In order to get closer - crop/matte out boom or mic?

[Jema]

I decided to post this here as it adresses audio recording, and it didn't really fit any of the categories in the post production section.

I wanted to vent a simple idea that I have not found any discussion on, namely if the methods of hiding or editing out a mic drop and the like in post production, could allow us to purposely put the boom where it's in the image in order to get closer to the speaker (and thereby get better sound).

I'm sure most, if not everybody who have been editing/cutting a film has come across a scene or instance where the boom (I include the mic in this), or a shadow from it is visible. If the boom is not intervening with a movement in the image (in which case I don't think there's any remedy), then there are several things you can do to try and remove it.

1. If the camera is static, you can simply take an earlier instance or another take where the boom is not visible, then crop the image to the area of the part in question, and matte that over the part where the boom/mic is. This is the most simple and effective instance.

2. If there is movement in the camera, I've read that some people have managed to do a similar thing to the above with motion tracking, but I don't know to what extent this is possible (probably depends on the background and movement in question).

3. If there is movement in the camera, you can zoom in to sometimes get the boom out. This is simple and fast, but sometimes gives a noticeable quality loss in the image.

4. You can paint it out in for instance photoshop, but this takes a lot of time.

This covers the most frequent cures I think, but if there is more then I'd very much like to know.


Now, to get back to the question. As every sound technician knows, the most important thing is to get the mic as close as possible. If you have a shot that corresponds with example 1, where the camera is still, and there is some "dead" space (ie without movement) in a part of the image that is closer to the sound source than any side of the frame, then couldn't you simply first record a few seconds with the boom out of the image, then get it in the image in the dead space, and in post use the first few seconds to matte the boom out? It's not a lot of work when compared to how much time it could take (if at all) to get that relative improvement in the sound.

I've worked on a project where we shot mostly inside with limited camera movement, where I think this would have gone a long way. Of course, it would require careful planning so you don't end up with a shot that is completely unusable.

Does anyone have an opinion as to why this would, or wouldn't, work? Are there more or similar ways and situations where this kind of thinking could be applied?

 

[Richard Crowley]

Does anyone have an opinion as to why this would, or wouldn't, work?

Sure it would work. The question is whether all that effort (particularly motion tracking, etc.) is worth the result. Maybe if you have to go to that much trouble, you are just using the wrong mic for the situation.

Are there more or similar ways and situations where this kind of thinking could be applied?

It sure seems to me like it would be easier to clip a lav (wired or wireless as fits the occasion) onto the talent than to try to use a boom mic for a wide shot. Simple as that. Is that over-simplifying? It works for me.

 

[Rippie]

Sure it's possible. Every example you mention has been done.
THe biggest challenge is trying to convince the production to do the extra work required.

Doesn't fly very often at all.

The sad thing is that more often than not even on a green screen shoot
it's difficult to convince them to let you come into frame.
Utterly ridiculous I know, but reality is reality.

Of course on your OWN stuff and this being a SOUND forum, we understand the importance of
"everything audio". We understand that tilting the camera down a bit will give minimum quality issues in the final
outlook of a production when it's the choice between that and overall good sound.

It is funny how it's rarely an issue if a light is in frame, they will simply reframe the shot so it's out.
If boom is in all you hear is "booms gotta go up".
Ahh to be the red headed step child.

Once again there is no reason if you do it right that you can't do exactly as you mention.
That being said there are often better ways though to achieve the best final product such as dialog editing, wild lines, etc.

Choose the best solution for a particular problem.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Ahh to be the red headed step child.

Yep.

 

[Hiro Nakamura]

The post production guys would not like it if you do that, unless you give them a good reason.
Or they will give lots of shite to the producer, before they actually make a layer or even frame by frame remove the blimp or the shadow.
Get permission from whoever in charge of the shoot, then you will be good.
I think sometimes, we (as sound guys) assume that they (post produciton ) can remove it, but they might think otherwise, unless they said it so....

Also depends on the budget and the how experience the editor is . Finally line... they would not like it .... imagine half of the footage with a blimp hanging around with a sticker written please remove the blimp....

Just an option

Hiro

 

[Jema]

imagine half of the footage with a blimp hanging around with a sticker written please remove the blimp....

This made me laugh ^^ I might actually do that on a smaller project just to see what the editor would really say!

I realise, of course, that as Rippie said, it's a matter of judging what's best for the situation - and perhaps more difficult, convince the people in charge that what you're suggesting really is so (I was actually thinking of green screen work as one of the major situations for this method as I was writing it).

All the methods I've described requires some extra effort, and it's a matter of evaluating what would give the best result without taking too much time. In that regard, I only think the first case, of adding a layer, is the only one really worth considering compared to simply using a lav or wild takes. Adding a layer would take less than a minute with a little planning during recording, and could result in much better audio.

Richard: No, you're not over-simplifying. It's been standard procedure to use a lav in big shots for a long time, because in the end, it works. In my knowledge though, you would have to use some very high quality (ie expensive) lavs and wireless systems to get close to the result you would get from a boom. It's just an alternative method that I thought might get equally good result for less money (though the situations you can use it in is far more limited than a lav).

Thanks everyone for your response. If someone has any more insights or experiences in the matter, do share.