True percentage of audio? 50% 70%??

I will admit I like a lot of films made in the 30's. If you go by my professional equipment then sound is 99%. On the other hand if you go by my "home theatre" - which isn't... it's more like 10%. What does that mean? Well I work in sound and live in an old house where no room is really ideal for a "home theatre" and my wife won't let me have a whole room to dedicate to it so it's kind of pointless to spend a lot on a "surround" system I won't be able to use. We also have an old tube set. But I also go to screenings during the season so most current movies I see on a big screen in a tuned room with a quiet audience. Those places are probably more in the 50/50 range.

Put that all together and average and... 53% ! Hey Matt I got ya beat by 10%.
The biggest thing this list indicates is that there are a bunch of filmmakers right now not working...
 
Well I didn't say sound is 100% of the production. Sound is 100% important, as is video. My point is to look at every aspect of your production as 100% important. I hate to sound like a jock in an interview, but you have to give 100% to everything you do when making a film/video/ad etc. Every compromise will be noticed (not by all, but by all who will potentially fund your next project) and most of all YOU will notice every time you took a short-cut.

It takes 1 minute to do another take. If you keep the compromised take - the compromised take will last forever.
 
ChipG said:
Money I spent on my home theater is 90% audio, 10% video but not sure you can apply that to making a film.

The thing about sound is you won't notice it that much if it's good because it become a subliminal experience, you'll notice it and it will be a BIG distraction if it is bad.
Click to expand...

As long as we're having fun with this (that IS what we're doing, right?)... this is what I meant. Each person can evaluate their own perception of the importance of sound based on the efforts and expense they accept to get it.

My favorite aspect of audio is the fact that sound can fool anyone into thinking it's reality... no image can do this (yet)... and because of this, a movie experience can take on a whole new level of REALISM... with good sound.
 
MattinSTL said:
My favorite aspect of audio is the fact that sound can fool anyone into thinking it's reality... no image can do this (yet)... and because of this, a movie experience can take on a whole new level of REALISM... with good sound.
Click to expand...

I got motion sick, watching "Grand Prix"(1966) in the front row at a Cinerama presentation... does that count as 'real enough'... I don't think I've ever gotten carsick from sounds...
(These days I mostly watch movies right under the projectors in the back row of the theater...)
 
MattinSTL said:
As long as we're having fun with this (that IS what we're doing, right?)... this is what I meant. Each person can evaluate their own perception of the importance of sound based on the efforts and expense they accept to get it.

My favorite aspect of audio is the fact that sound can fool anyone into thinking it's reality... no image can do this (yet)... and because of this, a movie experience can take on a whole new level of REALISM... with good sound.
Click to expand...

Matt, your bottom paragraph is 100% true to the power of 48%. You wouldn't believe the shi* you can pull off with a bad cam/movie if the audio kicks ass.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I got motion sick, watching "Grand Prix"(1966) in the front row at a Cinerama presentation... does that count as 'real enough'... I don't think I've ever gotten carsick from sounds...
(These days I mostly watch movies right under the projectors in the back row of the theater...)
Click to expand...

What I meant was that even with only "decent" gear I can stand behind you and talk to you while you're wearing open headphones... with the agreement that you should only answer me when it's really ME talking and not a recording of me... and I guarantee I can EASILY do a recording where you can't tell the difference.

Nobody ever thinks they're actually WITNESSING reality... in real time... when they watch a movie. It's always suspension of judgement of reality... and even then... surely you didn't think you were no longer in a theater and actually at the track or driving a car, right?

But with sound... your senses can be fooled 100% into believing that what you're hearing is ACTUAL reality.

I have to add a disclaimer because of course you can give examples of sound from other environments outside of the viewer... where no matter how good the sound is the viewer shouldn't truly confuse reality with theatrical experience.

And I guess you could say that a person may watch a scene where a person on a video screen is talking to them and for a moment they may think they're somehow linked and talking to a person that's really on the other end in real time.

But without giving a contrived situation you can be genuinely fooled by decent sound. People watch movies in surround sound in their own homes and can't tell if a plane really flew over or if it was in the sound track... or did a delivery truck go by YOUR home or the location used in that indi-flick?

That was what I was getting at... is sound is INHERENTLY capable of fooling people about what is reality... and what is part of the viewed images. How much people embrace this fact is often times reflected in the overall feeling of reality in their productions.

This isn't an absolute either... which is why I gave the [rhetorical] question a lower percentage answer anyway. You'll be able to cite reasons why sound doesn't matter as much TO YOU... and I'll be able to cite reasons why sound matters MORE to me.

To each his own... is the thing I've also said over and over... but I guarantee that everybody reading this can easily (< key word, "easily") be fooled between reality and recording with audio... but not video.
 
While recording a client's vo with a portible recorder for a radio or TV spot, I have fooled myself by accidentally hitting play instead of record. I hit play hand hear the small talk of the client on the recording, and actually responded to the recording as if it were the client talking to me live. In the right environment sound can convincingly trick a seasoned pro. But with video you can never mistake visuals on a screen for reality. How many times have you heard a phone ring on TV and looked for your own phone?
 
Chadfish said:
But with video you can never mistake visuals on a screen for reality. How many times have you heard a phone ring on TV and looked for your own phone?
Click to expand...

Well, of course one can not 'mistake' visuals for the reality... I don't know too many people who need to put sunblock on for those 'desert films', or wear ski goggles for those snow films...

When I was young, and building electronics from kits was 'the thing', it seemed like very engineer my mother knew, had built a HiFi system, and would always 'demo' the system with a locomotive rummbling through their living room... for some reason they never seemed to demo music... to listen to that I had to play records on an old 78 or 33's on a $5 player I got at a pawn shop.

To be sure, I can tell the difference between a scratchy 78 and the latest in processor driven surround sound tuned to perfection...

To use another analogy. In my reception area, there's a station that I listen to that carries music I like... it fades, there's drop outs, because the transmitter for that station is about 50 miles away, and where I live there are valleys and other 'clutter'. There are stations operating in my area that are clear as a bell, no lack of quality... but they are not broadcasting music I'm interested in...

If the station I listened to had better signal, would I still listen... of course... My point is that there has to be something more in a movie that is of interest to me, otherwise the demonstration of technical capability is not so overriding, other than perhaps as a learning exercise, that I'd prefer the 'better sound' movie over one that presents a story that I am interested in.

This is not to justify 'crappy' work, but for me to put what is done in some form of perspective.

I have a similar opinion about the visuals, especially when people seem to fetishize Depth of Field, or 'wide screen' aspect ratio... There are any number of examples of fine films where the screen was 4:3, the DoF far deeper than the current trend, etc.
 
Of course the story is the most important. Many interesting films/videos have been on less that stellar formats or with sub-par gear. I think the point here is that we of the audio persuasion submit that indeed sub-par video will be forgiven more readily if the sound is great. But sub par audio with great video is less likely to pass as acceptable. Why? Because dialog tells the story, and the story is most important.

If you had to choose between being deaf, and being blind which would you choose and why?

I would choose to be blind, even though video is my bread and butter. Because communication with humans is primarily done through sound. Primarily, not totally of course. But I am a musician too, and if I can't hear, I can't sing. Worse yet, I couldn't hear the great music of the world. I could still record an album, do my gigs as a voice over guy, be a DJ, play a live show with a band without my eyes. If all I had were my eyes, I could watch the expressions on peoples faces on TV and try to guess what's up. Or I could drive a car and see when someone is about to crash into my car and avoid it. My partner's dad is deaf from explosions in the Korean war, and the poor guy is in his own world, separate from whatever gathering he's in because he can barely hear. He laughs a lot like he heard you, but most of the time he has no idea.

So I submit that audio is way more important in film, and in life. Having to choose between being deaf or blind - I'd take blind in a heartbeat.
 
Chadfish said:
Of course the story is the most important. Many interesting films/videos have been on less that stellar formats or with sub-par gear. I think the point here is that we of the audio persuasion submit that indeed sub-par video will be forgiven more readily if the sound is great. But sub par audio with great video is less likely to pass as acceptable. Why? Because dialog tells the story, and the story is most important.

If you had to choose between being deaf, and being blind which would you choose and why?
Click to expand...

I don't think the disucssion was remotely in the direction of using 'what would I live with, if I had to lose either sight or sound'.

I see the discussion of the evaluation of the weight one puts on sight or sound. But even that has 'philosophical' difficulties, because in some ways it is dependent on the material at hand. Making a movie on Beethoven, and 'adjusting' the sound to approximate his hearing loss over the course of the movie... may get a 'bravo' on the experiemental side... but most people would not particularly enjoy, or 'recommend to others' such a work.

Movies on music are almost necessarily 75%-80% 'sound'... (I can't even imagine other than a gag reel, not having 100% sound for a music film...)

On the other hand, I think 'porn' can be watched without sound at all... if people watch porn... or admit to watching... to me 'porn' vocalizations are a completely unnecessary element of my viewing... purely for academic research of course...

The question for me is how much sound is required to really assist in the suspension of disbelief, to allow the viewer to become immersed in the film, and to 'forget' the outside world.

For some films, it could be as little as dialog and sufficient diegetic sound that mimics the 'real world' as depicted by the film. Do I 'need' a scream that has a lion's roar buried deep in the caverns of the sound track... for me such things are 'nice', but not essential. On the other hand, footfalls that match screen visuals... definitely adds to the immersive quality.

For others, and in my mind, typically 'fantasy' films, where major chunks of 'reality' are being constructed, especially with CGI, then 'sound' also seems to be driven to be equally as constructed, to give 'sound that you've never heard before', because you are watching a 'world you've never seen before'.

There is also the psychological aspect of 'sound'. Just as my 'motion sickness' watching visuals that are 'in motion', sound does stimulate emotional states. But I see both visual and audio working in concert, and not as some sort of percentage. The motto would be 'what works to induce in the viewer the desired emotional state'.

As a epilog point, The Wife has about 100 dB loss on hearing, sort of compensated with one hearing aid in the one 'good' ear.... My father due to Macular Degeneration has lost sight almost completely... I'll take hearing loss over loss of sight... while I could not enjoy any listening pleasure, just the simple act of 'getting around' is almost impossible for the blind... people do it of course... but their lives are far more regulated than those with hearing loss... which is sort of problem because unless someone notices the aid, most people will just think you're stupid...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top