How to shoot a movie with just a naked camcorder mic??

[Richard Crowley]

If all the actors are wearing something that covers or obscures their mouths, then dubbing is easy. Like when we shoot dialog inside the wafer fab cleanroom. The hood covers their mouths and we have even changed the dialog in post.

 

[Steve House]

iFilm,

The audio board is a bit more brutal than other places on DVXuser. That's why I hang here, I like being dry gulched.

Grant

Not being brutal, just one needs to be realistic about the need to have the proper tools in order to do a proper job. You can't get great production sound without the necessary audio equipment any more than you can capture great pictures without a decent camera. And if you're going to be serious about making films, you have to approach it with the attitude of "good enough, never is" - that is, getting both great sound and great pictures in order to most effectively tell the story sets the bar.

 

[Rippie]

I may be speaking blasphemy, but if you haven't made at least a few movies before just don't worry about it. The sound you get from the camcorder won't be professional grade, but you can learn the fundamentals of storytelling which are FAR more important.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Steve House]

I may be speaking blasphemy, but if you haven't made at least a few movies before just don't worry about it. The sound you get from the camcorder won't be professional grade, but you can learn the fundamentals of storytelling which are FAR more important.

Couldn't agree more.

LOL - interesting we were posting such opposite views at the same time. Not about the primacy of effective storytelling - on that we agree. If you're going to "make a movie" as a learning exercise, sure, use whatever you've got available. But if you actually hope to show it to an audience, one needs to do whatever it takes to do it right. Otherwise, the amateurish result stands in the way of the storytelling. I guess I'm an anachronism but basic technique does matter. To say it doesn't matter if the sound isn't up to par is rather like saying it doesn't matter if you focus the camera or set the exposure.

 

[Gohanto]

LOL - interesting we were posting such opposite views at the same time. Not about the primacy of effective storytelling - on that we agree. If you're going to "make a movie" as a learning exercise, sure, use whatever you've got available. But if you actually hope to show it to an audience, one needs to do whatever it takes to do it right. Otherwise, the amateurish result stands in the way of the storytelling. I guess I'm an anachronism but basic technique does matter. To say it doesn't matter if the sound isn't up to par is rather like saying it doesn't matter if you focus the camera or set the exposure.

I don't see the question as "is the sound up to par". I see it as "so long as I can see the actors and hear them, the storytelling can shine through". That philosophy is how I won two of my school's film festivals using my $500 camera's built in mic, friends as actors, covering obvious sound errors with music, and the competition was against film students using top end cameras, Arri light kits, MKH416 boom mics, 4 man crews, ect... I also used auto-focus and auto-exposure.

The technical aspects can quickly become a handicap to good storytelling. It takes a LOT of experience and practice before the biggest issue a filmmaker has is their technical side. And once a filmmaker gets to that point, they hire professionals and keep on learning.

 

[iFilm7]

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEAUTIFUL PICTURE TO THAT STORYTELLING sorry caps was on and i did not feel like retyping xP

 

[Steve House]

I don't see the question as "is the sound up to par". I see it as "so long as I can see the actors and hear them, the storytelling can shine through". That philosophy is how I won two of my school's film festivals using my $500 camera's built in mic, friends as actors, covering obvious sound errors with music, and the competition was against film students using top end cameras, Arri light kits, MKH416 boom mics, 4 man crews, ect... I also used auto-focus and auto-exposure.

The technical aspects can quickly become a handicap to good storytelling. It takes a LOT of experience and practice before the biggest issue a filmmaker has is their technical side. And once a filmmaker gets to that point, they hire professionals and keep on learning.

I think of compromised technical quality as the filmic equivalent of an orator who mumbles or a vocalist who can't sing on key. Storytelling involves communication between the storyteller and his audience and clarity of the communication is necessary to tell the story effectively. Technical flaws interupt that communication. If you're using the camera as a visual sketchbook to work out ideas for yourself, fine. But if you're going to turn it into a production to show others, you gotta do it right. If I'm taking snaps of the office Christmas party, my little point-and-shoot still camera is fine. But I'm shooting serious work for artistic expression, out comes the Nikons, tripod, and the good glass.

 

[Steve House]

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEAUTIFUL PICTURE TO THAT STORYTELLING sorry caps was on and i did not feel like retyping xP

It is a common misconception that film and video are primarily visual media like photography. They're really not, other than perhaps some "fine-arts" experimental work. They're primarily auditory experiences with sound as the primary vehicle for telling the story, the sound leading the audience into the experience of an alternate reality with pictures added to strengthen the story the soundscape is creating. That's why if you have to compromise on something, you're better off compromising on the "beautiful pictures" in order to insure you have "beautiful sound." It's said that the classic way to communicate an idea is to tell it to the audience first, then show it to them, then tell them what they've just seen. Note that "telling" (sound) is double the amount of "seeing" (picture).

 

[Rippie]

LOL - interesting we were posting such opposite views at the same time. Not about the primacy of effective storytelling - on that we agree. If you're going to "make a movie" as a learning exercise, sure, use whatever you've got available. But if you actually hope to show it to an audience, one needs to do whatever it takes to do it right. Otherwise, the amateurish result stands in the way of the storytelling. I guess I'm an anachronism but basic technique does matter. To say it doesn't matter if the sound isn't up to par is rather like saying it doesn't matter if you focus the camera or set the exposure.

I agree with you Steve, but it's pretty obvious the original poster
doesnt have the knowledge or skill (no offense) to pull off anything other than an "amateurish" product even if he had a better mic.
So when I say I agree about just using the camera mic it is for this particular case ONLY.


The fact that just a few posts above this one, he typed in all caps
and said he didnt feel like retyping? joke or not..
it speaks volumes to me.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If all the actors are wearing something that covers or obscures their mouths, then dubbing is easy. Like when we shoot dialog inside the wafer fab cleanroom. The hood covers their mouths and we have even changed the dialog in post.

My wife lipreads, as she has been hard of hearing for her entire life... on many occasions, she will tell me that the 'audio' differs from the lips. The last one a week ago was the replacement of a 'damn', with a 'darn'. And both of us can comment on the difference between the closed captions, and what is in the audio...

 

[iFilm7]

but also dont judge a book by its cover.
i KNOW i have skill and with that skill, i shall develop over time. well not time, but i will develop each time i ponder about film making and film itself.

@Steve, but that would just be philosophy or more of opinion, like my next statement: a good film is a film you can turn off the sound and still get what is going on. i've heard that statement somewhere but just forgot where

btw film in itself is/has a language within itself

 

[JordanBlock]

i KNOW i have skill and with that skill, i shall develop over time. well not time, but i will develop each time i ponder about film making and film itself.

Potential and enthusiasm isn't the same as skill. Skill comes with experience. Not trying to be harsh, you've obviously got an interest and probably have some innate ability for filmmaking, but that doesn't automatically mean you're a skilled filmmaker. As you say, it develops over time as you push yourself.

 

[Rippie]

but also dont judge a book by its cover.
i KNOW i have skill and with that skill, i shall develop over time. well not time, but i will develop each time i ponder about film making and film itself.

@Steve, but that would just be philosophy or more of opinion, like my next statement: a good film is a film you can turn off the sound and still get what is going on. i've heard that statement somewhere but just forgot where

btw film in itself is/has a language within itself

Just as Jordan mentions Im not being personal or overly harsh.
Just stating what probably is the facts.

With that being said... make a movie with what you have..see what happens..
learn from it.. make another..learn from that..make another...

If you're starting from the VERY beginning in experience
its better to just "do it" than to worry about a particular piece of gear.

I encourage you to do what you're doing.

 

[mainstreetprod]

Ask a question about using an on camcorder mic, the response will be, get it off the camera and on a boom. Put it on a fixed boom, the response, you need to have a boom guy because the actor might turn his head. Get a boom guy, now what mic are you using? A $100 Azden, nope, you need an Octava. Get an Octava - nope, would be better with a 4053A. Get a 4053A - well, that's OK, but would be much better with a Rode NTG-3. Get an NTG-3 - sounds good, but since you are inside, better get a hyper. Back to the Octava. Sounds OK, but why not just go all out and get a Schoeps? Get a Schoeps - wow, sounds good, but I would use a professional boom guy instead of your buddy. Get a professional boom guy - sounds great, but he will need a mixer. Get a Mixpre - sounds better, but an SD 302 but be a better preamp. Get a 302 - sounds good now, but there's an echo in the room - got any sound blankets? Use blankets - now sounds pretty good. But you're using Guitar center mic cables - get some real ones. And get that Schoeps on a real shockmount - and a real boompole. And (horror of horrors)- you aren't going right into the camera inputs are you? You have to use an external recorder. Not just any external recorder either. But that's a whole nother post. And don't even get me started on wireless.

You will find audio guys are never satisfied with equipment or technique- there's always something better. For that matter, video guys too. It's part of the DNA.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

but also dont judge a book by its cover.
i KNOW i have skill and with that skill, i shall develop over time. well not time, but i will develop each time i ponder about film making and film itself.

@Steve, but that would just be philosophy or more of opinion, like my next statement: a good film is a film you can turn off the sound and still get what is going on. i've heard that statement somewhere but just forgot where

The first 10 minutes of 'There Will Be Blood"(2008), has no 'dialog', no music, only sound effects or Foley...

No one walked out of the theater... ok... maybe someone, somewhere...

On the other hand, had it been the other way around, that is 10 minutes of occasional blips of visuals on the screen, most likely the entire audience would have been demanding their money back.

 

[Noiz2]

I don't see the question as "is the sound up to par". I see it as "so long as I can see the actors and hear them, the storytelling can shine through". That philosophy is how I won two of my school's film festivals using my $500 camera's built in mic, friends as actors, covering obvious sound errors with music, and the competition was against film students using top end cameras, Arri light kits, MKH416 boom mics, 4 man crews, ect... I also used auto-focus and auto-exposure.

The technical aspects can quickly become a handicap to good storytelling. It takes a LOT of experience and practice before the biggest issue a filmmaker has is their technical side. And once a filmmaker gets to that point, they hire professionals and keep on learning.

Not to knock your awards but that is not a real world standard. I agree with your point to a certain extent in that when your starting out just go make some videos. You are not going to have great sound but your not going to have great images either and the acting will probably be weak to awful. But you get a feel for how it all happens and you can get a general feeling about whether you have any interest in really trying to make a film. You can learn an awful lot with out spending a lot. BUT keep it in perspective. Most of these short little films are just awful. Your cast and crew, if any, are probably not going to notice because hey they MADE a MOVIE! If you want to move on to actually being a filmmaker (someone who either does it for a living or someone who does whatever just so they can make films) then you need to keep some perspective and know that your practice films are just that. They are not going to get bought and you are not going to live off the royalties. If your trying to do a short as a calling card you have to aim a lot higher because there are 9 bazillion bad "practice" shorts out there and you will get about 15 sec. in any decent festival to prove that your film is not one of them. One of the quicker ways to say "this is a serious" contender is with really good sound. That is assuming you have a decent story and cast etc. If you film sounds and looks like it had a budget it will likely get watched all the way through.

To summarize I would not even think about shooting a feature length film with an in camera mic. As practice shorts, if it is not awful then go for it. And part of the reason for that is that I have done more salvage jobs on shorts with a really bad sound person than shorts with on board mics. The camera mic is never going to be "good" but it often is OK on a practice short level. A bad sound person can be MUCH worse.

 

[Noiz2]

The first 10 minutes of 'There Will Be Blood"(2008), has no 'dialog', no music, only sound effects or Foley...

No one walked out of the theater... ok... maybe someone, somewhere...

On the other hand, had it been the other way around, that is 10 minutes of occasional blips of visuals on the screen, most likely the entire audience would have been demanding their money back.

Actually I believe it's 23 minutes before there is any dialog.

The quote he was referring to is about dialog not "sound". 20 min with out sound and the audience would walk out also.

Modern audiences usually demand both. But historically there never really was picture with out sound. Silent movies weren't silent they just didn't have sync dialog. Even mimes usually perform with music. Radio however was only sound and did a LOT of drama and comedy for thirty plus years till TV pretty much killed it in the US. England still does radio drama.

Kill Bill 2 has about 5 min with essentially no visuals and nobody walked out of that either.

 

[ChrisHurn]

I just wish more people would actually SHOOT the backyard shorts we're talking about here before they made short films with lots of gear. There are just way too many crappy short (and feature) films out there which cost serious money to make, are boring as hell, sure they've got great sound and were shot on the RED, but who cares if the script sucks and the shooting style is really flat (Just lots of boring cuts, OTS here and there, whatever else have you). And then people wonder why their film isn't breaking down any doors.

Of course I agree if you want to make a film that people are going to watch then you should probably try and get quality sound happening. But if only people actually spent the time making films on crappy gear/whatever they had lying around BEFORE they got all this gear.

 

[iFilm7]

man you guys really dwell into the negative side of things -.-' and i know you will be like 'oh its reality' because thats what you think. blah haha ill get my own style in sound, see if i like it and if i do ill go with it and become successful
thanks.
and im not trying to be harsh or 'getting off easy' or whatever because you gotta have a positive aspect on things.
aright guys, i hope you wont dwell on the negatives and i hope you start in the positive.
haha peace out.

 

[Gohanto]

Not to knock your awards but that is not a real world standard. I agree with your point to a certain extent in that when your starting out just go make some videos. You are not going to have great sound but your not going to have great images either and the acting will probably be weak to awful. But you get a feel for how it all happens and you can get a general feeling about whether you have any interest in really trying to make a film. You can learn an awful lot with out spending a lot. BUT keep it in perspective. Most of these short little films are just awful. Your cast and crew, if any, are probably not going to notice because hey they MADE a MOVIE! If you want to move on to actually being a filmmaker (someone who either does it for a living or someone who does whatever just so they can make films) then you need to keep some perspective and know that your practice films are just that. They are not going to get bought and you are not going to live off the royalties. If your trying to do a short as a calling card you have to aim a lot higher because there are 9 bazillion bad "practice" shorts out there and you will get about 15 sec. in any decent festival to prove that your film is not one of them. One of the quicker ways to say "this is a serious" contender is with really good sound. That is assuming you have a decent story and cast etc. If you film sounds and looks like it had a budget it will likely get watched all the way through.

To summarize I would not even think about shooting a feature length film with an in camera mic. As practice shorts, if it is not awful then go for it. And part of the reason for that is that I have done more salvage jobs on shorts with a really bad sound person than shorts with on board mics. The camera mic is never going to be "good" but it often is OK on a practice short level. A bad sound person can be MUCH worse.

Even I'm not that proud of those awards, and yes my films were not that great at all.

I only mention it because as much as people talk about the "backyard" shorts as being bad, I see a lot of the "film student" shorts were everything is shot in boring (but controllable and safe) apartment buildings, 3 point lighting in every shot, camera's never off the tripod, ect... and that's just boring and looks like a million other films as well. They're equal evils in my eyes.

And yes, my advice is solely targeted at a starter couple of shorts and not something looking to be used professionally, or especially a feature. Generally though, I think most people that have a chance of making a good feature already know that.

I guess some people would like to start with the creative backyard shorts, and then add sound and lighting. Others would rather start with "film student" shorts, and then learn to add more creativity. I think the later is significantly harder.