I was told to get two feet within the sound to record it right. But what if I want to record the sound of a car or a plane, or even crickets? All those are far away, and will they record properly, from that distance, even crickets? I have done some tests, and they sound not bad, for my equipment, but does it have to be recorded closer, to meet pro standards of quality?
Question about recording far away Foley.
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
That's not Foley. Foley is specifically recording sound on a sound stage or more specifically, a stage made for recording Foley. And yes, the position and distance of the microphone does affect the sound.
But to your question, capturing field sound does not need to and may not want to be recorded up close. You want the sound to sound right, what ever that may mean for the particular need.
If you need the sound of a car passing by and you want it isolated, then you want to do it on a quiet location and of course, you want that doppler sound as the car goes by. If you want a car sound from the point of view of a passenger, then you need of course to be in the car recording the sound. The point being, you need to record the sound as it would be heard by the listeners point of view. So far away may not be a bad thing if that is what the sound needs to sound like.
Sound designers spend endless hours recording field sound for movies. Often, the sounds have nothing to do with the action being seen on film. Further manipulation of the sound in the studio makes it something else (chickens clucking sped up becomes rats, a car on a gravel road slowed down becomes a rolling bolder). So sounds do not need to be recorded closely. But you need to know how microphone proximity affects the sound. Practice makes perfect.
But to your question, capturing field sound does not need to and may not want to be recorded up close. You want the sound to sound right, what ever that may mean for the particular need.
If you need the sound of a car passing by and you want it isolated, then you want to do it on a quiet location and of course, you want that doppler sound as the car goes by. If you want a car sound from the point of view of a passenger, then you need of course to be in the car recording the sound. The point being, you need to record the sound as it would be heard by the listeners point of view. So far away may not be a bad thing if that is what the sound needs to sound like.
Sound designers spend endless hours recording field sound for movies. Often, the sounds have nothing to do with the action being seen on film. Further manipulation of the sound in the studio makes it something else (chickens clucking sped up becomes rats, a car on a gravel road slowed down becomes a rolling bolder). So sounds do not need to be recorded closely. But you need to know how microphone proximity affects the sound. Practice makes perfect.
Sorry that's right, not Foley. I want crickets from far away, as long as some other creatures, in the woods. but from the listening characters point of view, it's far away. It's just that it's quiet, and if I have to turn it up at all, that brings up the noise floor. But if I leave it then it's fine, but I need to know for sure I will not have to turn it up at all, once the recording is put in, right?
Right. If you are satisfied with the crickets and the ambient sound, and you are satisfied with the level, it should work. They are crickets in the background after all, not the lead character. Sneaking up on crickets is not easy. If you are really in need of a closeup of crickets, then you need to get creative like buy some from a pet store (I think they sell them as food) and isolate them.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
? Your sending recordings to these "connected people" or are you sending a mixed sound track to them?
The general answer is yes Crix at a very low level is "acceptable", that is how they are generally going to be used. Supper loud or very close up crix would be unusual. You are not generally going to have them all that loud, and in film work they are never going to be on their own.
Noise is not good but when you are recording in the wilds "air" is usually louder than any recorder "noise". Air is just the sounds of quiet, which are often not very quiet. There is always some wind a general low roar of all the living things outside making whatever small noises they make. There is no "silence" in the real world. So you would have to be doing something pretty wrong to get objectionable noise with a modern recorder. FX have been recorded on everything from a cassette deck to high end digital recorders. Pretty much everything in the BBC FX library was recorded with analog recorders in mono. A little hiss is not a big deal but as I mentioned I suspect that most of your "noise" is actually "air".
Bruce Watson
Veteran
True, but I've come close. I was hiking in an isolated area of the Sierra Nevadas (CA, USA) in early fall, must be close to 30 years ago. Stopped in the middle of the trail and just listened. And heard.... nothing. No insects. No birds. No wind noise. No people. No machines. Nothing at all. After a few minutes of focused listening I could hear the very smallest of sounds -- mostly my clothing rustling as I stood there breathing, and some of my own personal noise floor (blood pumping in my ears). Quietest natural setting I've been in before or since. Just one step up from an anechoic chamber. It was both eerie and beautiful.
If you want something to sound as if it's coming from a certain distance, then of course the easiest and most realistic sounding is to record it that way. The reason why this might become a problem, is because unless you have a very good location or are in a sound studio, you will also record other sounds from the surroundings. Maybe this is just wind, distant traffic, ventilation or a fridge etc, and nothing to really distract from what you want to record. The problem comes when you want to add several kinds of sounds to create an atmosphere or special effect. Then, all that background noise will accumulate, and make it hard to mix. That's why you want to exclude other sound sources as much as possible, and the easiest way is to record it closer so it gets stronger in volume relative to other sounds.
The second reason, is because sounds are often recorded not just for the imminent use, but for future use as part of a sound library. Since you can take something recorded close and make it sound farther away in a pretty realistic way, but not the other way around, closer is better.
The second reason, is because sounds are often recorded not just for the imminent use, but for future use as part of a sound library. Since you can take something recorded close and make it sound farther away in a pretty realistic way, but not the other way around, closer is better.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
If you've got a clean recording chain and use your ears, then just go out, listen, and record. It shouldn't be hard at all to get these sounds as long as you have an NTG2 or better.
It's all about signal to noise... if your recording gear is reasonably clean and the sounds you want are the predominant sounds in the area (don't try to record your crickets or car sounds on a windy day for example) then it should be easy.
There's a million sound mixers that wish it wasn't so easy to record great sounding crickets.
It's all about signal to noise... if your recording gear is reasonably clean and the sounds you want are the predominant sounds in the area (don't try to record your crickets or car sounds on a windy day for example) then it should be easy.
There's a million sound mixers that wish it wasn't so easy to record great sounding crickets.
Well I got some good cricket sounds, but the breeze picked up with it of course. I need to get the sounds of cars driving by next for the same shot. But if I do, the breeze will be different in that recording, than the cricket recording. Do I have both breezes as their own tracks, to make it all match and sound like it's the same scene? If so, can the audience tell there are two breezes? I sort of can I think.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I hate to encourage you to spend money you may not have to spend... but I'm guessing you don't have a blimp system yet? Well... you need to get one. Right now there are a couple amazing bargains on blimps. Currently on ebay you can get the Rode blimp system shipped to you for $219-222... which is a bargain for what it is... and if you have another $100 to throw at it, you can get a new Rycote Kit 4 from Bexel (ask for Dave) for $365 (delivered)... both fantastic prices for a full blimp system.
The breeze shouldn't be an issue... if it is, you need wind protection. If you have any degree of seriousness about filmmaking... this isn't negotiable... it's like knowing you'll be shooting in the rain and not having an umbrella. Recording outdoors w/o control of wind noise isn't an option unless this was a one-time thing.
"Two different breezes" shouldn't matter... but seriously, give the above some thought. It sounds like you'd benefit highly, now and later.
The breeze shouldn't be an issue... if it is, you need wind protection. If you have any degree of seriousness about filmmaking... this isn't negotiable... it's like knowing you'll be shooting in the rain and not having an umbrella. Recording outdoors w/o control of wind noise isn't an option unless this was a one-time thing.
"Two different breezes" shouldn't matter... but seriously, give the above some thought. It sounds like you'd benefit highly, now and later.
unclebob6958
Well-known member
Foley is the sounds created by the motion of the human body and its interactions with other objects - footsteps, punches, dinnerware, cloth, etc. Foley artists very consistently blur the lines, of course, and create many more types of sounds than that - everything from elements of car crashes to cheeseburgers falling from the sky. I once needed to create the sound of snakeskin, a feather and the rustling of tassels - the real things just didn't have the emotional impact the director and I were looking for so I had to get creative.
What you mostly need when you are field recording is a huge amount of patience. For car passes I've parked on the side of a country road in the late fall (no crickets, etc.) at night (no birds and less traffic). I'll put the mic on the roof of the car, sit for an hour and capture maybe a half dozen. However, they are close up, fairly quiet and of very long duration. For crickets I've hiked into a field, planted the mic near a bush or something, turned on the recorder, walked away and left it for an hour. I went to the beach on a very calm day in the early spring, set up the mic on a 50' cable, turned on the recorder and then tossed stale bread around the mic to capture seagulls.
This is all over and above the "scheduled" work when I go out into the filed to record specific sounds for specific projects - all of which also ends up in my sound library.
The idea is that, when I'm not busy on projects, to spend my time building my sound library. I've spent an hour bashing a piece of chain link fence with various items from a crowbar to a Nerf bat, and then just rattled it around for another half hour. Try explaining what you're doing to the cop that stops by wanting to know what the hell is going on!
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) I'll stick a mic nearby when I'm doing work around the house - raking, mowing, washing the car, making dinner and the like. I'll spend a day just driving around looking for things that sound interesting. I've even recorded my cats eating their dinner and drinking. Broken appliances, like blenders and vacuums, make the most extraordinary sounds.
I then spend hours listening to everything that I've recorded, edited it all down and, after carefully labeling & adding descriptions, put it all my personal sound library. And I will spend other off hours just playing with them - pitch shifting, time stretch/compress, reversing them, playing with delay effects and anything else that strikes my fancy; you learn just as much from the stuff that doesn't work as you do from the things that do work.
This is what being a sound editor/designer is all about. Not to denigrate what you do, but you do too many things - write, shoot, light, act, production sound, edit, CGI and color grade - not the mention trying to keep a handle on all of the logistical elements of the shoot like casting, budgeting, scheduling, etc. - all while you are trying to direct!!! You've spread yourself too thin to become expert at anything or to spend the time so that any of these disciplines becomes second nature.
What you mostly need when you are field recording is a huge amount of patience. For car passes I've parked on the side of a country road in the late fall (no crickets, etc.) at night (no birds and less traffic). I'll put the mic on the roof of the car, sit for an hour and capture maybe a half dozen. However, they are close up, fairly quiet and of very long duration. For crickets I've hiked into a field, planted the mic near a bush or something, turned on the recorder, walked away and left it for an hour. I went to the beach on a very calm day in the early spring, set up the mic on a 50' cable, turned on the recorder and then tossed stale bread around the mic to capture seagulls.
This is all over and above the "scheduled" work when I go out into the filed to record specific sounds for specific projects - all of which also ends up in my sound library.
The idea is that, when I'm not busy on projects, to spend my time building my sound library. I've spent an hour bashing a piece of chain link fence with various items from a crowbar to a Nerf bat, and then just rattled it around for another half hour. Try explaining what you're doing to the cop that stops by wanting to know what the hell is going on!
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) I'll stick a mic nearby when I'm doing work around the house - raking, mowing, washing the car, making dinner and the like. I'll spend a day just driving around looking for things that sound interesting. I've even recorded my cats eating their dinner and drinking. Broken appliances, like blenders and vacuums, make the most extraordinary sounds.I then spend hours listening to everything that I've recorded, edited it all down and, after carefully labeling & adding descriptions, put it all my personal sound library. And I will spend other off hours just playing with them - pitch shifting, time stretch/compress, reversing them, playing with delay effects and anything else that strikes my fancy; you learn just as much from the stuff that doesn't work as you do from the things that do work.
This is what being a sound editor/designer is all about. Not to denigrate what you do, but you do too many things - write, shoot, light, act, production sound, edit, CGI and color grade - not the mention trying to keep a handle on all of the logistical elements of the shoot like casting, budgeting, scheduling, etc. - all while you are trying to direct!!! You've spread yourself too thin to become expert at anything or to spend the time so that any of these disciplines becomes second nature.
paulears
Veteran
Over the years there must be hundreds of cricket wild tracks on CD. I think this is one where I'd not bother, and use a SFX CD. Crickets from a distance are never going to give you much level, and if you have good preamps that are linear - then the s/n ration remains pretty much the same if you record to full scale or much lower. As you're going to only trickle it into the final mix, any noise will be below the noise floor anyway. I always find a good test of a preamp is to put a mic outside at night and turn up the gain and see what you can hear. It's a great test and gives you something you can hear, and remember for future use. Some products I've had over the years were much better than expected, and other 'posh' ones pretty poor. I also discover some other artefacts other than hiss. One expensive mixer I have with built in effects has a kind of quiet 'ticking', and another lets me hear a low level hum from the power supply - easily heard over the hiss.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
MattinSL is very correct. Recording out doors with out wind protection is an exercise in frustration.
A zeppelin is what you want but you can get some help with foam and a sock if this is an adventure you really can't spend money on. The foam things that go on shotguns are, in my experience, more for looks than practical use. I guess they can help in the lightest of breezes but more than that and all you are going to record is wind (also good to have in the library). If you roll a dress sock over the foam it's a lot more effective. It looks stupid and if you use a thick sock you will take out a bunch of the high end, but it's something you can do right now till the zep arrives.
And Bob has nailed the time factor. When going out for a specific thing it can take days or weeks to get the right recording. Nature stuff tends to be the most problematic because they just don't take direction. If you are doing a bunch of car specifics get a friend and go out in the middle of nowhere. If your just going for random "by's" then sitting on the side of the road or by a freeway can be good. I got the commuter train schedule and did a day of train by's once, though post 9-11 they are very paranoid with random people skulking around the tracks and bridges and such, and you are on private property if your close, so that today might lead to a conversation with homeland security. When I did it once they decided I wasn't going to jump in front of the train they started honking for me and we had a good time.
A zeppelin is what you want but you can get some help with foam and a sock if this is an adventure you really can't spend money on. The foam things that go on shotguns are, in my experience, more for looks than practical use. I guess they can help in the lightest of breezes but more than that and all you are going to record is wind (also good to have in the library). If you roll a dress sock over the foam it's a lot more effective. It looks stupid and if you use a thick sock you will take out a bunch of the high end, but it's something you can do right now till the zep arrives.
And Bob has nailed the time factor. When going out for a specific thing it can take days or weeks to get the right recording. Nature stuff tends to be the most problematic because they just don't take direction. If you are doing a bunch of car specifics get a friend and go out in the middle of nowhere. If your just going for random "by's" then sitting on the side of the road or by a freeway can be good. I got the commuter train schedule and did a day of train by's once, though post 9-11 they are very paranoid with random people skulking around the tracks and bridges and such, and you are on private property if your close, so that today might lead to a conversation with homeland security. When I did it once they decided I wasn't going to jump in front of the train they started honking for me and we had a good time.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Also if you do want to record in a place where you might get questioned I have found it best to go up to the guards and just explain what you are doing, show them the equipment, answer questions etc. Generally they have been very cooperative. And if they aren't they would probably have gotten very aggressive if they "caught" recording so either way you just saved yourself a lot of grief.
Okay thanks. All good advice here. It's just been hammered by sound pros to ALWAYS record two feet away from the subject. Even if the actor in the scene is shouting from 50 feet away, I was always told to record close up, then make it sound further away in post. So I feel I am being told to do something that is breaking a sacred rule of professional filmmaking now, but if it works, then I will do it of course.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Whilst it's good practice to record spot effects and dialog close-up, there are many instances where placing a microphone further away is the right thing to do, e.g. when you need to record more ambient sound or want to capture the doppler effect of a particular engine or siren.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Well no pro is going to tell you to "always" record two feet away. For dialog that is on the edge of being too far away. But FX are a different ball of wax altogether. FX recordists are a different group than production mixers (not totally exclusive but close). I production you are really trying for just one thing, clean dialog. In FX you are looking for the sounds and parts of sounds that will be cut in. Generally you record them in the perspective you want them, maybe a bit closer but not a lot. Unless recording at a distance won't get you what you want. BG sounds you want the environment, specific FX you generally don't.
So say you are doing a door opening.
I would record it at a few feet to get the over all sound, then do very close recordings of things like the door know turn, lock movement, hinge squeak, etc.
You will probably see the door open at a distance but you may also get close ups of the door handle etc.
Now if it's your movie and you know you will only use a certain shot you could skip the other coverage, but that is really wasting an opportunity. You are there and set up, cover the door as thoroughly as possible and stick it all in your library.
Okay thanks. I actually did all that with a door once, but the door sounds too close, and perhaps I should have recorded the overall sound from a few feet away. But everything was done like the door knob, lock, etc.
A lot of people are saying record dry so you have more options in post. But a lot of filmmakers nowadays do not do as much planning on their shoots I have noticed. They will get coverage from so many different angles, front, backs, sides, diagonal... When a lot of times the emotion of the scene does not even call for some of the shots they are doing. I have limited amount of time on shoe string budgets, so I have to get a scene done in as few shots as possible but shots that are emotionally necessary.
So because of my budgets, I plan ahead the bair minimum of shots I could use but still get the message across. But a lot of filmmakers are very standard in how they plan their coverage. They will do shots from all around as a procedure, even if the scene does not call for some of those shots to be used emotionally. So when people tell me I should have as many options in post as I can, are these the same people the same people who follow a standard procedure (which is totally fine, and up to you). Or is having that many options for audio in post necessary, even if you do have the edit pretty much planned out beforehand?
A lot of people are saying record dry so you have more options in post. But a lot of filmmakers nowadays do not do as much planning on their shoots I have noticed. They will get coverage from so many different angles, front, backs, sides, diagonal... When a lot of times the emotion of the scene does not even call for some of the shots they are doing. I have limited amount of time on shoe string budgets, so I have to get a scene done in as few shots as possible but shots that are emotionally necessary.
So because of my budgets, I plan ahead the bair minimum of shots I could use but still get the message across. But a lot of filmmakers are very standard in how they plan their coverage. They will do shots from all around as a procedure, even if the scene does not call for some of those shots to be used emotionally. So when people tell me I should have as many options in post as I can, are these the same people the same people who follow a standard procedure (which is totally fine, and up to you). Or is having that many options for audio in post necessary, even if you do have the edit pretty much planned out beforehand?
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Sound and shooting are different beasts. Any sound you record you can stick in your library and use in some other film. With the possible exception of B Roll that is not true with shooting. So for FX recording it always makes sense to record as much coverage as time and budget allow, that is not true for filming.
Most no budget filmmakers I have been around that shoot excessive coverage don't really have an idea of how they want the film to come out. They havent done shot list and really have not thought out the film.
In some cases this may be their "method" but I think in most cases it's because they are lazy or just don't know what they are doing. With a few exceptions this shows in the finished films.
You do have to be careful to get enough coverage though. Even if you thought out every cut you are well advised to get one extra angle to be able to go to if you get stuck with an awkward edit.
As to sounds and making them "fit".
A lot of the problems newer filmmakers have when trying to do their own sound is that they are cutting sound like it was picture. Pick the one you want and stick it in. Sound is much more like AfterEffects. LOTS of layers. Every layer gives you another piece of the picture. Once you get enough pieces it starts to come to life. In many cases a sound that doesn't sound right on it's own will fit in nicely once you have a full picture. That one that sounds too close wont sound so close when it's just a small piece of the picture and turned down a bit. The clues that tell you perspective are cumulative and will be a composite of all the sounds in the picture. If the picture is just one sound then that is the perspective. But if the door is, as it normally would be, a small part of the picture then most of the perspective is from the rest of the sounds.
Even if they are all "close" they wont sound that way because your brain knows they can't all be close so it will assume that what it normally does is taking place. You unconsciously focus on the sounds that are "important", it's a survival skill. So in a crowded room you can cary on a conversation with one other person because you tune out everything else. In a recording you are not getting the clues you need to do that effectively Even in a film you usually do not get the clues that you need to know what is "important", and even if you did part of the game a director does is to focus you on what THEY want you to think is important.
So in t6he sound edit you need to fill the picture but also help the audience to do what they would normally do in real life and that is focus on the important bits and tune out the rest. A lot of that is mixing but it also means that you want the elements to be recorded closer than you would think so you can toss focust to them. This selected focus that is constantly changing is crucial to creating a sound track that feels real.
And again this is another reason why you have to build the world and can't just record it.
As a little exercise go to a mall and sit in the middle of the hubub and work on focusing on one thing at a time. Maybe someones conversation, the vending machine, the musak etc. You will notice that once you focus that sound will sound louder and more detailed. That is what your brain does all the time behind your back. You can be in a packed mall and "hear" your girlfriends footsteps across the room because your brain can pick that out from the noise and tune enough of the rest out that you can "hear" it.
Most no budget filmmakers I have been around that shoot excessive coverage don't really have an idea of how they want the film to come out. They havent done shot list and really have not thought out the film.
In some cases this may be their "method" but I think in most cases it's because they are lazy or just don't know what they are doing. With a few exceptions this shows in the finished films.
You do have to be careful to get enough coverage though. Even if you thought out every cut you are well advised to get one extra angle to be able to go to if you get stuck with an awkward edit.
As to sounds and making them "fit".
A lot of the problems newer filmmakers have when trying to do their own sound is that they are cutting sound like it was picture. Pick the one you want and stick it in. Sound is much more like AfterEffects. LOTS of layers. Every layer gives you another piece of the picture. Once you get enough pieces it starts to come to life. In many cases a sound that doesn't sound right on it's own will fit in nicely once you have a full picture. That one that sounds too close wont sound so close when it's just a small piece of the picture and turned down a bit. The clues that tell you perspective are cumulative and will be a composite of all the sounds in the picture. If the picture is just one sound then that is the perspective. But if the door is, as it normally would be, a small part of the picture then most of the perspective is from the rest of the sounds.
Even if they are all "close" they wont sound that way because your brain knows they can't all be close so it will assume that what it normally does is taking place. You unconsciously focus on the sounds that are "important", it's a survival skill. So in a crowded room you can cary on a conversation with one other person because you tune out everything else. In a recording you are not getting the clues you need to do that effectively Even in a film you usually do not get the clues that you need to know what is "important", and even if you did part of the game a director does is to focus you on what THEY want you to think is important.
So in t6he sound edit you need to fill the picture but also help the audience to do what they would normally do in real life and that is focus on the important bits and tune out the rest. A lot of that is mixing but it also means that you want the elements to be recorded closer than you would think so you can toss focust to them. This selected focus that is constantly changing is crucial to creating a sound track that feels real.
And again this is another reason why you have to build the world and can't just record it.
As a little exercise go to a mall and sit in the middle of the hubub and work on focusing on one thing at a time. Maybe someones conversation, the vending machine, the musak etc. You will notice that once you focus that sound will sound louder and more detailed. That is what your brain does all the time behind your back. You can be in a packed mall and "hear" your girlfriends footsteps across the room because your brain can pick that out from the noise and tune enough of the rest out that you can "hear" it.