location audio help

I will say first that there are plenty of reasons why a filmmaker might want/ need to own sound gear. Saying I spend a few thousand on equipment because I can't afford a sound guy is??? You can't afford them because you spent the money on gear.

So if you are a determined one man band then sure it makes sense. Documentary folks need to be able to grab stuff when it's available so again you probably need the option to be able to one man band it, ENG of course, event videography - probably.

On a narrative film though it gets a bit convoluted. Are you hiring anybody? If not then use that same persuasive pitch you used to get your DP to get a sound person. If you are paying some people then you have to just own up to the fact that you don't care enough about the sound to put some money there. That isn't a crime but it not a "I can't afford" but a "I am not willing to spend the money" thing.

And that is where posters sometimes get snarky posts. They will go on about all the money they spent on other things and then want sound folks to tell them the magic keys to great sound, which of course don't actually exist. But the first part says I don't value what you do, now help me out so I come out OK. They are not thinking of it that way but if they stepped back a bit and looked at what they are doing I think they would get it more?

And it's not a "job protection" thing. Hardly any of the projects where this comes up are ever going to pay close to a living wage. These are not "jobs" professionals are going to fight to keep. In fact a lot of professionals get worked up about these kinds of shoots threatening their rates.

Personally I think that is just silly. No no-budget short is going to pay the IA minimum plus equipment and no sane sound person should expect them to.

In the post world most low budget work is on a flat rate. And that rate is tiny compared to what a big budget film would be. I don't try to charge a student doing a short what I would charge an advertising agency. I'm doing those little projects because I like them, they can be flexible and so can work around bigger projects, it keeps my skills up, etc.

So low budget projects when they hire professionals are almost always getting a huge bargain. The upside to professionals is that other than the above you are "training" new filmmakers to expect better sound. This should translate to them actually putting something in the budget, when they have one. So you are in a sense creating future jobs.

The short version is that folks should just stop saying things like they can't afford it because it is always a choice. It's a choice not to spend $ on sound, or a choice not to spend favors for sound ,or a choice that you want to do it all.

You are making a film, you have a budget of money and favors etc. to make that film. Not budgeting any of that for sound is not the same as not being able to afford it.

And I'm fine with the "I chose to spend money elsewhere", but it is a choice it's not a decision forced on filmmakers by some outside force.

On most low budget production work I have done I will use my own gear, if I'm the mixer. If I'm booming then I'm probably using whatever the mixer owns.

I have used other peoples gear a few times and bad things can happen. In the end it's MY job to get you decent sound so I feel obliged to "make it up to you" if I fail in that. If I'm going to cary the responsibility then I need to have the control that lets me deliver on the promise.

Too many times when I have gone with the gear or workflow that others have wanted to use it has come back to bite me. So I negotiate what I can and I know going in that my rate covers my mixer and a recorder at a minimum. If they want to use their mic I can roll with that, as long as it's reasonable choice, but I want meters that I know and a workflow I can depend on. If you want me to use your stuff then I need it well in advance so I can make sure it actually is OK and I'm not charging you any less because it's more work to use your gear than it is to use my gear. So I don't get any savings using your gear.

The reason on projects with a budget that you want them billed separately is that on a union gig you are paid hourly. You may have a day rate but that is based on a standard day and if the shoot goes longer then you get paid more. The package though is on a day rate so it doesn't get overtime.

Also there are a wide variety of "packages" so the equipment rate should relate to how much you are actually using. This was the big beef on the thread OldCorpse linked. They were upset because they were being locked into a flat rate that might be OK for a basic setup but it was an all inclusive price. So if some nitwit exec decides to mic everyone in the crowd and you have to hunt up 30 lavs you are stuck loosing money in un covered rentals. The rentals are really to cover repair and replacement. Some of this stuff gets a fair amount of wear and tear and stuff just gets broken at times. In theory you have pulled in enough in rentals to cover replacing something when it's destroyed on a set. Which is why the "package" price should go up with more stuff in harms way.
 
It never fails to amaze me when I see someone saying "we are using an Alexa" for their camera, but then say "we don't have budget for sound". No..you DID have budget for sound, but you blew it all on camera. that right there tells me priorities aren't set right.
 
The world is complicated. Sometimes you might be using an 'expensive' camera, but that's because you were given that, or somehow managed to score it, but actually don't have cash money otherwise. Happens all the time. One short, all the guy had was access to an amazing place in Malibu, but that was a fluke, and he had no money otherwise, but wanted to take advantage of that window of 3 days access to that location, so he calls out "let's make a short!"... doesn't mean he blew all his money on the location, just he got lucky there. Maybe you got a great prop, say, you have access to your friend's fantastic vintage car, but have barely enough $ to gas it up. And so on. If you've hung around indie productions, you've seen it all, in all permutations. Often I see a situation that's gear-rich, skill-poor. Great gear, but so what, if you can't use it to its full potential. Most of the time you are busy doing all the insane stuff that needs to be done on a production, but the truth is, the deficit most likely is very fundamental: is this script really worth pouring all that money and effort into? That's what I ask myself all the time.
 
Well there is the script...

I don't think David or I were referring to anybody who actually has/ had no cash and got a windfall of something. There have been a fair number of posts that started with "I just bought X and have no money for sound...".

If it's a windfall it is what it is. I know a director who bought some sound equipment because he knew someone who could do it but didn't have gear and he could get a deal so he bought the stuff and the sound person when it was all over and in the can was "paid" by keeping the gear.

What we are talking about is that folks seem to find ways to get a decent camera, and usually a decent location, and maybe even a decent cast, but few spend that same energy getting decent sound.

What rubs people the wrong way is that after making that decision there is often a discussion about how expensive sound is. If you didn't budget it you have a problem. That budget does not need to be cash. Directors are almost always very good at getting people to cut them deals or talking folks into coming along for the ride. Spend some of that energy on sound and you can get people. They generally blow it off and then it turns out to be a problem and now they are coming to post people with this problem to fix, which is not interesting, and they are not turning on that charm and get upset because someone wants to get paid. If they approached picture the same way they would get similar results. But picture they think about.

OK rant over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top