Location sound in extremely confined environment?

S

Stuntman Mike

New member
I will be recording audio for an upcoming short film, the majority of which is to take place inside a stationary camper van.

First, some details about the vehicle. This is not a "dedicated" camper van per se, but worse than that, it's just a regular van that has had its seats removed to accommodate the fold out bed and small sink. The roof is rather high in the middle, but the majority of the action takes place at either end, where the actors' heads would likely be very close to the roof. This would make it (for the majority of shots at least) extremely difficult to boom. This is especially the case when the two characters are speaking at either end of the vehicle.

Second, in terms of the actual shooting process, the majority of shots will be filmed from outside the vehicle, using mirrors placed inside the van to get the appropriate shot. However, to further complicate things, we are shooting on the SR2 (16mm film camera) and for some shots the camera will be placed inside the vehicle. This obviously introduces yet another problem in terms of camera noise.

Third, sound equipment used. I have access to a wide range of equipment. 744T, 702T, 302 and 442 field mixers, boom mics, radio mics, you name it.

So, essentially what I'm trying to ask is, given the circumstances, what's the best, safest way to go about recording clean, good quality audio? I know lavalier mics will change the quality of the sound, plus they'll be difficult to hide (especially given the use of mirrors). Booming (most of the time) will not be possible due to the cramped environment. Another option I've considered is mounting a couple boom mics to the vehicle using either clamps or polecats.

Thanks in advance! And let me know if you need any additional information.
 
Wow, who "designed" this production? Clearly someone with no knowledge of the consequences of those regrettable decisions.
Have they even considered how they will LIGHT this "location"?
And, sorry, but shooting on FILM, (where you can't tell what you are getting until it is too late) just seems unrealistically retro for a production with such poor planning.

You did not reveal what KIND of production this is? Is this some sort of scripted drama period piece where visible microphones are not allowed?

IMHO, the only practical solution is to put a hidden wireless lav on each actor. There are a great many ways of hiding a lav depending on costume, hair, etc.

Worrying about subtle "quality" differences from using lavs seems like the least of your concerns in such a hostile production environment.
Does "regular van" mean a typical utility vehicle with bare metal walls, ceiling, etc?
It is quite possibly an acoustic nightmare and you will need to get the microphones as close to the actors mouths as possible.
 
Last edited:
"Second, in terms of the actual shooting process, the majority of shots will be filmed from outside the vehicle, using mirrors placed inside the van to get the appropriate shot. However, to further complicate things, we are shooting on the SR2 (16mm film camera) and for some shots the camera will be placed inside the vehicle. This obviously introduces yet another problem in terms of camera noise." OMG, be thankful you aren't DPing this project :/
 
Stuntman Mike said:
...the majority of the action takes place at either end, where the actors' heads would likely be very close to the roof. This would make it (for the majority of shots at least) extremely difficult to boom. This is especially the case when the two characters are speaking at either end of the vehicle.

Second, in terms of the actual shooting process, the majority of shots will be filmed from outside the vehicle, using mirrors placed inside the van to get the appropriate shot. However, to further complicate things, we are shooting on the SR2 (16mm film camera) and for some shots the camera will be placed inside the vehicle. This obviously introduces yet another problem in terms of camera noise.
Click to expand...

Well, this is going to be a learning experience for everyone involved.

Your best bet is properly placed lavaliers. But... expected it to sound more or less like what it is -- dialog in a box. Be prepared for lots of ADR if it comes to that.

The answer for these things is a set. A replica of the inside of the space, without a roof so you can light and boom, and without a couple of sides so you can shoot without mirrors or other contortions. It's normal to make two, one for each actor, or at least movable walls so that you can use the same set for both actors. Sets make things so much easier on everyone.
 
This so reeks of film student. Not you, but whoever planned this.

I'll give you my answers before the rant since the rant is not about your choices.

You really only have two choices. First lave everyone. That would be my first choice. Be aware that you may need ti have the receivers either in the van or close to one of the windows since the metal of the body could raise hell with your signal. The other option is to stick plant mics all over the place. PZM's would probably be a fairly good choice since you won't have phase problems with them and they are very low profile. The biggest problem with them and this shoot is that I don't think your director and DP have a clue so keeping the mics out of the shot is going to be an ongoing battle since I doubt they have planned the shots well or at all.

THe Rant is to all budding filmmakers. Film DOES NOT capture reality. Even documentaries do not capture reality, only a view of it. You don't get a set that matches the one in your script you get one that fits the needs of the SHOTS in your script. You can shoot Van interiors in a corner of a warehouse you do not need to shoot IN a van. At least not much. You are looking for what the camera will see not what YOU see. THis happens in sound all the time even on big budget films. Folks go to a lot of expense to record the REAL thing only to find it doesn't sound like they think it does and doesn't work at all for the film. What you see and hear are VERY dependant on context, so any particular sound may come across a ton of different ways depending on when and where you hear it. It's not "fake" to use selective focus and to manufacture a sound that works for your film because that is the way the human mind works. It focuses on what it thinks is important and tunes out everything else. If it's a sound that could be danger you DO hear it louder and clearer, if it's the refrigerator hum you "hear" it less and often not at all. Ignoring the "reality" of filmmaking, that it is YOU creating the "reality" is probably the number one error starting filmmakers make.

Specifically to this show, shooting 16mm in cramped quarters is just plain stupid. It doesn't get you anything but some pat yourself on the back cool points. 16mm was and is an awful format. It was made for newsreels and as a light weight take it in the field alternative to 35mm. THe sound format for 16mm distribution is just plain awful. And there are not many still around who know how to mix it, and no you can't just wing it because the spec is pretty restrictive. It's mono optical with no noise reduction and an extremely limited bandwidth.

If you are not distributing in 16mm then there is really no reason to shoot it. If you want to go film, a choice I can see in certain cases, then you should be shooting super 16 since it matches the aspect ratio of 35mm fairly closely and you need that for any realistic distribution. Nobody plays 16mm so you need to either go 35mm or digital. THe 16mm aspect ration is not a good match for either.

Shooting with mirrors is a really BAD idea. I know, I did it once. I wanted a pan to go the other way and pre digital, but video, it was a big PITA to flop footage so I happened to have a front surface mirror (they do know they ned a front surface mirror right?) so what a "cool" solution. It "worked" but what a pain. Of course your guys are planning to shoot only part with mirrors, so everything will flip when they cut between them, instant 180 problem. Only easily fixed if you are editing digitally, and as above it's not a good choice to shoot 16 if you don't plan to stay in 16.

Shooting in a van with film... Slow film... How the heck are they going to get enough light in there with out setting the van on fire?

Good luck, I fear these bad choices are just the tip of the iceberg. Remember to duck and cover and stay far back if these folks are planning any practical FX like blowing something up.
 
Many excellent points here, especially Noiz2's point about the need to use front-surface mirrors, not standard mirrors.

I would add that front-surface mirrors aren't cheap, they're easily scratched and not easily cleaned. They're wonderful for things like telescopes, but very fragile for situations like what you're describing.

I agree with David W. Jones (and others). Shoot digital and build a set. The shoot will go much faster, far fewer headaches, and a much higher chance of ending up with a good result.
 
Actually, people shoot audio inside of real cars all the time, but lavs aren't the first choice. Plant mics are. Things like strategically placed Sanken CUB-01 mics work really well. Some well placed small cardioid condensor mics also work very well, like a Schoeps. You can hide them in visors, the backs of the headrests, on the gear shifter pointing in whatever direction you need. You can actually hide cardioid lavs inside the vehicle as well. It shouldn't be super hard to hide the mics and get good coverage inside of a vehicle. I bet with 4 to 6 well placed mics you'd get all the coverage you'd need and they'd be hidden. If you put a lav on everyone it will sound weird. Everyone knows what dialogue inside a car should sound like, and lavs don't sound that way.

Now...you go throwing a film camera inside of the vehicle, well, that's a whole other problem, but that isn't an audio problem, that's a location/camera problem and they need to know about any potential issues before you start shooting, as in right now. If they want a camera inside the vehicle, then use small digital cameras. There is no reason to shoot film other than "it's cool" for this situation.
 
"Well, with the mirrors of course..."

;~)

Out of curiosity I did a little looking. Once back when HD was really $$$ I had worked up a workflow of shooting Super 16 and transferring it and then staying digital. THe reasoning was that at the time this was cheaper than shooting HD (unless you owned the equipment) and you had the option to use the S16 to go to a 35mm release if by some miracle you got distribution. That was awhile ago and a LOT of things have changed.

So I was surprised to see that you can actually get some decently fast color negative. Actually many times faster than what was common when I worked out the plan before. THough fast film has traditionally been fairly grainy...? But 500 ASA was available in Tungsten so... maybe you could shoot in the van.

However the finances are still whacky. A 100' roll with processing and transfer (basically a one light transfer) will run you $118. That is for 2 3/4 minutes of film. There is significant waste with film since it has to get up to speed before you can shoot sync so that is probably only about 2 min. of usable footage. You can't check your shots so unless you are very experienced shooting a safety is probably a good idea and if your good maybe your only shooting 5:1, but realistically you should probably plan on 7 - 10:1.

Figure a 10 min short and that comes out to about 25 100' loads. You get a discount on volume but you are still talking around $2,000 on film and processing.

I did find Ektachrome on eBay for $40/ 450', but it had a process date of 2002 and it's a positive film, only 160 ASA, and you would still need to process the film and transfer. Even assuming you could get decently stored and still usable film for free you are still looking at over $1,000 by the time you can use it. And the transfers I quoted are standard definition transfers, if you want 2K the there is more $$ involved.

You can get better images for less. I hate saying that because I came out of film and I do love film. It's a PITA but there is nothing like actually handling 35mm film. It's warm and cozy kind of like 1/4 " tape, but I don't use that anymore either.
 
"but that isn't an audio problem, that's a location/camera problem"

I'm assuming you haven't been around a film camera when it's running. It IS a sound problem, though not one the sound guy is likely to be able to fix.

The problem with a bunch of non PZM mics in a smal space is that if you are not recording them discreetly you are going to get weird phase problems.

And the problem with mics in general and film cameras is that it's almost impossible to not pick up the camera unless they have blimped the living daylights out of it AND you can get some distance between it and the camera. Which is while you are right, the mics will sound better, lavs may be a better solution because they will be as far away from the camera and as close to the talent as you can get.

If you pick up the camera much at all there is essentially no way to remove it. It's not "noise" so noise filters won't work. About the best you can do is use something like spectral repair in Rx and take the clicks out one at a time. At 24 (or 48 if the claw clicks on the upstroke) per second you are talking... 24 X 60 X X 60 X 10 = 864,000 clicks to remove in your 10 min short.

You have to balance how much you just roll with the idiot director VS how much pure hate you can take from the sound post people.
 
davefisk said:
Actually, people shoot audio inside of real cars all the time, but lavs aren't the first choice. Plant mics are. Things like strategically placed Sanken CUB-01 mics work really well. Some well placed small cardioid condensor mics also work very well, like a Schoeps. You can hide them in visors, the backs of the headrests, on the gear shifter pointing in whatever direction you need. You can actually hide cardioid lavs inside the vehicle as well. It shouldn't be super hard to hide the mics and get good coverage inside of a vehicle. I bet with 4 to 6 well placed mics you'd get all the coverage you'd need and they'd be hidden. If you put a lav on everyone it will sound weird. Everyone knows what dialogue inside a car should sound like, and lavs don't sound that way.

Now...you go throwing a film camera inside of the vehicle, well, that's a whole other problem, but that isn't an audio problem, that's a location/camera problem and they need to know about any potential issues before you start shooting, as in right now. If they want a camera inside the vehicle, then use small digital cameras. There is no reason to shoot film other than "it's cool" for this situation.
Click to expand...

But with the typical car interior shoot, the subjects are seated and relatively stationary. I assume that inside a camper van, they are likely to move around more.

Hollywood does this all the time -- their 'inside a car' sound doesn't really sound like REAL 'inside the car' sound. It's dialogue -- perhaps ADR -- over layered sound effects, like most everything else they do. We don't want to hear 'real' sound, we want to hear what we're used to hearing in Hollywood movies.
 
davefisk said:
Actually, people shoot audio inside of real cars all the time, but lavs aren't the first choice. Plant mics are. Things like strategically placed Sanken CUB-01 mics work really well. Some well placed small cardioid condensor mics also work very well, like a Schoeps. You can hide them in visors, the backs of the headrests, on the gear shifter pointing in whatever direction you need. You can actually hide cardioid lavs inside the vehicle as well. It shouldn't be super hard to hide the mics and get good coverage inside of a vehicle. I bet with 4 to 6 well placed mics you'd get all the coverage you'd need and they'd be hidden. If you put a lav on everyone it will sound weird. Everyone knows what dialogue inside a car should sound like, and lavs don't sound that way.
Click to expand...
The HUGE difference being that a typical passenger car has abundant sound-absorbing materials in almost every direction. Whereas, this "makeshift converted" van quite possibly has bare metal ceiling and hard, flat windows (or more sheet metal) for walls. At least we can hope that they throw something on the floor to mitigate THAT source of noise.

Now...you go throwing a film camera inside of the vehicle, well, that's a whole other problem, but that isn't an audio problem, that's a location/camera problem and they need to know about any potential issues before you start shooting, as in right now.
Click to expand...
Oh NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. That is VERY MUCH an AUDIO PROBLEM!

This whole scenario would easily make the top 3 in a contest to imagine the worst possible production location.

If they want a camera inside the vehicle, then use small digital cameras. There is no reason to shoot film other than "it's cool" for this situation.
Click to expand...
Or maybe by the time they put in enough lighting, they won't have room left for the camera and they will have to keep the camera out of the vehicle and shoot through the windows.

In any case, it sounds like the production scenario from hell. I would run FAR away from this one. It is a no-win situation.
 
Richard Crowley said:
Oh NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. That is VERY MUCH an AUDIO PROBLEM!
Click to expand...

It's an audio problem in that it creates problems for audio, but the problem isn't only to be solved by audio. Take the RED camera, for example. Notorious for its fan noise. That's a camera problem and RED has tried to fix it. In a situation like this, you don't throw up your hands and go "oh well, I guess we have to ADR the whole thing". You make the case for not shooting with a film camera inside a tight confined space like this. If the director is hell bent on shooting on film, then you let them know to be prepared to loop the whole thing and everything recorded during production is reference audio only. I've been there. At that point, yeah, just to lavs and call it a day. Otherwise, I still would recommend plant mics and maybe use lavs as well and OF COURSE record on discreet tracks. That goes without saying.

Also, someone said in regards to ADR that they always do that, or something to that extent. That's not always the case. In fact ADR is usually NOT the case as it is a pain to do. Most car interiors you see are not looped. You only use ADR if you absolutely have to.

If this is one of those big camper vans, like those giant RV's that are like a tour bus, then yeah..just build the set. That way you can move walls and get real coverage.

This almost sounds like this is one of those projects where it's like "let's make this difficult on ourselves because that'll make it good!". That almost never works, and I've been on a few of those. Had I known then what I know now I'd run away screaming from those jobs. They are nothing but headaches.
 
Well we are splitting hairs here. It IS a sound problem, and I somehow doubt that the manufacturer is going to spend time fixing a problem for a format that hasn't been made in ... twenty years? maybe only ten? Still it's not going to be solved outside the production. Thinking the picture is going to solve, or even think about, a sound problem is well in my experience silly. I once asked a DP nicely where I could record and be out of the way and was told "back at the hotel". So as a production sound person your job is to point out the problem and do what you can to mitigate it.

I personally have not done enough scenes like this on a big budget to say how much ADR is normal, but as Dave said directors HATE ADR and of course on any sane shoot the car, etc. is NOT moving and something like this van would be shot 90% on a set so you could get decent sound with a boom. But as was also pointed out you are not trying to capture reality, you are trying to capture the raw material that the editors will use to create the reality.

That does the inside of This van sound like? In the world of film it should sound like whatever works best for the story. Maybe it sounds like a car interior? maybe it sounds like a big metal box. Maybe it sounds like something completely different? What exactly it sounds like is something a director Should be talking to the designers etc. about before the shoot. A lav might be perfect, or not right at all. Impossible really to tell whith out a discussion with the director.
 
Thanks for all the responses! I definitely need to clear up a few points first (and I'll try to cover most of what has been mentioned).

You guessed it! This is a short film for my university course. I didn't want to put that in initially, because I knew it would deter a lot of you guys from answering or you'd assume the worst of me because of it (although so far you have all been extremely understanding and accommodating, so thank you). As per the course requirements, we MUST shoot on 16mm film. While the van might not be ideal for it, the story got green-lighted well before production was even considered (definitely another flaw in the course itself, not necessarily a problem with the crew). Similarly, sound, as you might imagine, is highly neglected in the course and therefore often slips through the gaps when it comes to foreseeing any potential problems that could arise during production. I have received no consultations in regards to how to go about doing so (hence why I turned to you guys instead).

I know it's not entirely relevant, but at least one user (Noiz2) was interested in the fact that we were shooting on 16mm (and I should specify, super 16). It is actually a fantastic opportunity for us, because we can get three 400ft rolls developed, scanned on the Arriscanner and graded for less than $1000 here in Melbourne (as per the university's agreement with the post-house). Furthermore, the film stocks nowadays, as you later mentioned, are extremely fast and extremely clean. I think they have chosen to shoot on 250D. However, as brought up, camera noise is still a problem (at least for the SR2 - the Aaton XTR is dead quiet, but unfortunately we don't have access to it). As for lights, I believe Dedos mounted inside and a few lights blaring through the windows is what they intend on doing.

The van itself is more or less a "utility vehicle" - a lot of plastic, metal, fabric and rather large windows.

In terms of all your sound suggestions: besides just giving up, lav mics seem the most commonly suggested. I won't say I'm set on using them yet, because I know many of you have stated the obvious problems I'll run into, but so far they seem like the best bet (and it's not like I have many options, aside from ADR). I'd definitely like to hear more suggestions - I know it's quite the predicament. If you guys say it's tough, then for me, I'm sure it's going to be a nightmare. But it's university - I just want to do the best job I possibly can and hopefully learn a thing or two along the way.

Let me know if I've missed any points, and please tell me if you have any further advice or suggestions, even if it is just damage control.
 
You might consider setting up a makeshift booth close to the van where the actors can rerecord their dialogue immediately after the scenes are shot. Some u.s. shot TV shows will do this(burn notice) frequently from what ive read . Still very challenging but a possible" solution".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top