My Boom Op thesis.

Droog

Well-known member
This was brought on by a lot of questions I have heard, as well as missconceptions I feel a lot of people have. I am a 23 year old sound engineer/everything else. I have been in the biz at a profesional capacity for 5 years. Audio is what pays the bills, camera, lighting, directing and so forth is what I am learning. That is where I am coming from, these are my observations. Let me know what you think.

In my opinion there are two main aspects of booming. You have mic technique and you have boom technique. I feel that mic technique is easier to catch on to for the new boom op, but is only a small part of booming. Knowing how to achieve good mic position and therefor good audio during adverse conditions is where your boom technique comes into play, and in my experaince most sets or locations equel adverse conditions. Yes, you must have a solid working knowledge of audio and microphone characteristics in order to hone your technique, but its experiance, wits and physical energy that yields good technique and ultimately this is why you get hired and can charge a liveable wage.

Mic positioning and the subtleties associated are reletively easy to grasp. The core concept is simple: point the mic at what you want to hear. Granted there are variations in how one should point the mic, placement and so forth. Most common and generally preferable is to be up over the talents head and pointing down. I typically aim for the chest and adjust from there, others have their own ways. Regardless, with a little info and training, understanding where and why is fairly simple. In a perfect world that is all you would need to understand and audio would be easy, but its not and is only a fraction of a boom ops job. Which leads me to boom technique.

Good boom ops have a lot of finesse. They can maneuver deftly, dodging lights and personel all the while toeing the frame line and getting the mic where it needs to be at the right time. This comes from a lot of experiance and requires good intuition and a good working knowledge of the production and what is going on in each department at any given time. This is not something you can just show or teach someone, you only get good at this by doing it. Granted some people will have some inate aptitude and some people are destined to not be good boom ops. Clumsy people and those who can't intuit movements and cadences will struggle with the job. On the flip side sometimes grace and intuition are not going to be what makes the day. Often you have no choice but to hold the boom in the most physically taxing position for prolonged periods of time due to lighting or many other limitations, it sucks but it happens. In these cases strength cannot be replaced by anything else. I know for myself sometimes I will opt to just "tough" out a shot because I don't have time, nor the recources to choreograph an elaborate boom move or body move in order to save some energy. I find a place where myself and my mic can live and I hold it, and if I have to move I stay out of the frame and I don't create shadows which is often much more difficult. Could a more experianced op do it without as much energy, probably, but the end result (good audio) is the same and I'll trade physical pain for a good rep and good work any day. Its a physical job and the more I do it the better I get and the easier it gets

In the end I cincerelly believe that all the mic knowledge and tech savy you may have becomes secondary to the "craft" of boom operating. A person with considerable audio knowledge does not automatically make a good boom op. Its a phyiscal job and requires fast thinking, having a thorough knowledge of the Nyquist Theorem is not going to do you a bit of good when you have to weave around camera crew, lights, flags and other wonderful things, while keeping your mic on the talent, staying out of the frame and creating no shadows. Not mention mainting a good attitude, profesional demeanor and communication skills. That is not to say that you should throw all the rules out of the window and not stick to your guns, you can't let the DP show you how to boom, you want good audio remember. Ultimately though the only aspect of booming that has to do with sound is the mic at the end of your boom all the rest is what truly makes a boom op.
 
That was a good read... from this past week that strikes a personal chord with me. Good info there.
 
It's unfortunate how often location sound is given the short end of the stick (heh) on large productions. Going back and forth between directing/DP-ing and boom op-ing myself on a near-daily basis, it drives me crazy how little consideration they get. But unfortunately when you factor in the cost in man-hours of "getting the shot" visually, it's very cheap to redo the dialogue later in ADR, and compromise sound integrity just to get a guide track.

I used to work with a very very good sound guy (USED to), an old salty dog who certainly knew more about the overall business than my young self at the time did. Anyway, he often had useful advice about blocking and avoiding shadows and other aspects of production that I actually learned quite a bit from, but he also came off as a wannabe director, and would sometimes just drop his boom into the shot to render it unusable when something didn't suit him. He didn't seem to understand that I knew how the coverage was going to cut together, and maybe I only needed the first line of the master to be good sound because I had other things in mind, yet he just ruined otherwise perfectly usable material because he didn't deal with the big picture. Other times he would "cut" me. I no longer hire him, and I now be sure to explain to the boom guy on a setup-by-setup basis when that is appropriate to do, and when they should just make me aware of any flaws after completing the take, so I can make the decision. It's interesting that the boom op often knows the dialogue as well as the talent, and on small shoots I often get their input regarding continuity, as they/we have to stay hyper-aware of it fro shot to shot.

Also reminds me of another friend of mine who used to be a local news photog. He got sick of the editors using the wrong takes and making him look bad, so he stopped giving them anything extra to pick from!
 
Really good post. I am getting ready for my first shoot and I am trying to learn as much about acquiring good audio as possible. That being said, since I know how difficult it can be I am also trying to limit the amount of dialogue in my script, since I will have a small crew and the less potential problems the better.
 
Very good post, And I do agree that any one can put a mic over some ones head but when you are doing a production and there are lights and camera moves. To keep you and your boom shadow out of frame and shoot is a very good skill
 
Great post Droog.

When discussing what makes a good boom op I believe it just has to be someone who gives a damn about getting good sound and has a good work ethic to always be looking to do it better. If you are short, weak, or even lacking grace (not clumsy though, around a 10k HMI clumsy kills) I can train you. If you don't care that much or are lazy (I am constantly amazed how people are lazy and don't know they are), forget it.

Cheers
 
if you under 175(5.10) - go bee a mixer or whatever
if you are, and have good motoric skills , musical ear ( better ex drummer experience), good memory , soft touch , bee able to make your self a fly on the wall when it necessary and not piss off any one in stupid arguments ( that my job:-) by the way ),have a good eyes and fast thinking ,ability making momentary decision to make the right move , willing to learn and eat s.h.i.t. from your boss it might work .
if not ,dont come even close
my living is in your hands what make me unforgivable
 
ExileOnTheMainStreet said:
...and eat s.h.i.t. from your boss...
And from EVERYONE on set. :) Despite having one of the more difficult jobs on set, let's face it, boom ops get the least respect.
 
you get respect if you earn it - and it doesnt matter if you pa , booman or dp
i usially make these idiots lifes very miserable when they dont give respect to some profession ,espessialy my booman
 
I am glad you guys liked the post. I realize that I am kind of preching to the quire, but I know a lot of people come here looking for insight, so maybe it will help somebody out. I am quite the lurker myself, so I appreciate an informative thread. Anyway,I am starting a pretty serious boom op job next week that should go through July, I came here and started reading a lot of boom oriented posts and I thought I would share. A lot of people do consider the boom op the low man on the set, or the grips, or PA. But really, when you have a good crew on a good production, everyone is critical I think. Well, that is to say, people who are a good at their jobs, become critical. I have been on some pretty positivie sets and when everyone is clicking, then everyone becomes crucial to the machine that is a good production.


Flash said:
It's unfortunate how often location sound is given the short end of the stick (heh) on large productions. Going back and forth between directing/DP-ing and boom op-ing myself on a near-daily basis, it drives me crazy how little consideration they get. But unfortunately when you factor in the cost in man-hours of "getting the shot" visually, it's very cheap to redo the dialogue later in ADR, and compromise sound integrity just to get a guide track.

I used to work with a very very good sound guy (USED to), an old salty dog who certainly knew more about the overall business than my young self at the time did. Anyway, he often had useful advice about blocking and avoiding shadows and other aspects of production that I actually learned quite a bit from, but he also came off as a wannabe director, and would sometimes just drop his boom into the shot to render it unusable when something didn't suit him. He didn't seem to understand that I knew how the coverage was going to cut together, and maybe I only needed the first line of the master to be good sound because I had other things in mind, yet he just ruined otherwise perfectly usable material because he didn't deal with the big picture. Other times he would "cut" me. I no longer hire him, and I now be sure to explain to the boom guy on a setup-by-setup basis when that is appropriate to do, and when they should just make me aware of any flaws after completing the take, so I can make the decision. It's interesting that the boom op often knows the dialogue as well as the talent, and on small shoots I often get their input regarding continuity, as they/we have to stay hyper-aware of it fro shot to shot.

Also reminds me of another friend of mine who used to be a local news photog. He got sick of the editors using the wrong takes and making him look bad, so he stopped giving them anything extra to pick from!

I have not found myself in many situations where ADR was intended or even affordable. If a director came to the sound department and said "listen I know there is no way we are going to get usable audio, I plan on ADR". Then its like ok, we do our best, and maybe concentrate on some usable effects recordings. A lot of times it seems you get to a location and the director is like "What do you mean we can't get good dialogue in a gun fight?" Granted that is a little extreme, but you see what I am saying.

As far as your former sound guy. Thats just weird. I don't know any sound guy that would act like that. I am a wannabe director too, but when i am doing sound, thats what I am doing and am usually thankful to not be directing. The opposite is true too, when I am in a directing role, the last thing I want to do is hold a boom. If I know anything, its that the director is the only one that calls "cut" and you do your job regardless of what is going on in front of the camera. There is usually enough ego on any given set and needless to say the sound departments does not need to be added to the mix.
 
yeah, cool thread. but i also disagree about the "ADR is cheaper" claim. It really isnt.

Think about it - generally a studio's per hour rate is MUCH higher than the rate of the prod mixer and boom op combined. add on to that that it takes 10secs to record 10seconds of dialogue on set, but maybe 10 MINUTES to record that in post, and those costs are only going up...

Gotta admit, when I work in post, I really like ADR, and try to see it as a tool rather than a hindrance, but good location dialogue ALWAYS kills the looping monster.
 
You can't "get" respoect without earning it. Communication style and skills are essential. Being able to explain with deference the issue of why the sound of a particular shot is going to be compromised is essential.

There is usually a "learning period" for those who hire good boom ops. How much does this bioom op know? How does he/she present themselves? As the boom op, I never push myself on anyone, especially a new boss.

I will ask them how they want it and try how sensitive they want me to be about sound issues. I let them steer the boat. Sometimes I'll just hand them the headphones and say "Here, does this work for you?"

I know I'm doing it right when I get calls from the edit bay two days later and the producer has taken his or her time toi call me because the dialog is killer.

Next time we shoot, I have earned more of their respect. That's something I can never take for granted.

Having said that, on most shoots I have a mixer strapped to my chest and I'm the whole sound department. In situations where there is a mixer and a boom op, it's not unusual for the boom op to be the mute partner with all communication going through the mixer. In that case, the boom op is marginalized and does what he's/she's told and that puts a diferent spin on everthing.

BTW, Since only the boom op and mixer really know what's going on with sound (unless there's a headphone for the director/producer), it's not unusual for the rest of the crew to not get what's going on with sound. Picture is easier, but unless there are monitors, only the camera op knows if that focus pull really worked. In that way, the camera op and sound guy/gal operate similarly in their own isolated universes.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
timapter said:
i also disagree about the "ADR is cheaper" claim. It really isnt. Think about it - generally a studio's per hour rate is MUCH higher
Maybe I wasn't being clear. I'm not talking about looping a whole movie or anything. I'm referring to something more like an action sequence with a bunch of stunts or explosions or fancy technocrane moves or whatnot. This shot costs a fortune to replicate, are you going to compromise it to insist on usable audio (that would be impossible anyway), or are you going to "get the shot" that 25 people worked on for an hour? It's a no-brainer. Get your guide track and move on. Or maybe you've got an essential killer/expensive location that's noisy, same thing. Sometimes it just makes more sense.

Granted, these types of things aren't a daily occurrence in the production world that I personally work in, but it's a reality in Hollywood.
 
Great post. I am a major newb when it comes to audio in general, let along boom opping. Someday though I am sure I will need to at least have some knowledge of how to do it. I am working with the sound designer on a senior project at school, and in post when you're on a deadline you really appreciate having that audio there....problem is, on this particular project the location audio left alot to be desired, making our job way more difficult. Again, really good informative post!
 
tyreeford said:
BTW, Since only the boom op and mixer really know what's going on with sound (unless there's a headphone for the director/producer), it's not unusual for the rest of the crew to not get what's going on with sound. Picture is easier, but unless there are monitors, only the camera op knows if that focus pull really worked. In that way, the camera op and sound guy/gal operate similarly in their own isolated universes.

Regards,

Ty Ford

You know I wish more people would recognize this point. There are only a few people with headphones on, but everyone can see either a monitor or the actual action. So its hard to get some people to appreciate what the sound department has to say because they have no point of reference and sometimes you have to convince somebody that there is a problem even if they can't hear, or don't understand why its a problem.


Thanks for the welcome Leigh! Glad to be around, I really like this DVX forum. I have learned quite a bit here.
 
The best director I've worked with as a post supervisor was very adamant on getting good production sound (after having been bitten in the past). He got great tracks with two exceptions (one was unexpected heavy traffic and the other was a blown out take that nobody caught at the time) and a lot of that had to do with making sure the sound department knew that it was a priority for him and he was willing to redo takes because of sound problems. We were able to fix the blown out take with some careful patching but the other needed to be ADRed. But still one three minute scene in a feature length film is reasonable. He was also great to work with in post, very open to using sound to tell the story not just score.
SK
 
Back
Top