How to do the pros do it ?

First, Clark.
"Now back to crapy... one of the ironic implications of some of the comments on El Director's ADR's dialog is, it doesn't sound like 'on location'... no echo, no 'ambience', etc... in otherwords, it doesn't sound 'crappy' enough..."

Completely wrong. The RIGHT ambience and the RIGHT echo etc are part of the reality. What often happens in indi's that is "crap" is the WRONG ambience and the WRONG echo, rev etc. They will use a zoom to get a "tight shot" and the mic is still miles away from the actor. You have an intimate scene and it sounds like they are in the middle of the freeway. I had a film come in where the couple is laying in the sand near the ocean. The dialog was completely trashed by wind and surf. Actors were now out of the country so no ADR, it was a mess. And the frustrating part is that there was not ONE shot of the water. The whole scene could have been shot in any quiet sandy area and would have been fine. Poor planning leads to crap. Adding the RIGHT sound in is what polishes the track and gets it sounding professional. And if your dialog was not done in the right location then it also probably means processing that also. You are not adding "crap" you are adding reality.
 
El Director said:
I noticed an interesting phenomenon today. I was watching Open Water to see again how bad it sounded and after a couple of minutes, I just accepted the audio. I think consistency is the issue. Yeah, it all sounds pretty raw, but since it's all pretty raw, you ignore it. I think that when someone watches my film, at first they may say, "oh, that's ADR" But since it's all ADR, it should soon be forgotten. Also, everyone on here is pretty technical and can tell the difference like I can tell the difference between frame rates. Which there's nothing wrong with (it means you know what you're doing) But I don't think the average viewer will be able to tell, and that's who I'm ultimately after.
Click to expand...

I would agree with others that listening to what you aspire to is more useful than what has managed to "get by" in the past. Films succeed and fail for lots of reasons most of which have to do with timing. The right story at the right time trumps most things.

However I will disagree with anyone calling your test "crap". It sounds looped but, that's only a bad thing if you don't want it to. Your film has an agenda (as do most films) and I don't think your track is in conflict with that agenda. A lot of films under a certain budget use a lot of lav's and they also loose perspective if not treated in post. The dialog is very clear and I think that is very important to you, not always the case. If this were a big drama that I was supposed to suspend all disbelief and live in your world then I think the loopines would be a big problem, but that is not this film. For the folks who think this is "crappy" sound I would suggest that you go and view some of the films posted on this site. There are some truly awful examples and many of those folks think their sound is OK. It doesn't sound big buck Hollywood, but you spent, what? $1,000 or so (this is completely based on your thread on this film so don't take it as a comment on quality) even if you dropped 2-3K your still below the coffee budget on a "low budget" feature. So is your sound better than most of your peers in that budget range (sub $5K)? I would say it's in the upper end, and it's mostly fixable (ie it's too clean). The performances are a bit lackluster but the clips that you had before with the camera audio sounded about the same so I don't think your ADR workflow is to blame.
I still down think this is a workflow that will work for most and it has the down side that the more you move up the harder it will be to make it cost effective. This would be VERY expensive on a $100,000 feature, partially because the bar would be higher and partially because the time gets more expensive. But for this film on this budget and with your experience with this workflow I think you probably made the right choice.
 
This is a really interesting argument for bad audio... that it's okay because the viewer will just accept it and move on, or that it's okay that it's bad as long as it's consistently bad. Less of an argument, more of an excuse, in my opinion. There have been many shorts and other projects posted in the forums by DVXUser members that I have not been able to watch all the way through because, after the first couple of minutes, I could not get past the bad audio.
Click to expand...

It's a good point but what your commenting on is a good point also. Films are not "real" and maintaining the internal logic is often more important than something being "real". There is no sound in space. That should take an audience right out of StarWars. It doesn't because they set up a consistent internal logic where there is sound in space, always. When everything is ADR'd, it's a style, and if it's consistent and isn't very distracting in some bad way it is accepted as the "reality" of the movie. Old Hollywood films don't sound "real", it hasn't stopped many from enjoying them.

So it can be an excuse for bad sound (lighting, acting, whatever) but it is also an important thing to keep in mind. On no budget films I always try to ADR whole scenes if any ADR is needed because it's much easier to make an completely ADR'd scene sound consistent than it is to replace a few lines and try to get them to blend. Actually I'm backing off on that these days because matching tools and my collection of tricks has improved, so I wouldn't push for a few words but if one character needs to be looped then I will push for the whole scene. On a big budget film that would not happen. They have the crew to comb through alt takes and much better matching tools and a lot more cumulative experience than I do.
 
Jim Brennan said:
/...Overwhelmingly, they falll into the category of not spending enough time and effort into proper planning.

It's one thing to ADR (or do anything else) because you want to. It's another to do it because you aren't planning effectively.

As always, our choices reveal our priorities...and results don't lie.
Click to expand...

In my "day job" I teach Project Management and the MS Project planning software package. A favourite adage is "Failure to plan is planning to fail."
 
El Director said:
Since ADR is almost inevitable....
Click to expand...

I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but I really have to take issue with this statement. I'm involved in posting a feature I was the production sound mixer on and we are not going to have to do any ADR. And, I didn't have the best/most experienced of boom ops. The couple of scenes that might have needed ADR due to improper boom placement we pulled from the lav tracks and tweaked to match and we're good to go. We're just doing some final clean up and we'll be all set. So, it is very possible to record a feature and use the production audio tracks. And let me tell you, we didn't have the cleanest audio environment to work in. But, if you know what you're doing, have the right equipment and take the time to listen during production, you can create really good sound.

Phil
 
El Director said:
http://starspictures.ning.com/video/adr-test
Click to expand...


Hm. With some more ambience I think it could actually work, IMO.

But yeah, it's missing that "dead air" ambience in the background.

I don't see why synching sound to live action vs. synching sound to animation should be viewed differently. Most animated films and live action films' audio soundtrack are relatively the same.

The reason animators have the cast record the vocals first, though, is because it's a lot easier to match a visual performance (and lip synching) to a recording that already exists. Doing it the way you're doing it still seems incredibly challenging. You're saying it's not, so I believe you, but I still think I'd personally struggle with it.

If you have NO BUDGET for a sound person or any kind of sound equipment, though, it's pretty good. But the problem is that you still need that ambient air and it would probably be smart to make sure and adjust the levels depending on where your camera is in the scene, just to make it feel more authentic. Maybe you can rent some super awesome equipment for like ONE DAY and get all the ambient stuff and blend it in.

The voices and the performances match well, though. So thumbs up on that!

And I would not agree with anyone here who says you should worry about having X number of assets (e.g. cash money/technical personell) prior to moving forward on whatever artistic venture you might want to do. People who sit around waiting until they have "enough" of anything are, IMO, worried about the wrong thing. If you have a story to tell or a set of moving pictures to project, tell and show it using the best tools you have available and go, go, go. Accept that it will have some technical issues and express that with your film's "no budget" banner.
 
Last edited:
Glen Trew said:
To address the original poster's question, the difference between the higher quality dialog production sound tracks and the less desirable sound quality often associated with lower level production, has much more to do with the experience of the production sound mixer and less to do with the equipment they use. This experience is responsible for the best use of available equipment (mic placement, mic mixing, equipment alignment, and levels), when to be concerned about certain acoustical factors (and when not to be) and what to do about them... and the list goes on. But choices for specific models of equipment is towards the end of the list of things that have a significant impact on the quality of production sound.

Glen Trew
Click to expand...

Amen to that !
 
Chamber005 said:
HI don't see why synching sound to live action vs. synching sound to animation should be viewed differently. Most animated films and live action films' audio soundtrack are relatively the same.
Click to expand...

Well as you point out they ARE done differently. Animators "lipsync" to the vocal performance and only use a handful of expressions to do it. Also it's semi automated. The vocal track is laid out and labeled with the expression that goes with the sounds.


And I would not agree with anyone here who says you should worry about having X number of assets (e.g. cash money/technical personell) prior to moving forward on whatever artistic venture you might want to do. People who sit around waiting until they have "enough" of anything are, IMO, worried about the wrong thing. If you have a story to tell or a set of moving pictures to project, tell and show it using the best tools you have available and go, go, go. Accept that it will have some technical issues and express that with your film's "no budget" banner.
Click to expand...

It's a fine line. You do need to get your ducks in a row and PLAN. But you also need to be realistic about what your planning to do. The problem with the "Just do it" attitude is that you can end up with BIG problems that needed planning more than $ to avoid. But planning is boring, so many low budget folks just don't do much. The flip side also happens, folks waiting for XYZ and never being "ready". I run into more of the gogo folks, probably because the others are still "getting ready", than the waiters. Personally I see the GoGo philosophy used to excuse laziness a LOT. Everyone wants to get to the fun stuff. The cold reality is that the "fun stuff" is a lot more fun if you planned well.
 
El Director said:
I don't mind and I'm all for learning. But I treat information like I do an actors idea. I analyze it, and decide if it's best for the flick. I won't just use an idea because someone says to. Is it cost effective for me? Will it prohibit what I'm doing with the camera? As has already been mentioned, these are just some of the things that need to be considered.
Click to expand...

Eventually I assume that you, like most directors on the board, want to work on larger budget projects?

If that's the case, then wouldn't it be beneficial to start imitation the professional workflow so that when you do start working with professionals, you'll be comfortable with it?

Finding locations that work for sound, dealing with a boom line, keeping the set quiet, ect... are all things that are dealt with on $100 and $100 million productions.
 
Gohanto said:
Eventually I assume that you, like most directors on the board, want to work on larger budget projects?

If that's the case, then wouldn't it be beneficial to start imitation the professional workflow so that when you do start working with professionals, you'll be comfortable with it?

Finding locations that work for sound, dealing with a boom line, keeping the set quiet, ect... are all things that are dealt with on $100 and $100 million productions.
Click to expand...


Depends on the market: from the wiki article on Bollywood....
(The Chinese market may be similar couldn't find a reference indicating one way or another, but most Chinese films I've seen and 'heard' the original sound track, sound ADR'd + Foleyed... so that's a combined market of about 2-3 billion people who watch, and apparently are entertained by films made predominantly with ADR methods...)


-----------------
Sound

Sound in Bollywood films is rarely recorded on location (otherwise known as sync sound). Therefore, the sound is usually created (or recreated) entirely in the studio, with the actors reciting their lines as their images appear on-screen in the studio in the process known as "looping in the sound" or ADR—with the foley and sound effects added later. This creates several problems, since the sound in these films usually occurs a frame or two earlier or later than the mouth movements or gestures. The actors have to act twice: once on-location, once in the studio—and the emotional level on set is often very difficult to recreate. Commercial Indian films, not just the Hindi-language variety, are known for their lack of ambient sound, so there is a silence underlying everything instead of the background sound and noises usually employed in films to create aurally perceivable depth and environment.

The ubiquity of ADR in Bollywood cinema became prevalent in the early 1960s with the arrival of the Arriflex 3 camera, which required a blimp (cover) in order to shield the sound of the camera, for which it was notorious, from on-location filming. Commercial Indian filmmakers, known for their speed, never bothered to blimp the camera, and its excessive noise required that everything had to be recreated in the studio. Eventually, this became the standard for Indian films.

The trend was bucked in 2001, after a 30-year hiatus of synchronized sound, with the film Lagaan, in which producer-star Aamir Khan insisted that the sound be done on location. This opened up a heated debate on the use and economic feasibility of on-location sound, and several Bollywood films have employed on-location sound since then.
-------------------------------------
 
On another note, make sure your background noise and dialogue are consistent from shot to shot.

I JUST finished post for a project that sounded like the mic was pointed at the actors from 10' away 98% of the time. 95% of the film is INT. Very roomy sounding and each take had different background noise against the dialogue. Lines were cutoff from the recorder and lavs were picking up too much clothing noises. 6 months after production wrapped, the team finally realizes that the location audio was poorly recorded even though there was a specific person dealing with the boom, lavs, and recorder. What a mess.

Even getting clean dialogue would increase the likelihood of it feeling "Hollywood" and professional. Work with what you have and plan it out.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Depends on the market: from the wiki article on Bollywood....
(The Chinese market may be similar couldn't find a reference indicating one way or another, but most Chinese films I've seen and 'heard' the original sound track, sound ADR'd + Foleyed... so that's a combined market of about 2-3 billion people who watch, and apparently are entertained by films made predominantly with ADR methods...)
-
Click to expand...

What the article doesn't mention is that A) most of the shooting is not on location but on sound stages. Bollywood is like Hollywood in the 30's. And second that it's more Dubbing than looping. India has something like 500 different languages. I believe most films are released in both of the dominant languages. So it's very much like the Italian situation.

It is the biggest film market in the world, also the largest film producer. It is also hard to get into that market and they have VERY strict censorship. China is also a huge viewing market but almost no paying market and near impossible to break into.

Neither is going to get too excited about an evangelical christian nobudget film.

Also it should be mentioned that the europeans (and probably others who do a lot of dubbing) dub very differently than we do in the US. It's very efficient but not so easy to duplicate on a low budget. The european method is to have the lines phonetically printed on a copy of the film. Stretching out the letters to match the performance. The actor then just reads what is on the screen as it shows up. So you can dub languages you don't speak and it goes VERY fast. They have the infrastructure to get those "dubbing prints" but to do that here would be very labor intensive. All of this foreign "ADR" is not actually ADR it is this dubbing proses, and they do it on virtually all movies whether or not they did production sound BECAUSE their home market is miniscule. It's not done for style or because it's easier but because they don't have a choice if they want to sell the film to a market big enough to pay back production costs.
 
I think it bears mentioning as well that any time any vampire had in their fangs on Buffy the Vampire slayer (the series), they never used the actor's dialog track he gave when the fangs were in, they always did ADR.

Again, I think the PREMISE is fine so long as at SOME POINT you're renting the expensive stuff to get all of your ambience, etc. You could probably get all the ambient noise you need in one day for your entire film, as well as probably some on-set foley. Even if you only rented gear for foley reasons (or even used the onboard mics of an H4N which we've been talking about in other threads), you'd probably end up with a decent soundtrack.

Personally if I was going to do this on an extreme budget I would (as I just mentioned) use the onboard mics of an H4N at the original locations and have your actors do their ADR there. That way for close-ups you can actually record on set, and when the camera is further away you can just do ADR. Might be a happy medium for you in the future?
 
Ambient sound is a biggy. AS are small echoy rooms. You try and talk them out of it but.....

Speaking of Ambient sound. Helicopters are my new Nemesis.

Recent shoot had 50 flights fly over us in one day. A couple even circled us for while. Found out later that a local helicopter school was doing a training day in our area. If the filmmaker had taken the time to phone and ask them what was up we could have saved most of the day as they did relocate their training area for our next shoot day. And it was me, the DP/Cam Op that made that call.

Sound ops that don't seem to understand that how you point the mic can make a difference to the sound.
Lobing vs direct gain off the shotgun, moving thearoun when boom indoors to try and find a sweet spot etc. And the fact that a LOT of no/low budgeters don't even use a mixer. Digital cams may be meant to RECORD sound, but they are not designed to MIX it.

One peeve of mine that trumps the above is when you explain in detail the sound issues and the director/producer says.. "We'll ADR it if we have to" and then they never do because by the time post comes around they realize they have no budget for ADR and just expect the poor editor or sound editor to "just fix it" in post. Yes, you can fix SOME of it SOME of the time but not always, and that also adds to the budget.

Filmmakers using unbalanced equipment. Cams like the 7D with crappy inputs and an AGC you can not turn off. These also lead to noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top