True percentage of audio? 50% 70%??

MrSeth

MrSeth

Well-known member
This may be a useless question but.. I always hear the statement "Audio is 50% of your movie" and sometimes that percentage goes up to 70%, and sometimes its as low as 10%.

So what's the real number? Or is it relative to the story and the audio quality?
 
My personal opinion is more like 70%, your eyes will forgive a bad image, your ears will tell you it's trash if the audio is bad.
 
The saying that "sound is half the picture" or "70% of what you see" is very misunderstood. As often as it is cited around here, I think there's a huge clarification that needs to be made.

Personally, I go with 70%. But when I call it 70% of the picture, it really has to do with the overall experience. Sound is 70% of the watchability. As ChipG pointed out, your eyes will forgive a sub-par image long before your ears will forgive sub-par audio. This doesn't mean that you should worry much less about getting a good image, but it means that bad sound will kill your production faster. This means that you need a well-thought sound design, clean production sound, and well-executed audio post.

Even absence of sound is part of sound design, and can be used effectively to shift the viewer's focus closer to the image, or a part of the image.
 
Se my signature line below. I have used it since I joined this forum. Millions of people still listen to radio every hour, and even dramatic content on radio.

But take the most compelling film/video you have ever seen and watch it without sound. (And without remembering what the sound was like the first time you saw it.)

No question that some spectacular visuals have been created. Anybody who saw Avatar in 3D would agree. But without sound, it would only be a special effects novelty.
 
Here's the deal... people will forgive problems with the image if the sound is "present"... but nobody will forgive sound that isn't somewhat "real".

Think Blair Witch, etc. The images get pretty poor at times... but the sound is always appropriate to the images.

In another words... given an overall production... the images have more allowance to be sub-par then the sound does.

To name a specific percentage is based on opinion... call it 1% or 99%...
 
It's obviously just a saying that has no scientific meaning.

To put it in realistic terms (if that's what it takes to understand), bad sound ruins films. There's no equation that tells you how bad it's allowed to be. People will notice if it doesn't work.
 
enginyr said:
Do most movies that have "good" sound shoot with boom mics or are the voiced over in a studio.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that question even exists. Most films, the overwhelming majority (of professional films) are done with a boom mic as the "hero" source and maybe lavs etc.

Hollywood probably on average does (well uses) less dubbing that low budget indi's do. A lot of the legends of Hollywood ADR are what was recorded, not what was used. Titanic, a film I know, recorded around 95% ADR, but used less that 40% maybe as low as 20%. And the reason we used that much was because FOX was building a studio around the ship so there was a LOT of construction sounds in that "big ocean". Many films end up using a line or two. Hollywood as a rule HATES ADR. Italian films of a certain age were entirely ADR'd. Though that is a bit of a misnomer since many of those films were shooting a story and the actual words cam during the edit so it was not actually ADR it was original post dialog. They can get away with it because almost all of their market is non Italian speaking so it is going to be dubbed anyway for almost all the viewers.

Since there is no scale you can point to that will tell you which film has "good sound" nobody can really answer your question in a meaningful way. And say we did? What difference does it make? Sound gets 5%-10% of the budget on a decent film. Are you going to give it 50%? If so where do I sign up!

If your sound centered then it's more important to you. If your a visual person then it's not. People keep saying bad sound will pull you right out of the picture. Well it certainly can. But it can be pretty OK and still be fine if the story and the visuals are good. If the visuals suck your lost also. Part of the reason you get the reaction you do to this question is that low budget films are disproportionately crappy in the sound. They often have acceptable visuals and god awful sound. If most indi's put sound at say 10% it would be a mile of a difference. But they spend as little as possible on production. Imagine having your DP as someone who has never seen a camera before? Now how many indi's have volunteer PA's do the boom work? And sometimes they are the ONLY sound person. Then they get to post and someone with experience is going to cost a bit. So they go with some guy who "does music". I put that in quotes because there are some music folks on this list and I don't want to throw them in with the "dude who does music" folks who generally want to do your post in garage band because it came free with the computer. What comes out is AWFUL. It's not even 1%. It's often garbage at best. So folks say 75% because if you 1/2 believe them maybe you'll budget 3% and then they have a chance.


Don't use a %. Read your script. Know what it needs and feed the machine. If it needs 99% visuals then give it 99%. But on that scene where it needs 80% sound give it that also. In the end it depends on the film and the scene, and maybe the word. Give every shot what it needs and you will have a great film. It still may not make your career/ money/ etc. But it will be a great film that was the best that it could be. And that is all you can really hope for. If you do that AND do it at the right time AND have some luck... Bob's your uncle, as a friend of mine like to say.
 
Assigning percentage points is absurd. A film is a complete experience, a marriage of sound and moving images. Everything involved contributes to form a cohesive whole that will involve an audience; cinematography and sound are the technical/creative elements involved.

Filmmaking is about creating a believable reality; anything that is not "real" will pull the audience out of their suspension of disbelief. Filmmakers do not shoot "reality"; everything is an artificial construct. A camera does not see in the same way that our eyes do during our everyday lives. Microphones do not "hear" the way that our ears do. Our brains provide a natural editing function, technology does not. In fact, technology places severe limitations on the process, and we use additional technology to compensate for this. Filmmaking is the art of tricking the mind into believing what it sees and hears.

Whether the dialog is production sound or ADR does not really matter; what matters is the audiences belief that the words spoken by the actors are convincing. And when a film finally makes it to audio post everything except the dialog is stripped away and recreated with Foley and sound effects. The buzz word for most sound design work is "organic," using real objects to create the illusion that what you are hearing is real.

Few actors can match, much less improve upon, their on-set dialog performance which is the reason that production sound is preferred over ADR; on the set an actors entire being is involved in putting across the character - the dialog performance matches the physical performance; in other words, it's organic.

One of my favorite sayings when I am out marketing myself is "Sound is half of the experience." What it really means, however, is that only two of our of our five senses are involved, our eyes and our ears; the sound of the film is therefor as equally important as the visual aspects.
 
For me, I would say sound decides for 70% your movie makes it or brakes it.

But... good image, good acting, good props, good lightning is also important (for me though) to be able to make a good sound design.

As said before, sound mistakes are faster heared then image mistakes are viewed.
Simple example... to late with the focus --> to late with adjusting the volume....
The first wil not been seen as a mistake, the second will.

But sound has (for some) always been "just a part of the image... a tale... not important... it's normal it's there. Everyone has been mostly been busy with taking pictures and filming, but not with recording sound.
 
Yeah, a percentage is not the best way to think about sound importance...

Its going to heavily vary on what your scene is or what your are shooting. "Good Sound" is a broad statement and a lot of factors go into recording, mixing and mastering audio for moving images...

Some quick things that are a must...

Dialog - Needs to be clean, and easy to understand - usually the most important.

Ambient sounds/room tone - Should be static from shot to shot in the same scene, then change from scene to scene. 2nd most important...

SFX and Music Score is less important, but also helps tell the story

... at least IMO

And if you can, stay far away from ADR and especially wild lines... Getting the audio right the 1st time around saves a lot of work and $$$.

I was always told - You can close your eyes, but never can close your ears...
 
Last edited:
The true percentage for the importance of sound in movies is 43%.

(A joke, for the sarcasmly challenged)

Each person can evaluate their own individual percentage by following the money. What you spend on sound in relation to what you spend on images, and you have your answer.

Do you have a home theater? How much did you spend on speakers and/or how much consideration did you give the room towards acoustics? Take a look at your production gear package... I've always had way more in sound then image. Follow the money (and time invested) and you'll have your percentage.

By the time I'm done with mine I'd say sound is legitimately over 80% of the experience for me. (I'm building specifically for acoustics, etc.)

Y%MV
 
Besides all that has been said on this thread, I'd like to say that ALL the big cinema theorists see cinema as a visual experience (from what it's born), as opposed to an audible one!

Many contemporary theorists go further in their analysis stating that - EVEN TODAY - all cinema is silent, relying in the image their capabilities to tell the story, not the sound.

You may remember that the 30's were cinema's worst decade, just because storytellers started to rely on sound to tell their stories. A mistake that some bright movie-makers surpassed with true amazing films in the American classic period that followed.

But I understand the basis of the question. I can't argue with the importance of sound being me a documentary movie-maker working majorly on the direct cinema footsteps initiated by names as the Maysles brothers, the Drew associates, Rouch, and others.

Nonetheless, putting things like that (in percentages), is understating a much broader importance of both images and sound.
 
It's completely subjective IMHO. Everyone experiences things differently.

And in any "good" film a director has a vision which every element supports. Take away any of them and it can collapse the film.

Costumes, production design, sound effects, music, lighting, ect... the story depends on them working together.
 
Nope, it's 43%.

Okay seriously... you don't think it's fair to look at the percentage of money spent on image vs. sound in the venue?

I thought that was a reasonable way of looking at it.

My favorite theaters have a predictably decent audience (I avoid theaters where the movie is repeatedly ruined by an ignorant audience)... big screen with quality image (usually prefer digital)... comfortable seats... and great sound.

The typical theater (public or private) puts a lot of consideration into reproducing sound well... with both gear and architecture.

Sound isn't everything... but it's pretty important as a general rule. Content... on the other hand, is everything... nobody's denying that. (addressing your last sentence naavt).

We're discussing the importance of an ingredient within a recipe, but everybody understands that if the recipe doesn't taste good the ingredient doesn't matter.
 
Well said Mattin, but I would go with 53%..... :thumbsup:

Generally audio is not as expensive as video... in production... but in a venue it could all over the place. So may be hard to calculate that...
 
I don't think investment is really a fair assessment, because every movie is different. Heck, even watching the same more on different days changes what I get out of it.

When Followship of the Ring hit theaters I saw it twice on opening day (my eyes hurt afterwards), but I remember appreciating the sound far more on the 2nd viewing and the visuals more the 1st time. Same theater, same movie, watching it back to back.

Or as a different example, the costumes of Saving Private Ryan were likely VERY cheap compared to the visual effects. But if the soldiers would've been dressed in pink bunny costumes no one would've noticed the VFX.
 
MattinSTL said:
Do you have a home theater? How much did you spend on speakers and/or how much consideration did you give the room towards acoustics? Take a look at your production gear package... I've always had way more in sound then image. Follow the money (and time invested) and you'll have your percentage.
Click to expand...

I think early on, the most expensive item we bought back in the early 80's was a closed captioned device... that made movies completely understandable to The Wife...

These days about the only theater presentations we go to are ones that have open captions.

I've been talking about it, but most likely in the next few years I'll be taking up signing...

But I'll agree sound is important. When The Wife was doing more seminars in the late 90's, we bought some pretty expensive sound output devices (ok expensive by our standards), at around $1500, and I took up using After Effects, to put together presentations that didn't involve a slide carousel... in that regard, we also bought a $5K projector, so we absolutely could have as much control over the presentation as we possibly could...

The weird thing was we never used that stuff at home... for one thing, it was too much of a hassle to pack it up for the presenations...

Then again, even in the visuals we probably don't sync up with most people's setup, we usually watch DVD/Bluray's at 1/2 zoom factor...
 
Richard Crowley said:
Se my signature line below. I have used it since I joined this forum. Millions of people still listen to radio every hour, and even dramatic content on radio.

But take the most compelling film/video you have ever seen and watch it without sound. (And without remembering what the sound was like the first time you saw it.)

No question that some spectacular visuals have been created. Anybody who saw Avatar in 3D would agree. But without sound, it would only be a special effects novelty.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I got to see it in IMAX 3D, and while the visuals were amazing, the huge sound system did reveal some flaws that I picked up on (like a low end rumbling that went on a little after hometree was blown up. I even picked up on what I think might have been ADR because it sound so different from everyone else's lines in that scene).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top