The Great Divide - Professional and Amateur

[Michael Carter]

Since when is the director considered the "star'?

Perhaps that's not a perfect metaphor, but look around these boards and get a feel for who wants to shoot, who wants to shoot/direct, who just wants to do audio, who's strictly into editing, writing or production design and it's easy to assume that for whatever the reason, lots of people (at least around here) want to direct and shoot; they want to own their own gear, and they'll buy sound gear simply because they don't have a guy as dedicated to audio as they are to picture.

 

[johnnyevil]

I must say that I don't agree with dumbing down suggestions for super low budgets. When I first got involved with photography, I made the mistake of buying cheap crap cause it was all I could afford. It's much better to learn to make do with what you have while saving for some real equipment, or renting, or borrowing, or begging it of someone, than to throw away money on crap that won't actually do what you want/expect it to do.

That being said, I bought myself some audio gear based on forum recommendations. I got excellent advice, but I think that was because I came in with a realistic budget. I asked what was recommended for spending 1-2k.

In the end I am happy with my purchased equipment. I want some lavs now, but can't afford what would be considered good quality right now. I can wait till I can afford them. And I don't need them yet. Patience is probably the best way for any of us to save money.

 

[Noiz2]

That is one of the problems when people start asking about really cheap stuff and then complain when better things are suggested.

You don't have to spend top dollar but there are a few rules you should always apply.

First you should never buy something you won't be able to use going forward, unless you can sell it after you use it and do better than renting.

This is one of the places where a decent micro recorder fits in because as longs as it's decently quiet you can probably find uses for it for years to come. If your going DSLR the VideoMic also fits in there. It's a decent mic and it's relatively sturdy. Going straight into the DSLR is a big improvement over the built in mic (still pretty bad because of what's happening after the mic). You could step up to adding an external micro recorders and complexity goes up a bit quality goes up a lot. When you get serious and hire a real sound person your quality goes way up but you can still use the video mic for getting a better scratch track and the Micro recorder is great for stealing ambiences in bars and resturants, etc.

There are things you can get pretty cheap these days that fit the rules, and there are plenty that don't. Newbies often have trouble telling which is which. A Zoom H2 for a hundred bucks or so is a pretty good deal, a cheap noisy "shotgun" isn't. Almost all the "bargain basement" wireless systems are not worth the plastic they are made of (I would say all but there could be a ringer out there I haven't heard of, but not too likely).

This is now rolling over to the picture end also. Time in a DaVinci suite used to cost around $1500 an hour, now you can buy the software for that. What people eventually learn is you can't buy experience in a box at the store.

 

[dre83]

Another thing: it's not because you have a mice of 2000 $ a 10.000$ recorder, a 5000$ mixer, that your sound will be good.

It also starts by avoiding unwanted sounds, asking people to be quiet, turning of music, turning of heaters, airco's, fridges...

It's better to have a cheap rode mice NT2 (and yes that's cheap) with attention to turn off fridges, pc's...all noises whatever is possible. Rather then having a 2000$ schoeps mice and having lot's of disturbing sounds

 

[ChickenPie]

As a very low budget filmmaker and lurker (I'm talking $100-150USD a film) I can strongly sympathise with this. We use rubbish gear (rented!) and it did not take long to learn that for every technical issue that could decrease the quality of our film, there are easily a hundred PRACTICAL issues - the like of which are solved with duct tape and extras.

A Rode Mic? In our dreams! We were super excited to hire a Sony PD150 + external monitor, and borrow an old XLR microphone for it to attach to an 8ft mop handle! I had to spend the rest of the budget on petrol to get out to our location where we froze to death for two days. Then it turns out somebody stepped on the microphone and all our audio was damaged - just left it as a "special effect".

My point is, you don't need money or good gear to have fun making a half decent film! I spend most of my time in "pre-production" begging people to lend me stuff! I was more pissed that our lead couldn't act than anything else that went wrong.

 

[Rippie]

.....and borrow an old XLR microphone for it to attach to an 8ft mop handle!..... Then it turns out somebody stepped on the microphone and all our audio was damaged - just left it as a "special effect".

I spend most of my time in "pre-production" begging people to lend me stuff!.

Next time you try to borrow something you probably should leave that first part out

 

[Noiz2]

Wow, scary.

This is a lesson to filmmakers who want to do this for a living how???

Oh yea, don't do it like this!!!!!


OK I'm being a bit of a prick, but how about this friend you talked into loaning you a mic and then you trashed it??? Did you replace it?

Hearing this I would stay away with a ten foot pole, or longer.

Having "fun" at others expense is not a good career plan.

As a very low budget filmmaker and lurker (I'm talking about $200NZD a film, which is around $100-150USD) I can strongly sympathise with this. We use rubbish gear (rented!) and it did not take long to learn that for every technical issue that could decrease the quality of our film, there are easily a hundred PRACTICAL issues - the like of which are solved with duct tape and extras.

A Rode Mic? In our dreams! We were super excited to hire a Sony PD150 + external monitor, and borrow an old XLR microphone for it to attach to an 8ft mop handle! I had to spend the rest of the budget on petrol to get out to our location where we froze to death for two days. Then it turns out somebody stepped on the microphone and all our audio was damaged - just left it as a "special effect".

My point is, you don't need money or good gear to have fun making a half decent film! I spend most of my time in "pre-production" begging people to lend me stuff! I was more pissed that our lead couldn't act than anything else that went wrong.

 

[ChickenPie]

The microphone issue was resolved, with no bad feelings. I assure you (not for any reason) that because we are, as I said, "having fun" that we do it at the expense of somebody else's gear (in this case, a school).

I'm just highlighting the very clear "pro & amateur" differences on this forum!

[my turn to be a prick] Did I ever sound like or make out to be someone giving advice for serious folks?

Career plan? Hell no!

Little hobby for a few friends! Yes!

 

[Noiz2]

Well maybe that should be another forum," Audio - for those that don't care"

But you may be correct. Maybe this forum is going to shift to the total spare time hobbyist? That would be a shame and I think you would find the experienced users just going somewhere else. I don't have a problem with hobbyist filmmakers, but I'm not all that interested in helping solve problems caused because people were just having fun and don't really care. I'm not the one to answer how best to ductape your radio shack microphone onto a broom handle so you can "boom like a pro".

If that is the divide your talking about then yes it's a big one.

However I believe the OP was talking about the difference of those starting out, maybe not aiming at doing it for a living but certainly to try to make films that an audience will enjoy. So their goal is basically the same as a professional but on a much smaller budget. And the professionals who do work in the industry every day and have to have the more expensive gear because it's part of the job.

That is a divide that is not so great and can be dealt with by targeting questions and answers to the budget level of the poster.

The microphone issue was resolved, with no bad feelings. I assure you (not for any reason) that because we are, as I said, "having fun" that we do it at the expense of somebody else's gear (in this case, a school).

I'm just highlighting the very clear "pro & amateur" differences on this forum!

[my turn to be a prick] Did I ever sound like or make out to be someone giving advice for serious folks?

Career plan? Hell no!

Little hobby for a few friends! Yes!

 

[Steve House]

I don't see much difference in "pro" and "amateur" in the context of a forum like this. I see the pariticipants as falling broadly into three categories ...

1: Working professional outside of the major studio or network markets. A forum regular is not likely to be on James Cameron's short list to mix his next feature. But one might well be hired for second unit work outside the studio's local zones, as supplemental crew on a network reality show, or location crew for a mainstream ad agency shoot or covering a national corporation's event. His skillset and kit would be comparable with those of the mainstream experienced mixers earning their living practicing the art full-time.

2: A student filmmaker, either formally enrolled or engaged in self-study on his own. One can be a student without being ernrolled in a school. To me, "student" means someone setting out studying and purchasing kit so they can become employed as a member of Category 1 above. The skills they are looking to learn are those of the mainstream working studio or network mixer and the kit they are seeking advice on purchasing is the kit they intend to take on-set when they eventually ARE hired to mix third unit sound for Cameron 5 years from now or intend to carry in their bag when they are hired to work sound as a stringer for CNN, freelance sound for local TV stations, or as a local crew supplement when "Cops" comes to their town.

3: They are amateurs and intend to stay that way. They're passionately dedicated to filmmaking but for whatever reason they choose not to make it their primary income producing occupation. None the less, their standards, professional practices, and the skills they seek to develop are identical with those in Categories 1 and 2 and a casual observer seeing them working on set would not be able to tell either from their gear or from their demeanor or from the results they obtain that they are not full-time, paid, working professionals. They are professionals - or are learning to be - in every way except for the occupation listed on their tax returns. Many great artists, writers, composers, etc have been amateurs in this sense of the word, working at their craft out of passion while earning their daily bread with some other activity. "Amateur" does not mean people getting together with some assorted camera and consumer sound toys f**ting around to shoot some clips to post on YouTube.

And then there's that fourth categaory, those alluded to in the last line of Category 3 ... Sorry, no offense intended, but I've got better things to do than deal with that mindset.

 

[johnnyevil]

I love this breakdown, and I think it is very accurate across several different fields. I know it holds true for photographers as well.

I don't see much difference in "pro" and "amateur" in the context of a forum like this. I see the pariticipants as falling broadly into three categories ...

1: Working professional outside of the major studio or network markets. A forum regular is not likely to be on James Cameron's short list to mix his next feature. But one might well be hired for second unit work outside the studio's local zones, as supplemental crew on a network reality show, or location crew for a mainstream ad agency shoot or covering a national corporation's event. His skillset and kit would be comparable with those of the mainstream experienced mixers earning their living practicing the art full-time.

2: A student filmmaker, either formally enrolled or engaged in self-study on his own. One can be a student without being ernrolled in a school. To me, "student" means someone setting out studying and purchasing kit so they can become employed as a member of Category 1 above. The skills they are looking to learn are those of the mainstream working studio or network mixer and the kit they are seeking advice on purchasing is the kit they intend to take on-set when they eventually ARE hired to mix third unit sound for Cameron 5 years from now or intend to carry in their bag when they are hired to work sound as a stringer for CNN, freelance sound for local TV stations, or as a local crew supplement when "Cops" comes to their town.

3: They are amateurs and intend to stay that way. They're passionately dedicated to filmmaking but for whatever reason they choose not to make it their primary income producing occupation. None the less, their standards, professional practices, and the skills they seek to develop are identical with those in Categories 1 and 2 and a casual observer seeing them working on set would not be able to tell either from their gear or from their demeanor or from the results they obtain that they are not full-time, paid, working professionals. They are professionals - or are learning to be - in every way except for the occupation listed on their tax returns. Many great artists, writers, composers, etc have been amateurs in this sense of the word, working at their craft out of passion while earning their daily bread with some other activity. "Amateur" does not mean people getting together with some assorted camera and consumer sound toys f**ting around to shoot some clips to post on YouTube.

And then there's that fourth categaory, those alluded to in the last line of Category 3 ... Sorry, no offense intended, but I've got better things to do than deal with that mindset.

 

[Chadfish]

As far as helping those with questions, I don't think it matters what level of professionalism a person is at. Good sound is good sound. We advise people how to get good, or at least better sound. If one can't purchase the things needed to get better sound then they have to deal with the sound being bad, or at least worse than it could be. Usually not being able to buy a piece of basic gear at a certain quality level results in the sound person / director / editor spending more time to fix the issue, such as removing noise from a recording. Worse case the cheap gear they insisted on fails and then everyone loses. Of course there are those who have good gear and don't pay attention to good recording principles, and get bad results anyway. And there are also those that don't have all the gear, but know how to maximize what they have and still get a good sound. All we can do is suggest things. I say tell them once the best way, and then let them decide how many corners they want to gamble cutting.

The "best" way is often going to be: Good XLR condenser mic or lav / Active mixer / quiet recorder/camera with real knobs - all run by a dedicated sound person (and dedicated mixer person if possible). Any less than that is compromising quality, and those choices to not use all the ingredients needed must be made intelligently, and more thought put into the work-arounds in order to preserve the sound quality. Nobody is going to pat you on the back when you say "I have no room for a boom op in my plan, so I'm leaving the mic on the camera, which will save me money." This isn't where we blindly encourage people no matter how stupidly they work. That's where your girlfriend or kindergarten teacher comes in. This is where you get the straight poop, and you decide what you want to incorporate.

 

[roei z]

so you're saying that using, let's say, only NTG-2 (which is "hot") and dr-100 is not enough for reasonable sound ?

 

[Chadfish]

Throw a Sound Devices MixPre in between those, and then you'll be rocking, and when you calibrate with the tone the MixPre provides - you will be virtually unclippable. To a much lesser degree, a JuicedLink mixer will help too, but it has no limiters. It's not good cricket to turn up/down your recording level as a means to adjust mic volume. That way you are constantly changing the noise floor. The mixer is an essential ingredient for a smooth production. Not that one can't work without one - but it's better if you do.

Similarly, one can drive without a seat belt and not die, it's when you need the seat belt but aren't wearing it that the problem becomes clear.

 

[Noiz2]

so you're saying that using, let's say, only NTG-2 (which is "hot") and dr-100 is not enough for reasonable sound ?

Well no it's not. There are quite a few other things that need to go into that mix. Say something to hold the mic, something to keep the wind out of the mic, someone to hold the thing that holds the mic, some cables to connect it all together. Some experience or training so the person holding the thing that holds the mic knows how to hold it and where to point it and how to set levels etc, etc, etc,.

And then there is post...

so no, two devices are "not enough for reasonable sound". Assuming that "reasonable" translates to "reasonable good sounding".

 

[roei z]

it kind of goes without saying that all accessories will
Be needed. I just meant skipping the mixer (according to
Chadfish minimum needs).

 

[Chadfish]

I'll repeat that adjusting your mic level using the recorder (rather than a mixer) will make your recorder's noisefloor fluctuate.

 

[roei z]

thanks.. but using a hot mic won't help with that ?

 

[Chadfish]

Throughout the shoot the sound person needs to turn up/down the mic level depending on what's happening. It doesn't matter that the mic is "hot", or more accurately "sensitive" because you still have to adjust levels relative to the situation. Yes a sensitive mic is better for getting over the noise. What I'm saying is that there is a certain amount of noise on a recorder. When you turn up the level the noise gets louder, when you turn down the noise gets quieter. You don't want the noise to be changing all the time - it will make your post mixer hate you. And it's impossible to remove noise that is ever changing. With a good clean mixer/preamp you turn up the level, and the noise the recorder is making does not increase. In fact the recorder noise is much lower because the preamp allows you to TURN DOWN the DR100's recording level. That's the thing we want. Lower recorder levels for less noise caused by the recorder. If you choose to skip the preamp that's your choice. I'm just telling you the best way to record - mic/preamp/recorder. It's not going to get more complex than that, so once you have a mixer/preamp you can stop thinking again and just trust that you made the right choice if you can't tell with your ears. Just kidding... If you can't tell you shouldn't buy any more gear until you can tell, or at least understand the concept.

 

[roei z]

NOW i understand the problem.
thanks.