of a lot cheaper than other high quality portable recorders. With that said, how good can I expect dialog to sound captured through a multi-track recorder like this > http://www.amazon.com/Fostex-mkII-Track-Multitrack-Recorder/dp/B000K67USE/ref=zg_bs_11975311_9 Is it even worth it to get a station like this? How would the amps compare to a portable recorder like my DR100? Thanks for the valuable information / advice.
Click to expand...
Foley is not the same thing as FX captured on loccation. Foley is recorded in a studio called a Foley Stage by a Foley artist performing to the edited picture. Say you have a scene where the character is walking up a gravel driveway. The Foley studio will have a sandbox full of gravel that the artist stands in, with a mic positioned close to his feet. He watches the picture and steps in synchrony to the footsteps he sees on the screen, recording his own steps in sync to the picture. That's VERY different from finding footsteps on gravel in a sound library or recording someone walking in gravel while on location..

If budget is tight you really DON'T want to rely on ADR. ADR is dialog replacement performed by the actor, speaking in sync to his original performance as he watches the picture, recorded in a proper recording studio. It's very difficult for inexperienced actors to do right, VERY time consuming, and usually very expensive. You don't want to do it unless there's just no other alternative. Get it right on the set - no matter how much you spend to do that it's going to be faster and cheaper than ADR for any significant amount of dialog. The specific recorder used is not a particularly significant issue - the room where you're working is much more of an issue. Having a true sound-conditioned recording studio with the necessary equipment to record in sync to picture playback is not cheap.

Regarding the recorder mods, you need to think long term. A true mixer such as the SD302 or better will help overcome the deficiencies in a bargain recorder's mic preamps plus give you much more control and flexibility. Spend the money there. A mod'ed cheap recorder is still fundamentally a cheap recorder.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
Foley is not the same thing as FX captured on loccation. Foley is recorded in a studio called a Foley Stage by a Foley artist performing to the edited picture. Say you have a scene where the character is walking up a gravel driveway. The Foley studio will have a sandbox full of gravel that the artist stands in, with a mic positioned close to his feet. He watches the picture and steps in synchrony to the footsteps he sees on the screen, recording his own steps in sync to the picture. That's VERY different from finding footsteps on gravel in a sound library or recording someone walking in gravel while on location..
Click to expand...

Exactly... I didn't realize I was referring to something different. I obviously wouldn't want anything other than dialog to be recorded on set.

As to adding a mixer to the "mix", I understand how this would definitely benefit my workflow. But a modded "cheap" recorder as you put it, would fundamentally sound different with new amps. In fact, I can't see how they'd sound anything alike with no hiss / gain noise. Obviously I'm not looking for some amazing multi-track recorder with a million settings... my main goal is to get clean audio on a condenser mic that uses phantom power.

I was playing around with ADR for the first time yesterday. Have to say, after a few frustrating attempts I slowly got the hang of it. It wasn't absolutely perfect but after about half an hour I pretty much nailed a loop of a 1 minute scene of dialog I recorded of myself. I can definitely see just by playing around, the difficulty involved in ADR... but honestly, I think this is something I could manage. As I imagine the various scenes in my script and the challenges therein, I think it's likely that I'd probably end up with or try to get around 50-60% usable audio on set and loop the rest. With so many wide shots and outdoor scenes, in vehicles, lot's of fast movement from one location to another, it seems certain that'll have to accept ADR as part of my workflow. I won't ever use a lav mic, because anything other than the super expensive ones sound unacceptable for a film imo.
 
If you are interested in examples and tutorials, and have seen the episodes from the usual suspects (Indy Mogul, Film Riot), search a video poster on YouTube under the name " soundesigneryo ." Lots of great examples of footage and audio from major motion pictures, including a three-step audio editing session (dialogue, music, and sound effects) from "The Day After Tomorrow."

GJ
 
Not sure where stefancolson is getting his info from but having worked on a number of big budget film ADR is a last resort. It is not common at all to replace much of the dialog. I think it's actually more common in low budget films because the production tracks are often so bad.

Otherwise he's pretty on track.

You do NOT want to do ADR if you are aiming at a "Hollywood" sound track. It is hard to do and even harder to make it believable. Most ADR in a big film is on a line or two, maybe a word, that has some horrible issue. Even then the dialog editor will have pulled alternate takes and nine time out of ten the director will go with a dialog alt over ADR.

Some people are really good at ADR so YMMV.

Also not sure where Audition comes into it. I have never heard of a studio using Audition. Your looking at ProTools (99% in the US) and maybe Nuendo (less than 1%) or all the others (way less than 1%).

I have done ADR with a budget and with out. IF your sound post guy knows how to cheat you can get by with ADR done in real spaces (as opposed to s studio). Generally though it will be done in a studio. Getting a good performance that matches close enough to have an editor cut it in and have it "play" is a lot of time/ work/ luck. Most of the time you have to compromise one of those.

Audiences have gotten used to very tight sync and ADR good enough to fly is a lot of work by someone with a bunch of experience.

You DON'T want to ADR your film.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Exactly... I didn't realize I was referring to something different. I obviously wouldn't want anything other than dialog to be recorded on set.

As to adding a mixer to the "mix", I understand how this would definitely benefit my workflow. But a modded "cheap" recorder as you put it, would fundamentally sound different with new amps. In fact, I can't see how they'd sound anything alike with no hiss / gain noise. Obviously I'm not looking for some amazing multi-track recorder with a million settings... my main goal is to get clean audio on a condenser mic that uses phantom power.

I was playing around with ADR for the first time yesterday. Have to say, after a few frustrating attempts I slowly got the hang of it. It wasn't absolutely perfect but after about half an hour I pretty much nailed a loop of a 1 minute scene of dialog I recorded of myself. I can definitely see just by playing around, the difficulty involved in ADR... but honestly, I think this is something I could manage. As I imagine the various scenes in my script and the challenges therein, I think it's likely that I'd probably end up with or try to get around 50-60% usable audio on set and loop the rest. With so many wide shots and outdoor scenes, in vehicles, lot's of fast movement from one location to another, it seems certain that'll have to accept ADR as part of my workflow. I won't ever use a lav mic, because anything other than the super expensive ones sound unacceptable for a film imo.
Click to expand...

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.

If you NEED to do a lot of ADR and you are not doing a SiFi epic then you have not planed the film very well. Look at some big action films, they are not yammering away on action shots.

I don't mean to hammer the point (or you) but from what you are saying I don't think you have shot many/ any films. I could be way off the mark but you keep coming back to things that are what people who don't make films think about how they are made. Cars do not move when shooting dialog (not on their own anyway). You do not get FX from the set. ADR is not easy. Doing a test on your self is, well pretty pointless unless you are the one who is going to be ADRing all the lines. It's not how good you can do ADR, it's how good your cast can do ADR. ANd of course how good and ADR editor you get. The difference between "pretty good" and "believable" is HUGE.

If you have $100,000 to throw at sound post, well I can probably get you what you want. It's low for a feature but I could get you the people. Straight to video and maybe you can slice that in half. Less than $50K and you need to start planning for ways to make sound post go easier not harder. It's not that it can't be done but it's pushing things a lot closer to LOTTO odds.
 
I realized this may sound like a lot of "you can't", "you shouldn't" etc.
It's not that it's impossible or even rocket science.

Filmmaking is quite simple. Tell a good story, don't screw up the film.

The problem a lot of new filmmakers have is they want to hit a home-run first shot out. I taught at a school where the one of the lead instructors first messages to the students was "you will make a bunch of cra% here. If you think you first, second, third, etc short is going to be great you should go get a refund right now."

That sounds harsh but it's actually mild. His point was explore, learn, don't worry about making a classic film. You won't anyway, you don't yet have the skills, so don't destroy yourself trying. Do a good short. That is a HUGE accomplishment. Way too many filmmakers shoot for the stars and then just give up because they fall so short. It's not realistic to expect it all the first go.

All these little hurdles your tossing up (like ADR) are not impossible, but you will have SO MANY challenges making a feature that you really need to plan for simplicity or you will drown in the details. I have a short in my archives (in case the director ever gets around to finishing it) that was all ADRed on no budget when I really didn't know what I was doing. It's OK, it took a huge amount of time to get there. The director did a whole lot of things that made his life difficult and over the years we re worked it on various systems It's been 28 years and he still hasn't finished the film. We did the final mix but then the negative cutter screwed up (he shot on 16mm - a complicating choice) and so a whole bunch of the film needs to be conformed because the way the screwed up cost a frame on each cut. That I think was the last straw and he just gave up.

It's a nice well done little short. He could probably have gotten funding to shoot more... IF he had finished the thing. But he tossed up too many obstacles and he had high standards AND he wanted it to be great.

Bad choice. It was a learning film. "All directors first films are Cra& (to quote the same instructor), go look them up".

Anyway I don't want to discourage you. I want to encourage you. And I don't want you to shoot so far over your experience level that it becomes so frustrating that you go off and do something else.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top