Do I need two boom operators?

[davefisk]

Dave, the question I have to ask...
after these extreme wides, was there also coverage done afterwards?


Also if they were 45 feet apart and the boom was no more than 5-6 ft from talent and he was swinging 35 ft between them there
must have been some huge gaps in dialog.

Coverage done afterwards. The actors moved towards each other pretty quickly on the wide shot, and there was plenty of pause between each delivery for the boom op to cue properly. Keep in mind, he was using a long shotgun that not many people use any more, so it had really good reach, so he didn't need to swing it really far. For the coverage they used a Neuman KM84 cardioid. I was surprised at how good the wide stuff sounded. Ultimately I have no idea what they'll use in the final mix, since the picture hasn't been edited yet, and the dialogue hasn't been edited yet, but they have enough takes that they have tons of great sounding dialogue and they didn't need to put a lav on anyone and they won't need to ADR.

When I first got to set, they were doing a different wide angle on the scene (I only saw the last take from down the block), and they were using two booms on that one since it was really wide. Then they switched to a different wide angle, and then coverage. After that they moved to the stage for a shot, and I had to leave set for another appointment, so I didn't get to see what they did on the stage.

 

[dre83]

If it's a wide shot, it can be "natural" that the dialogues sound "not as close as in a extreme close up shot".

But what the common "mistake" is that a boom that's to short is used. With a very large boom and still able to be above the talents, it will sound better then having a short boom and having to hold it a few feet/meters away.

Combined with lav's, dialogues from closer shots, sound editing, and good acting it's possible to match all (as said before)

 

[gpforet]

Thanks so much for your description of this shoot. It does step outside the box a bit but shows what can be done with top shelf microphones and skills.

Coverage done afterwards. The actors moved towards each other pretty quickly on the wide shot, and there was plenty of pause between each delivery for the boom op to cue properly. Keep in mind, he was using a long shotgun that not many people use any more, so it had really good reach, so he didn't need to swing it really far. For the coverage they used a Neuman KM84 cardioid. I was surprised at how good the wide stuff sounded. Ultimately I have no idea what they'll use in the final mix, since the picture hasn't been edited yet, and the dialogue hasn't been edited yet, but they have enough takes that they have tons of great sounding dialogue and they didn't need to put a lav on anyone and they won't need to ADR.

When I first got to set, they were doing a different wide angle on the scene (I only saw the last take from down the block), and they were using two booms on that one since it was really wide. Then they switched to a different wide angle, and then coverage. After that they moved to the stage for a shot, and I had to leave set for another appointment, so I didn't get to see what they did on the stage.

 

[davefisk]

Thanks so much for your description of this shoot. It does step outside the box a bit but shows what can be done with top shelf microphones and skills.

No problem. I've been to tons of sets of tv shows and films over the years, and the one thing I learned is that everyone does things differently. I know some people that always have a wireless on the talent, as well as the boom, and other guys that started their careers with only one record track, and got really good at getting what they needed for that one track, and that's how they still work.

 

[Noiz2]

This is not a boomable shot. Using the rule of thirds if the actors are 7 meters apart, then the frame will actually be about 10 meters wide, making the height of the frame (using 16:9 aspect) a little over 4 meters. Proper framing will require the boom to be more than 1 meter above the actors to stay out of frame, and unless you're filming in a controlled sound-stage like environment, or using a boat-load of sound blankets (which will be difficult due to the wide framing), the audio will be unusable.

I'd put lavs on the actors for this wide of a shot (primarily to be used as a reference), and then boom the closer coverage shots. With this wide of a shot, the actor's mouth will be so small in the frame that you can use the audio recorded during the close-ups, and provided the actors stay on script, any small sync errors will not be noticable for the wide shot cuts.

You may be correct. But often in cutting a scene like this I wouldn't use the distant boomed mic at all. If they did decent coverage and the editor is cutting in anything close to a conventional way there is going to be hardly any lines used from the wide and it's fairly easy to make the close up sound fit the wide shot "flapping lips".

Now editors and films are all different so even though the above would be true 90% of the time there is still the 10% that will bite your butt. I would talk to the director and if possible the editor because the wide may only be used as a guide track anyway.

As a sound editor I will generally prefer a boom over a lav, but I always prefer a good clean track. If you record a clean track I can make it sound like it was wherever you want.

Until you know how the shot is framed and how the camera(s) will move it's not really possible to say whether it's boomable or not and if a second operator helps or just gets in the way. I did some post on a low budget film that thought they would save money using two cameras for every shot ,instant med. an CU. It cost them a lot in set up and coordination time and the cameras were constantly in each others way. But it also killed the boom. There was no place they could be with out being in the shot where they could get anywhere close to the actors. Did I mention that they also built a three walled set with a ceiling to save money also...

Some characters were wearing things (or rather not wearing things) that precluded body mics. Post was a mess. Some of the boom was OK some folks could be laved and they stuck a bunch of plant mics around to try and get some coverage. In this case they were never doing a CU with out doing a wide at the same time so getting "good" takes during the CU was not an option.

I felt for the production folks because they were hosed by a silly director/ producer who had no clue.

 

[adanac]

What is the opinion of your Production Mixer? I would leave that up to him or her.

Voiceovers are recorded in a studio.