The Great Divide - Professional and Amateur

[indiawilds]

Well I'm not sure I would tie it ti IQ. There are plenty of smart people who are clueless about sound. And I was really talking about "squeezing out" better sound. A BAD sound person can leave you with nothing and it really doesn't matter how good the equipment was. High quality garbage is still garbage.

People can save you equipment can't.

I am surprised. Both of us are saying the same thing and still this discussion is going on. If you read carefully, it would be clear that when I said "IQ" of the person behind the equipment is important, I was not referring to an Albert Einstein. For that matter, nobody uses the term IQ for an equipment. I had mentioned that professionals can squeeze out more juice out of professional equipment. And by professional I mean sound guys - people like you all.

I have seen a National Geographic photographer fumbling with video and had to redo the interview as the sound recorded in the video camera was low. So I understand the importance of sound.

 

[8string]

I agree, a video with bad sound is just a bad video. My small point some time back about stories being more important than gear is that I have been watching a bunch of old silent films lately. These old things were done with 'state of the art' but primitive gear, and the story usually comes across loud and clear without sound. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Russian filmmakers, German filmmakers, they all did some really cool stuff with no sound,or added piano soundtrack. I sometimes see films and have such a hard time understanding their plot, that it's like the filmmaker is simply making a film to show how cool he is. The story vanishes into an ego trip. Perhaps more attention to story would be a good thing. And then sometimes you are just going to show off technique, which is fine too. And then there's "Memento". Try watching that without a soundtrack... I have been watching some newer films without sound just to see how well I get the plot. It can be very interesting.

But good sound gear, and learning how to use it under fire is pretty critical. A lot of people jump into this thinking nothing of spending a few thousand on cameras and lenses and then want to have no budget for audio. Bad move.

 

[Noiz2]

I am surprised. Both of us are saying the same thing and still this discussion is going on. If you read carefully, it would be clear that when I said "IQ" of the person behind the equipment is important, I was not referring to an Albert Einstein. For that matter, nobody uses the term IQ for an equipment. I had mentioned that professionals can squeeze out more juice out of professional equipment. And by professional I mean sound guys - people like you all.

I have seen a National Geographic photographer fumbling with video and had to redo the interview as the sound recorded in the video camera was low. So I understand the importance of sound.

Why surprised? Do you only conduct discussions with people you don't agree with.
But I don't think we are saying the same thing, exactly but who knows?
One problem with the internet is it's a little like the Russian language, you have to be very literal. For instance you say above that nobody uses IQ to talk about equipment but in fact you did just that. I was quoting you "I agree with you that the IQ of the person behind the equipment is as important (if not more) than the IQ of the equipment. ". I don't know you well enough to second guess what you really meant by that and you can sort of talk about the "intelligence" of equipment today. If you meant quality or professionalism then you really need to write it that way. I'm not being snotty, it was a lesson I had to learn the hard way. I'm naturally inclined to use irony and sarcasm, two things that really don't translate well on the web. So we maybe in total agreement but I don't get that from reading the thread.

Where I think we are a bit divergent is that you seem to be putting an emphasis on equipment. It sounds, to me, like you are saying that good equipment will get you better sound and that if you are a professional sound person you can get more out of lesser equipment".

That implies a kind of balance where one can be offset by the other. My experience is that it's a one way offset. A good sound person can get more out of lesser equipment but a bad sound person gets no improvement (and sometimes worse results) with great equipment.

If we do actually agree then great we have defined the point really well.

 

[Noiz2]

8String,
I agree.
My list for the biggest problem areas Mini-Indie films tend to have. The order is the frequency not the importance. Pretty much a mis in any will kill the film.

#1 Story/Directing. I put them together because in many cases they are the same person and because a good director can see the "better" story and make that rather than the script (if they have the power to do so). So it's hard to say if it was just a bad story, a story with possibilities that the director just didn't get or a good story that the director totally botched.

#2 Sound. Many have really weak production sound and many do too little (or no) post sound work.

#3 Acting. Doesn't matter how good the story is if the acting sucks.

#4 Editing. Editing is often a bit weak and nothing kills the pace and feel of a film faster than bad editing.

#5 Cinematography. Much less a problem than the others. Most films seem to come up with at least OK shots. Of course who knows what had to be cut out to get there?

Depending on the film you may have other areas that are a problem, like cheesy CG. But really it's very rare to have that be the issue. If the producer/ director took the time to get the first five correct then they probably payed attention to the rest and if they blew any of the first five you probably don't care if they blew something else also.

 

[8string]

I agree Noiz. It's all part of the package. If one of the pieces fails, it's likely the whole thing will crumble. To bring it back to the Q of the OP, while many noobs tend to get told to 'get the right gear, meaning expensive' part of that is that so many of us either bought what we could afford or didn't take the advice to buy better gear to begin with. It's really hard to produce great work with substandard tools, no matter what the product you are trying to produce. So many of us started off with cheap crap, only to realize it's limitations, um, 1 hour into using the tool. I've made the same mistake with table saws, so it's not just cameras. My ever loving wife is always berating me, "just buy the tools you need!". She has struggled doing wood working in the past with substandard tools. Cameras and the audio gear we use are no different. heck, I bought a H4N, it works, does good work, heck for many people it would be just great, but the Tascam I just replaced it with, is really a much better machine. Costs more too! Duh! So I spent xxx for the Zoom, and XXX for the Tascam. To feel better about myself, I sell the Zoom (or keep it, it's not that important), and the difference between what I paid for the zoom and what I sell it for is my 'rental price'. The real cost of me buying it, which I add to the price of the new Tascam. Pay me now, or pay me later.

 

[Steve House]

In my experience, and assuming one's ultimate goal is to achieve fully professional results, starting low with consumer gear and working your way up the ladder through several 'sell the old stuff and buy an upgrade' iterations has a far higher total cost of ownership than you would have if you just bit the bullet and bought professional kit from the very start. If you know that for the work you ultimately want to produce you'll need a Sound Devices 788t or a Nagra VI, then don't muck around with Zooms and such, figure out where to get the cash and get the kit you'll need to produce the results you're seeking. Look beyond this month's bank balance and start thinking about long term cash flow and return on investment like any business does. Of course, be realistic. It's perfectly okay if your film aspirations are to shoot your kid's dance recital to share with friends and family and you don't need a kit comparable to that of a studio location mixer, a 60 Minutes production team, or HDNet's concert audio truck in order to do that. But if you aspire to shoot for public distribution or broadcast or for paying clients, then you need to acquire and learn to work with whatever Big Boy's tool kit that's appropriate to the type of job at hand.

 

[Gregg Juke]

I'm not sure that it's about "Big Boys toys." It's about creativity vs. economics, and the fact that many people _can't_ avoid looking at this month's bank balance (especially in today's economy). Another perspective is that waiting until you have the ultimate pro everything (which will become obsolete a few minutes after you buy it, in regards to new gear coming out, not in regards to useability) is valuable time wasted when someone could be learning how to use even limited tools in the creative process.

Learning how to use the equipment that _you_ can afford, and working through it's limitations, is a tried-an-true self-apprenticeship process. It really _isn't_ about the equipment. That being said, _of course_ better, more expensive gear is usually better! But the equipment doesn't make the sound-person (or director, or talent, or whatever). EVERYONE has to work within a budget, but automatically relegating anyone without the most expensive gear to only shooting dance recitals seems a bit short-sighted... "The Great Divide" in this case seeming a bit artificial, if we are only basing that assessment on total amount spent on equipment.

GJ

 

[Noiz2]

Steve is correct that "biting the bullet" is the cheaper way to go in the long run IF you can do it in cash. If your putting it on credit then it comes out a lot closer.

The problem with that as blanket advice is that it only really applies if you are going to use the gear professionally. It kind of applies if your just goofing around and will definitely get the $$$ equipment but that's a weird case.

I think a lot of folks on this list are in the wide middle between pros/ pros in waiting, and hobbyists. And that is where it gets very complicated. It's hard to justify paying the price of a used car for a recorder that may never make you a dime unless you have a really good income on the side.

It's also more complicated now that it was before digital everything, or maybe not. One problem now is that you can get OK very cheap. When I started out OK was not cheap, crap was cheap. So I sat down and learned enough electronics to build much of what I couldn't afford. I could then build a mixer of much higher quality than I could afford to buy. You still had to have a recorder but the options then were Cassette or Reel to Reel and in the affordable range only cassette was portable so I had no portable rig for a long time. Then I got a pretty high end cass (around $600 in 1988).

But even as a student in the early 80's I had probably sunk a couple of grand in gear (some idiot issued me a credit card). You can learn a lot going cheap IF you take the time to really learn how to optimize your results. The knowledge is easily worth the excess of buying and replacing. If you don't learn from the gear though it's a waste of money because with out working at it you won't get very good results.

I think more with sound (as opposed to music) than other areas folks often drift into it. I was really surprised at how few well respected sound (film) people had essentially no sound background (till they started working) and very weak grasp of fundamentals. I was always more sound than music and most of my training is self taught, but I did spend years reading everything I could get my hands on and building and repairing equipment so my knowledge is fairly deep. I remember walking into a stage at a major facility where one of the star mixers and a big name sound designer were playing with a reverb unit to try and do a little fix. It was a little thing and none of the mix Techs were there (tech wiz kids who know the stage and it's gear inside out). Neither of them had the faintest idea of what the settings were for. They would turn knobs till they got screeching feedback and then try something else. It was eye opening. They are both excellent at what they do and in the normal course of events neither ever really needed to know how to set up the box but still... Almost nobody I met doing post sound had done much if any sound work till they became someone's assistant. Those that went to film school almost universally fell into sound because a friend needed a hand and then they got a rep as a "sound guy".

My goal in life was to be a set designer for stage, but I had been playing with sound and building equipment since I was in Jr. high school. I did kind of fall into it but it was always a heavy interest.

Anyway the point isn't my bio but I think a lot of people buy bits and pieces as they get more into it and I'm not sure that going for the best early on is nec. the best route. But that is very dependent on the direction you are heading.

The biggest problem with some of the consumer low end boxes out is that they make a lot of choices for you so your learning potential is limited to workarounds for a specific box rather than something more universal.

I think it's actually harder starting out now because you have to make choices that you don't have the knowledge and experience to make. When it was $15,000 for a Nagra RtR and $5 for 15 min of recording time it was simple. Go get a Tascam 3340 and stay close to AC power ;~)
Now you have a choice of tons of incredibly cheap recorders all (on paper) capable of fantastic quality recordings (compared to RtR no NR running at 7 1/2 ips).

The one thing that has stayed pretty much the same is that it takes time (as in years) to get any good at sound. A $$$$ box will not speed that up, you have to go and put in the time and make the mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, the good folks don't repeat them as much.

 

[Noiz2]

I "The Great Divide" in this case seeming a bit artificial, if we are only basing that assessment on total amount spent on equipment.

GJ

I think what has been missing is that the divide is filled with "the great middle". There are a LOT more people that fall between "pros" and "hobbyists" than there are "pros" and Hobbyists" put together. This list I feel is populated heavily with that middle. Some are very close to the pro side and some are very close to the hobbyist side, but most are somewhere in between.

It's one of the interesting challenges in answering posts here is to try and figure out where the OP is. And like all things in life where we are isn't always where we think we are, or even where others thing we are.

 

[Gregg Juke]

...What Noiz said in both posts above... Basically what I was thinking, although I didn't have the time to articulate it as well.

I'm coming at things from the "ground-up" perspective, I guess, not only because that's the way I got into music and audio, but because there are so many now in "The Great Middle," and as I am involved in and survey/lurk on other boards (mostly pro audio), I see so many "You need XYZ product, for $$$$$$$$$$," which isn't always (maybe even hardly ever) the case.

Many newer folks don't know how to ask the question(s), however, which is why we often hear/see things like-- "What's the BEST __________? By the way, I don't want to spend a lot of money?"

I wouldn't show-up to a major studio budget film-shoot with my Chinese shotgun mike; but then again, I wouldn't show-up at all, because I am so new to this end, and I'd only be there if I were able to learn from all of the knowledgeable folks out there. Then again, I've done lots of local/regional production in which that mike would be just fine.

Many people feel that throwing money at problems will solve them. This is simply not always the case.

It's the same in pro studios. Now, EVERYBODY and their mother have a recording facility in their basement. Some don't have a lot of gear, but don't know how to use what they have. Others have LOTS of VERY expensive name gear, but still don't know how to use it.
Meanwhile, we don't have the most expensive preamps, and have quite a bit of prosumer gear, but my partner and I are the only people that I know in our area, and at our level, that have actually made radio and TV commercials for one of the major media conglomerates/networks, or have produced a world-class radio hit/charting record (which was actually made in my buddy's attic, before we had our moddest new "pro" location).

Great gear makes things easier; no question. But creative skills are in the person, not the gear.

GJ

 

[vic777]

The most important thing for a craftsman is to have good tools, the best tools he can afford.

 

[olindacat]

Coming from the low-end of the 'divide' I can vouch for the interesting point that Noiz2 has made regarding the segmentation that isn't identified or delineated as openly as it should be. He is entirely right that the choices for gear abound. I think many of us have had to pay our dues or have had some passion like his penchant for making things work, like his own mixers. Only not all of us did so in this field. But what also needs to be acknowledged is the degree of specialization that each field has today.

Camera assistant? What is that? Boom operator? Huh? Just look at the credits for any movie nowadays and you see assistants for assistants in every discipline. So as in Noiz's case where he was surprised at the lack of expertise about reverb in a couple of 'pros' just goes to show you that even within the pro ranks there is a divide!

The democratization of film making that has come from certain barriers of entry being lowered hasn't caught up with everyone. I was on a shoot yesterday where I had a 'pro' I hired to help me. He want to put lavs on the talent outdoors where wind and such existed. I asked him if he wouldn't mind using a handheld omni wired please. He was really snippy and embarrassed me and the talent all morning over it, saying I was a director telling a pro how to do his job, etc., etc. No, in fact I wasn't. I just know that I can't afford lavs with Lectro transmitters/receivers like him, and that I won't be able to replicate the audio if he used that stuff. I needed him to use a standard handheld, wired, just as I'd do on my own. Further, I was shooting stills for the show's promotion and wanted it clear that the talent was holding mics, as in props. I also didn't want the lavs to pick up any wind. Point is I am far less experienced than this pro was, but because I know I will have to fill he shoes because I can't afford him, and because the democatization process also means 'do-it-yourself' I have to learn audio to stay alive.

Could he have helped me, and would I have loved him and used him again for it? Yes. Was he resentful that I was considering doing something myself? Absolutely. I see that in the forums all the time. Some help, but not really. They love to throw around jargon I don't understand to show off how complex the topic is. We've all seen it....

That really is sad because pro audio people, just like magazine publishers like me, are losing work that they might've gotten had we all just stayed in our places and not gotten into their 'business'. I see it everyday and wonder how many of the people like me here really want to know about how to differentiate between a cardio and a hyper. But if we want to DIY and make films on our own, as in one-man-bands, we need to learn the basics just so we are dangerous enough to get into trouble. I thought making magazines was hard, but in film there are not only many disciplines, but then specialized skills within those that some people make careers out of! So, what is the divide between one pro and another, and those people and the middle divide, and the hobbiest or newbie film maker like me? We're all miles apart.

But the lone wolf filmmaker, if they have any sense, will do what he/she can on their own, and also try to reply on pro help. Thus, the pros still have a role in the process. I can say, fo my own experience, that I have read some audio experts practically scolding newbies for spending so much on their camera, and for dissing audio in their budgets. I was so affected by this that I blew a lot of money just on a recorder, and have been saving up for a big time set of mics. Then I find out none of that will help me: it's gonna take me 'years' to be any good! Well, if I want to shoot every weekend, for say, 11 hours each day, I can't afford a pro for that! So, based on what I'm hearing, I can look forward to years of crappy audio. If that isn't enough to neg me out....

This point: that an amateur newbie or perhaps those in the middle divide, are best served learning from the ground up and incrementally upgrading gear as skills grow is sensible and what I'd do in any field. But then the point that buying and selling over and again will be more costly is also true. In the end, the picture, from my POV, isn't looking bright when I get so much conflicting advice. I bought Barry's DVD on sound, put in many many weeks trying to learn and ask questions—just to get a basic audio set-up that'll do me better than an on-camera mic—and I can tell you that it is still overwhelming.

The barriers to entry and what people consider 'good audio' are intimidating and even those who are full-speed-ahead types can be confounded by all the cross-cross they encounter. Clearly, the 'democratization' of film (and especially audio) has its share of obstacles!

 

[John Willett]

The funny thing is that I am finding that keen amateurs are getting better and better equipment and the professional broadcasters are getting cheaper and cheaper and even getting consumer products (especially in some cameras).

They are doing less and less training as well.

This means that the amateur often has better equipment and can often use it better than a lot of professionals.

:grin:

 

[Gregg Juke]

Especially in ENG situations where the talent is also the camera op and the audio tech, yes?

I was in a television station a few years ago, and it had been many years since I had been in one (at least a big local News stage).

I couldn't believe there weren't _any_ camera ops! All electronic/robotic and done from the control room. No sound techs either; segues are programmed and timed, and if a cue is missed, oh well... nobody there to jump through a hoop and make it happen.

And now I've seen news people on the street doing all of their own tech work...

GJ

 

[Chadfish]

olindacat are you sure your Pro would have used the lavs in a way that they picked up lots of wind sound? Perhapse he was miffed because he knew what he was doing, and you usurped / embarrassed him first? You can hide a lav under clothes so there is no wind sound. I mean, did you at least let him try his way before vetoing it?

 

[Noiz2]

I was on a shoot yesterday where I had a 'pro' I hired to help me. He want to put lavs on the talent outdoors where wind and such existed. I asked him if he wouldn't mind using a handheld omni wired please. He was really snippy and embarrassed me and the talent all morning over it, saying I was a director telling a pro how to do his job, etc., etc. No, in fact I wasn't. I just know that I can't afford lavs with Lectro transmitters/receivers like him, and that I won't be able to replicate the audio if he used that stuff. I needed him to use a standard handheld, wired, just as I'd do on my own. Further, I was shooting stills for the show's promotion and wanted it clear that the talent was holding mics, as in props. I also didn't want the lavs to pick up any wind. Point is I am far less experienced than this pro was, but because I know I will have to fill he shoes because I can't afford him, and because the democatization process also means 'do-it-yourself' I have to learn audio to stay alive.

I would first second Chadfish in that it is entirely possible that he would be able to not pick up a bunch of wind noise. So that isn't a great reason. But did you explain why you wanted to go with mics that would be used later so that the sound would match, or did you just tell him to use them. There are plenty of grumpy pros around just like there are plenty of grumpy directors around but generally sound guys are pretty accommodating, or unemployed.

I can say, fo my own experience, that I have read some audio experts practically scolding newbies for spending so much on their camera, and for dissing audio in their budgets. I was so affected by this that I blew a lot of money just on a recorder, and have been saving up for a big time set of mics. Then I find out none of that will help me: it's gonna take me 'years' to be any good! Well, if I want to shoot every weekend, for say, 11 hours each day, I can't afford a pro for that! So, based on what I'm hearing, I can look forward to years of crappy audio. If that isn't enough to neg me out....

How long did it take you to walk? Write? Learn a foreign language? Skills take time to master. Just as you can't buy shoes for a baby and expect them to run a marathon or hand a child a pencil and expect them to write a novel.

But did you always walk "crappy" till suddenly you were an olympic gold medalist? Were you unable to write a single letter and poof you were a new Hemingway?

Of course not and even suggesting it seems stupid but folks get all upset when they pick up a recorder and are told that the recorder will not make them a world class sound person. Work at it and you will get better at it. It will take time to get any good at anything and sound is no exception.

In the end, the picture, from my POV, isn't looking bright when I get so much conflicting advice. I bought Barry's DVD on sound, put in many many weeks trying to learn and ask questions—just to get a basic audio set-up that'll do me better than an on-camera mic—and I can tell you that it is still overwhelming.

There isn't really much conflicting advice. There is marketing hype "buy this and be a pro" and then there is what people who are actually pros are saying, "it takes time to learn skills". That would not be a surprise in any other field but somehow when it comes to movie making everyone thinks they can buy a flip camera a poof.

Marketing departments lie to get you to buy stuff. Don't believe anything they say, ever. It might be true but you won't know.

The barriers to entry and what people consider 'good audio' are intimidating and even those who are full-speed-ahead types can be confounded by all the cross-cross they encounter. Clearly, the 'democratization' of film (and especially audio) has its share of obstacles!

Think of it like a real democracy. Everyone has access to be president, but very few have the skill set to give it a try.

Some one else said the hardest things in life are finding out what your not great at.

There is a reason why big movies have large crews. The short version is that filmmaking is a team sport. Your frustration is that marketing folks have been pushing this one man production thing as a positive. It's a positive for sales but it's as a rule a disaster for filmmaking. Until VERY recently NOBODY tried to make a movie on their own. It had nothing to do with equipment. It was possible with 16mm film to be a one-man-band. People didn't do it because it's a bad idea. Now if you competing with other one-man-bands it may look like your "in the game". But lets look at sports. Filmmaking as football. If you are the only guy on your team you have a chance against another one man team. You will get clobbered by a full team and you will die against a full team of professionals.

What you see are posts by folks who say 'I'm just learning football, I'm my own team and what set of pads will let me play in the supper bowl?". Pros say "you will get killed". And the newbie says "But Apple said if I buy their pads I will play like a pro team".

The longer you work at it the better you will get. As a one man team you really never have the chance to spend enough time doing anything to get really good at any of them. That is not just sound but all of it. If you want to be really good at something you need to focus on it. And until your playing with a full team you will always be at a disadvantage against a full team.

Does this mean your hosed? Maybe. It really depends on what your trying to do. If your arena is all one man teams then you have a great chance to up their with the best. If your trying to compete with Jim Cameron then you better start working on getting some more players on your team.

That doesn't necessarily mean hiring a bunch of pros. If you need a crew and you can't charm enough people to work on your film maybe you need to rethink the whole directing thing.

And "good audio" is an almost meaningless phrase. If your on a beach in a hurricane good audio maybe just being able to make out the words. What many folks are talking about when they say that, is the sound they hear in the theatre from a big budget film. A very small (but very important) part of that is the production sound. That sound gets scrubbed and polished and dressed up with so many different and subtle layers that it's own mother wouldn't recognize it. So after getting the best production sound you can get you then need to spend a lot of time in post. The lower middle and below (of the great divide) spend almost no time in post sound so they have an almost zero chance of ever getting "good sound". It takes takes a LOT of work to compete sound wise with Hollywood. For many people there is also very little reason to try.

 

[olindacat]

olindacat are you sure your Pro would have used the lavs in a way that they picked up lots of wind sound? Perhapse he was miffed because he knew what he was doing, and you usurped / embarrassed him first? You can hide a lav under clothes so there is no wind sound. I mean, did you at least let him try his way before vetoing it?

I'm in biz here on Maui 17 years, Chadfish, and am second-guessed by 20 clients 7-days a week, so trust me, I would never usurp or embarrass anyone. He has worked for me for years, and was not vetoed. He just had no desire to hear me because he was so set in his ways, and after having watched and read a few threads, videos, tutorials, etc., on the use of a lav mic (as well as dealt with his technique myself in post), I knew the lav was not the best option. But, I'm certainly open to the creative process and in fact, didn't pay him my hard-earned money so I could sabotage my own efforts.

He totally admitted, after we spoke privately later in the morning, that what I was trying to do was the right thing. I just don't think people get how much change is happening in the world and that the Internet is helping people to learn just enough to make trouble for people like my friend, the pro. I feel for him. BTW: I should also qualify him as being a pro videographer who does indoor corp videos and weddings and HS stuff and is not a dedicated sound pro. If I had a dedicated sound pro, I would have shut up and learned from him until I had a valid reason to disagree. Then I'd come here and get my come-uppance ;-)

 

[olindacat]

I would first second Chadfish in that it is entirely possible that he would be able to not pick up a bunch of wind noise. So that isn't a great reason. But did you explain why you wanted to go with mics that would be used later so that the sound would match, or did you just tell him to use them. There are plenty of grumpy pros around just like there are plenty of grumpy directors around but generally sound guys are pretty accommodating, or unemployed.

How long did it take you to walk? Write? Learn a foreign language? Skills take time to master. Just as you can't buy shoes for a baby and expect them to run a marathon or hand a child a pencil and expect them to write a novel.

But did you always walk "crappy" till suddenly you were an olympic gold medalist? Were you unable to write a single letter and poof you were a new Hemingway?

Of course not and even suggesting it seems stupid but folks get all upset when they pick up a recorder and are told that the recorder will not make them a world class sound person. Work at it and you will get better at it. It will take time to get any good at anything and sound is no exception.




There isn't really much conflicting advice. There is marketing hype "buy this and be a pro" and then there is what people who are actually pros are saying, "it takes time to learn skills". That would not be a surprise in any other field but somehow when it comes to movie making everyone thinks they can buy a flip camera a poof.

Marketing departments lie to get you to buy stuff. Don't believe anything they say, ever. It might be true but you won't know.



Think of it like a real democracy. Everyone has access to be president, but very few have the skill set to give it a try.

Some one else said the hardest things in life are finding out what your not great at.

There is a reason why big movies have large crews. The short version is that filmmaking is a team sport. Your frustration is that marketing folks have been pushing this one man production thing as a positive. It's a positive for sales but it's as a rule a disaster for filmmaking. Until VERY recently NOBODY tried to make a movie on their own. It had nothing to do with equipment. It was possible with 16mm film to be a one-man-band. People didn't do it because it's a bad idea. Now if you competing with other one-man-bands it may look like your "in the game". But lets look at sports. Filmmaking as football. If you are the only guy on your team you have a chance against another one man team. You will get clobbered by a full team and you will die against a full team of professionals.

What you see are posts by folks who say 'I'm just learning football, I'm my own team and what set of pads will let me play in the supper bowl?". Pros say "you will get killed". And the newbie says "But Apple said if I buy their pads I will play like a pro team".

The longer you work at it the better you will get. As a one man team you really never have the chance to spend enough time doing anything to get really good at any of them. That is not just sound but all of it. If you want to be really good at something you need to focus on it. And until your playing with a full team you will always be at a disadvantage against a full team.

Does this mean your hosed? Maybe. It really depends on what your trying to do. If your arena is all one man teams then you have a great chance to up their with the best. If your trying to compete with Jim Cameron then you better start working on getting some more players on your team.

That doesn't necessarily mean hiring a bunch of pros. If you need a crew and you can't charm enough people to work on your film maybe you need to rethink the whole directing thing.

And "good audio" is an almost meaningless phrase. If your on a beach in a hurricane good audio maybe just being able to make out the words. What many folks are talking about when they say that, is the sound they hear in the theatre from a big budget film. A very small (but very important) part of that is the production sound. That sound gets scrubbed and polished and dressed up with so many different and subtle layers that it's own mother wouldn't recognize it. So after getting the best production sound you can get you then need to spend a lot of time in post. The lower middle and below (of the great divide) spend almost no time in post sound so they have an almost zero chance of ever getting "good sound". It takes takes a LOT of work to compete sound wise with Hollywood. For many people there is also very little reason to try.

Sarcasm noted. I don't think many people who are starting out here are competing against Cameron, at least not me. Being lectured about the merits of having a team after I just got done describing a situation where I paid for just that, is getting us nowhere.

As far was 'good audio' being an 'almost meaningless phrase', I guess it is, from your perspective. The good thing is we all agree to disagree and I totally disagree with your analogies and logic. (Thank God I didn't have you advising me when I started my one-man publishing company! Had I followed your reality, I'd still be dreaming instead of doing!!!!!)

My point is only that many here, by necessity or desire, want to or need to work alone. For those who are lucky enough to have crews and budgets and have the people skills to get volunteers, bully for them. I see lots of great things I like to watch (and hear) created by people who work on their own, independently.

 

[olindacat]

olindacat are you sure your Pro would have used the lavs in a way that they picked up lots of wind sound? Perhapse he was miffed because he knew what he was doing, and you usurped / embarrassed him first? You can hide a lav under clothes so there is no wind sound. I mean, did you at least let him try his way before vetoing it?

Didn't you just do a recent comparison between the RE50 and it's newer version on YouTube?

 

[Chadfish]

I hear ya olindacat. I was just asking what we all should ask ourself in those situations. "Does he have a point?" "Do I have a point?" "How can I disagree without sounding like a jerk?" I am learning slowly how to stay calm and not make a situation worse by letting my own ego run amok.