Creative recording tips for a really long shot?

J

jpastuch

Carbonite Member
So since the last time I was on the audio forum I took someone's advice and bought Jay Rose's book, and have been reading it (and re-reading some of the mathmatical chapters in complete confusion). One of the best points he brought up was booming from far away.

He gives tips saying you can get a bit farther in a long shot by quieting all other sounds down/modifying the set and using the right type of mic.

Basically, I have an idea for a short for my final film in college with a lot of audio considerations:

-The first 5 or 6 minutes is a single, continuous long shot in an apartment of a drunk man ranting. The problems are the actor will have a lot of head room, making booming very difficult. I thought about wireless lavs, but I heard they can very expensive and cause a lot of problems for unexperienced people.

Also, in the scene, he takes off his coat and shirt, making lavs impossible. I thought about a shotgun mic, but I heard these can also be bad for indoor scenes with a lot of reflection/echoes and aren't always that great. I thought about ADR, but since he will be ad libbing as well as doing the script, his ranting is part of the performance- so while ADR is an option, I want it to be for fixing any bad dialogue- not as the primary course of action.

I'd love to get multiple mics, but I'm using my money to buy 1 decent mic (an oktava, since I heard it's good for the price) and a cheaper music mixer, along with a seperate sound recorder, mic protection (especially for the Oktava), new wires, sound blankenting equipment, etc. The budget is all very low, and while I'm not skimping on sound, I can't afford multiple mics or something similar (just yet).

So...any suggestions on where to start? Since this character will be ranting, he will be yelling a lot of the time- which I think gives me a little bit of leeway. But I obviously still need to get as close as possible- booming from behind some prop or furniture (refrig/cabinet?)? I don't know. Anybody have a similar type of issue and found a way around it?

Thanks for any input!
 
JordanBlock said:
Reframe the shot so it can be properly boomed.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I might as well not shoot it, because part of the whole point of the shot is that.

So I guess I'll have to figure something out. How feasable is the behind something approach? For example- someone hiding behind something and booming from the side (is this even possible?).
 
jpastuch said:
If that's the case, I might as well not shoot it, because part of the whole point of the shot is that.

So I guess I'll have to figure something out. How feasable is the behind something approach? For example- someone hiding behind something and booming from the side (is this even possible?).
Click to expand...

So the look of the shot is more important than the audience hearing what the guy says? Other than shots that are non-dialog, I've almost never found that to be the case. Although maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you meant.

You can try booming from below (since you mention a lot of headroom) although this can make the track more bass heavy.
Booming from the side might work, but will likely give you with issues if he ever turns his head away from the mic.
You could also try using a plant mic hidden behind something in the foreground if he isn't moving around throughout the shot much.

Or if the shot's locked off, you can composite a boom mic out of the shot in post.
 
No, but inversely the shot isn't less important than the sound, so that's the dilemma.

When I make films, framing is of incredible importance to the way I work...I'm not concerned with just telling a story, I work a bit differently...otherwise all my movies would just be close ups so I can boom it easy, etc.

I'm not trying to be difficult (sorry if I sound this way), but I'm not expecting "Hollywood" level, rich tones and perfect audio...I'm not saying I don't CARE, I'm trying to be realistic with my budget and level of skill. I want the audio to be clean and decent enough to hear without struggling. But a small echo can only add to it, for me.

Understand, I want good audio, but the acting and framing are also very important to me. So I'm just seeing if anyone has solved this problem without money. I know nothing about audio, so I don't assume it's not impossible. If it isn't, OK.

But anyway, thanks for your input.


EDIT: I just noticed this
Gohanto said:
Or if the shot's locked off, you can composite a boom mic out of the shot in post.
Click to expand...

See, that's what I'm looking for. Thank you...yes the shot will be static for most, if not all of this. But this could be very dangerous when thinking about shadows and how light is affected by his movement, no?

But thanks...
 
You say you have no budget, so where is the money for ADR or compositing coming from?

Any chance you can give a little more info on the space you're going to be shooting in? A shotgun can work just fine in the right room, and would give you a little more reach over a hyper. As Gohanto suggests, you can boom from below if the framing allows. Booming from the side isn't likely to give a great result, and it might interfere with your lighting. On the day, really lock down all noise on / around the set.

If you haven't already gone and bought audio gear, consider renting. You can get much better equipment for your money, and better gear helps bring the base noise level in your signal chain down a little, which could help compensate, at least a little, for the less than ideal placement.
 
It's not the mic - although choosing the right mic is important - it's the person handling the boom. A great boom-op can capture respectable sound even in your situation. There is also the option of plant mics, you would probably need several, or putting a wireless lav on his belt with the transmitter in his pocket.

And consider renting your audio kit; you'll get more and better quality gear with which to work.
 
A few points. First a static shot for 6 min with no editing is likely to be incredibly boring. So unless that is part of your point or this is some fixed experiment you will probably composite multiple takes. In any case you will probably do multiple takes and odds are you can pull a few lines if you have to from other takes. And of course the visual is more important than the sound, that is true about 90% of the time in film so don't give him grief about that. But it's not a 100% thing. It's not either toss the look for the sound or toss the sound for the look. Sound often strengthens the visual more that being it's own identity. The question for the OP is which is more important in this shot. The one that takes the back seat needs to compromise more. But re blocking the shot doesn't mean toss your concept out in means look for creative solutions that still get the look you want and allow you to get the sound you need. For instance shoot higher with less head room and more of the god's eye view and you get lots of booming freedom. That may not work here but that is an option.

This is a school film so ADR is probably cheap to free. Compositing (what was described anyway) would be a piece of cake inside FCP. It is not hard to shoot a clear frame before the scene starts and then garbage mat out the boom (on a lock down shot).

My approach would probably be to use a bunch of plant mics because you would get decent coverage and the on/off axis sound change would add to the chaos/ disorientation of the scene.
 
Noiz2 said:
A few points. First a static shot for 6 min with no editing is likely to be incredibly boring.
Click to expand...

This is a whole other discussion, but I have a belief that cinema can be whatever you want it to be. Everyone has their own style, and some like to push the cinematic form to the limit. My aim is never to "entertain"...which is why sometimes it's hard to communicate on this board...I might sound like I'm coming from a strange place or being pretentious, but I'll just leave it that I have a specific reason for shooting it this way, it's not just some random choice (hence my dilemma).

And of course the visual is more important than the sound, that is true about 90% of the time in film so don't give him grief about that.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's a clever dig (since we're on a sound board), but I find sound to be 50% of the film- and I don't just mean "realistically". I often like to shoot scenes without sound (concentrating on the visuals), then creatively planning out the sound effects for the scene and spending just as much time recording them seperately, placing them in the editing, etc. So for me, sometimes sound is more important- but I also can't afford a whole sound crew/2000 dollar mics, but this doesn't bother me.


But it's not a 100% thing. It's not either toss the look for the sound or toss the sound for the look. Sound often strengthens the visual more that being it's own identity. The question for the OP is which is more important in this shot. The one that takes the back seat needs to compromise more. But re blocking the shot doesn't mean toss your concept out in means look for creative solutions that still get the look you want and allow you to get the sound you need. For instance shoot higher with less head room and more of the god's eye view and you get lots of booming freedom. That may not work here but that is an option.

This is a school film so ADR is probably cheap to free. Compositing (what was described anyway) would be a piece of cake inside FCP. It is not hard to shoot a clear frame before the scene starts and then garbage mat out the boom (on a lock down shot).

My approach would probably be to use a bunch of plant mics because you would get decent coverage and the on/off axis sound change would add to the chaos/ disorientation of the scene.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm thinking of compositing but I have to test it first. Shadows and movement around the light could completely destroy it. If I had multiple mics I could do plants- and I like the idea of adding to the chaos/disorientation (it's creative and a bit risky, which is what I like). Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.


Side note:

See, my problem is I respect sound so much in the film and you sound guys who know so much, but my brain is wired differently. I see these things- microphones, cameras, etc.- as tools for an end. I want to learn about them but "state of the art" isn't in my vocabulary. My job is in to create in the means of which I have- so if I insult somebody who puts their life into this, keep in mind we may just be coming from different places creatively and I don't mean to offend. I totally respect what you guys do, but I'm not looking for "hollywood" look or sound, for instance- some are. So I don't expect "miracles" with very little. To me, it's much more exciting to work with a small group using low-budget techniques. To me, the real miracles are when people overcome limitations put on them by technology and money to communicate on screen. I don't get disgusted at grainy 16mm footage or a flat soundtrack if the film is amazing. A good example is Cassavetes' Faces.

And I'll add it's hard to get people to help you (even in film school) when no one is particular interested in your vision. But I don't think one should change one's vision...
 
jpastuch said:
...
And I'll add it's hard to get people to help you (even in film school) when no one is particular interested in your vision. But I don't think one should change one's vision...
Click to expand...

You're overlooking the most important consideration of all - is the AUDIENCE appreciative of your vision? Art for the sake of art, art that ignores the audience, with all its needs and desires, is art that does not survive. Without the audience, the entire expercise is a total waste of time, money, and energy. Technical flaws that interfere with your ability to engage them and hold their attention will prevent anyone from ever becoming aware of your vision. The responsibility for clarity of communication falls to the sender, not the receiver. Opening the channels by keeping the technical as flawless as possible, so the technique disappears into the background, allows you to actually share something with them.
 
I don't know if that's a clever dig (since we're on a sound board), but I find sound to be 50% of the film- and I don't just mean "realistically". I often like to shoot scenes without sound (concentrating on the visuals), then creatively planning out the sound effects for the scene and spending just as much time recording them seperately, placing them in the editing, etc. So for me, sometimes sound is more important- but I also can't afford a whole sound crew/2000 dollar mics, but this doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

No not a dig. I work in sound for film everyday and most of the shots in most films the visuals are "more important". And I'm not really talking about dialog, which is sound but it's also very literal and kind of it's own entity. The "value" of the dialog to the film has more to do with the words than the "sound". You have to manage to record those words in an understandable way and that is it's own art/ science but the words don't (usually) have much impact on the soundscape of the film. Most "sound" in film supports the image which makes it by definition "less important". But it really depends on how you look at it. You can either maintain that all the players on a team are equal contributors or you can assume that the leader/ captain/ quarterback/ etc is more important. It doesn't mean that everyone else is unimportant or even less important all the time or even much less important. But image leads the way 90% of the time. At any given time sound may be more important and good sound almost always makes the image stronger, but...
 
This is a whole other discussion, but I have a belief that cinema can be whatever you want it to be. Everyone has their own style, and some like to push the cinematic form to the limit. My aim is never to "entertain"...which is why sometimes it's hard to communicate on this board...I might sound like I'm coming from a strange place or being pretentious, but I'll just leave it that I have a specific reason for shooting it this way, it's not just some random choice (hence my dilemma).
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the refrain of a song from a show I saw recently "Art is failure, all failure is art".

I find that a ridiculous sentiment and the lamest excuse for bad craftsmenship. So as you can probably guess I don't agree with your "vision", but your right it's a different thread and hell, it's your vision not mine so go for it.
 
Steve House said:
You're overlooking the most important consideration of all - is the AUDIENCE appreciative of your vision? Art for the sake of art, art that ignores the audience, with all its needs and desires, is art that does not survive. Without the audience, the entire expercise is a total waste of time, money, and energy. Technical flaws that interfere with your ability to engage them and hold their attention will prevent anyone from ever becoming aware of your vision. The responsibility for clarity of communication falls to the sender, not the receiver. Opening the channels by keeping the technical as flawless as possible, so the technique disappears into the background, allows you to actually share something with them.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old zen conundrum. If you do your show and nobody sees it, did it actually happen?

But to give the OP his due, he is probably nor defining "entertain" the same way you are. I've heard the "entertain" argument before but it's usually with a definition that includes only the worst and most commercial films (art, etc) and then sort of smears a lot of neighbors with the same brush. When you start asking what films they like you often find they include a lot of very entertaining films. It's a bit of a warped academic definition. The only people you generally find going for it hard core are trust fund babies who have no need to have any audience and can claim they are so far ahead of the public that nobody "gets it" yet. For pretty much everybody else it's a phase that morphs into something more centered on creativity and less on maintaining the "outside the system" mystique. Think back you probably when through that stage yourself.
 
OK...

First the Boom
Second the Wired Lavalier
Third the Wireless Lavalier
Fourth the plant mic
Fifth - go the route of the Naked Apprentice and gaff tape the lavalier to the talent's chest...

after that... if the talent has a full head of hair, spirit gum the wired lav to his hair line and down his back...

failing that... rethink your project all together.

Namaste,

Jon
 
Noiz2 said:
Ah, the old zen conundrum. If you do your show and nobody sees it, did it actually happen?

But to give the OP his due, he is probably nor defining "entertain" the same way you are. I've heard the "entertain" argument before but it's usually with a definition that includes only the worst and most commercial films (art, etc) and then sort of smears a lot of neighbors with the same brush. When you start asking what films they like you often find they include a lot of very entertaining films. It's a bit of a warped academic definition. The only people you generally find going for it hard core are trust fund babies who have no need to have any audience and can claim they are so far ahead of the public that nobody "gets it" yet. For pretty much everybody else it's a phase that morphs into something more centered on creativity and less on maintaining the "outside the system" mystique. Think back you probably when through that stage yourself.
Click to expand...

True - I intentionally didn't use the word "entertain" because there are many excellent films that aren't very entertaining, certainly not in the mass-market Hollywood film / network TV episodic entertainment sense of the word. "Un Chien Andalous" or Lili Riefenstahl's propaganda docos come immediately to mind. But they undoubtedly engage the audience none the less. I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact the film exists to be a communication between the filmmaker and his audience and for one to ignore how technical flaws can stand between them and interfere with that communication. IMHO, the process needs to be transparent, invisible to the audience, and compromised technique always draws the process into the audience's awareness.
 
Steve House said:
True - I intentionally didn't use the word "entertain" because there are many excellent films that aren't very entertaining, certainly not in the mass-market Hollywood film / network TV episodic entertainment sense of the word. "Un Chien Andalous" or Lili Riefenstahl's propaganda docos come immediately to mind.
Click to expand...

While I agree that "Un Chein Andalous" may not have been to 'entertain' the masses, Leni Riefenstahls efforts definitely were 'entertainment'. In the case of her Olympic Games coverage, her 'style' pretty much was the defining moment for 'sports event' coverage, and one still sees echos of her technique. In the case of the Nürnberg NSDAP Party (hardy) Days coverage, sure it was 'documentary', sure it was 'propaganda', but just as sure it was intended to elicit a response in the viewer of a participant of the spectacle.

That to me puts it on the Entertainment pathway...

On the other hand, a 6 minute static shot, even in my favorite spectator genre of porn, would be boring and perhaps more closely related to neo-socialist realism... which is to say, really boring...

--------------------------------
But back to the 'long shot'... I'd recommend the OP have a look at Orson Welles' 'The Trial'(1962), for a 'how to', ok, reverse engineer the 'how to', on close quarters filming. The first few mnutes of the film are pretty much confined to a small european 'apartement' or related hallways, with a number of actors and movement.

As a note, Welles had a lot of problems funding the film, to the point where I believe he ran out of money and basically had to cut the shooting locations down to just a number of inside locations at the then abandoned Gare d'Orsay, soon to be reborn as the Musee d'Orsay...
 
That's kind of insane though. That's like saying "everything that has been, has been done, so why bother?". It's not a "phase" for me and it's not an "outside the system" thing...and I'm the opposite of a trustfund baby, just to clarify (not saying you were talking about me). A 6 minute static shot may be boring to you, but to be fair, this shot doesn't even exist yet and I don't care what you find boring. How many people, 60 years ago, frowned on handheld shooting, thinking it looked "amateurish"? I bet a lot. I don't agree with making random, off the cuff films that are complete nonsense just to mess with people. I've thought about why I want to shoot it this way.

I want people to see my films, but I believe in challenging audiences. I'm not going to cater to them to make them feel good, I'm going to give them what I want to make, hoping someone will connect with my vision...which means maybe there will be an audience of 0 people. But that's the risk everyone is supposed to take...otherwise nothing would be new or change. You might roll your eyes at this, and that's fine. And it can be entertaining at the same time, but if I wanted to just simply entertain people and give them what they want, I'd see no reason to even do anything creative.

The problem I mentioned is exactly that though- I don't claim to know everything about sound, so it's a little unfair to say a static shot will be boring. That would be like you trying some sort of strange technique for booming and me going "That won't work...that's not how you do it". Who am I to make that judgement? You obviously have a sense of what you're doing technically, as do I have an idea aethestically of what I want as a director. It's unfair to make such a limiting "I know it all" judgement like that. If you don't want to see a 6 minute long static shot, I promise I won't ever force you to.

And as far as the technical details, you misunderstand me. I want audiences to be able to hear and see my films clearly- if I didn't, this thread wouldn't exist. But I also have no interest in things I can't afford- for instance, I could shoot this on my DVX100, or wait and save up for years until I can afford a brand new 1080 p, HD capable camcorder so it looks "beautiful". So while you, as a craftsman, deal with the highest fidelity, so to speak, I don't. I'm not against it, but since I'm not going to be working with a professional soundman, I have to make due with what I have- which means trying my best and getting the best I can. You can say "hire a professional", but I simply can't afford it. You might say "well wait until you can", and that's probably where we disagree. I can see where it'd make you mad that someone would take that attitude, but whatever.

I've seen short films where I could hear the in-camera mic whining, and they were still amazingly good. Could they have been better with a pro sound crew...maybe. I could still hear the sound fine, it was just a bit rough. But they worked with a certain small group of people, and THOSE people made that themselves, you see. I'm a firm believer in certain people being able to make films that other people can't, even if they're "professional". Like an amateur can paint something sloppy, but it will be very beautiful, and a professional painter ( like thomas kinkade) can paint something sterile and boring, though it looks "professional".

But, again, I doubt many on this forum will agree with my stance. But I'm not asking you to...I'm just asking that you see where my art focuses and where it doesn't (which some of you have done).
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
...
On the other hand, a 6 minute static shot, even in my favorite spectator genre of porn, would be boring and perhaps more closely related to neo-socialist realism... which is to say, really boring...

--------------------------------
But back to the 'long shot'... I'd recommend the OP have a look at Orson Welles' 'The Trial'(1962), for a 'how to', ok, reverse engineer the 'how to', on close quarters filming. The first few mnutes of the film are pretty much confined to a small european 'apartement' or related hallways, with a number of actors and movement.

As a note, Welles had a lot of problems funding the film, to the point where I believe he ran out of money and basically had to cut the shooting locations down to just a number of inside locations at the then abandoned Gare d'Orsay, soon to be reborn as the Musee d'Orsay...
Click to expand...

The reminds me ... do you see the Onion's recent coverage about Prague's marvelous Franz Kafka International Airport? http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pragues_franz_kafka_international
 
That Franz Kafka thing is hilarious...and also reminds me, artists aren't supposed to make logical things that please the public (or that's what happens).

On a serious note, I also want to add that I'm still a student...so to me, there is value in buying my own mic and trying to do it with other students...to learn about sound, problems faced when booming, etc. I could simply hire a pro, but what would I learn? In the future, I want to be able to hire a professional and have some idea of what he's doing- so we can collaborate. Rather than just leave it completely up to him and say "well, guess he knows everything"...isn't there value in that?? I'm sure you guys like working with someone who values the obstacles you face and doesn't just expect you to do everything "right"...
 
jpastuch said:
That Franz Kafka thing is hilarious...and also reminds me, artists aren't supposed to make logical things that please the public (or that's what happens).

On a serious note, I also want to add that I'm still a student...so to me, there is value in buying my own mic and trying to do it with other students...to learn about sound, problems faced when booming, etc. I could simply hire a pro, but what would I learn? In the future, I want to be able to hire a professional and have some idea of what he's doing- so we can collaborate. Rather than just leave it completely up to him and say "well, guess he knows everything"...isn't there value in that?? I'm sure you guys like working with someone who values the obstacles you face and doesn't just expect you to do everything "right"...
Click to expand...
No disagreement from me on that one, jp - while one need not be an expert on every craft involved, having an understanding of the issues each craft faces is very important IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top