SHORT: Unexpected

[drapeama]

I don't post a lot of stuff over here, but I'd like to share my last short film to date. I've learned a lot by reading and searching in threads here. It's been a learning curve since I've started.
It was originally supposed to be for a short film contest back in July, but due to actors availability and schedule conflicts, I've never been able to complete it before the deadline. Nevertheless, I've decided to complete the project, because I spent and invested a lot of time in it. I've even been able to get a license from www.mobygratis.com to use the song "Stella Maris" in it.
As usual, comments and criticism are welcome, being positive or not!

Here we are, 6 months later. The Youtube link has English Subtitles included:

Thanks to everyone that will spend the time to watch it!

 

[Noiz2]

Wow no posts? I don't think folks come to this part of the site much unless redirected (as I was) from another part of the site.

So notes.

Pretty good. Actually a lot better than many films I have looked at for festival submissions. The editing seems good. I'm a sound person and bad editing will jump out at me but I'm sure a real editor would have some tweaks that I just don't see.
Sound though, could use some help.

Production quality (or post cleanup) is good, nothing stands out as a problem, no handling noise or big background noise etc. But there is a lack of post work (FX) that hurts the film a bit. When there is a lack of sounds we expect to hear it takes the audience out of the world of the story and puts them back in the theatre watching a film. So for instance the kid needs some footsteps in the opening. Before the phone call you should establish the rain because we can hear it in that scene but we , as an audience, don't know if it's raining or it's a production problem. You need to lead an audience so they can stay in your world. Some clear indicator that it IS raining before that scene would make the rain we hear part of the world rather than a technical question that pulls us out of the world. Also there is some missing Foley with some device (wine opener?) in that scene.

Washing dishes, we want to hear the water clearer, and the washing sounds. And the drawing in the book. We are close on that and can't hear it. Bicycle sounds, we want to hear him riding. Guy walking to car needs footsteps and the trunk close is out of sync.
Again bicycle sounds, cooking sounds and the accident are all lacking coverage.

Now you could do a complete coverage of it all but you could also be selective. But if you don't have enough it starts becoming a music video. The music sets a tone but it is NOT the world of the film, so you need to keep enough of the world present that the audience stays IN the world of the film and the music is just an emotional guide.

For instance with the accident you could go total coverage and have tire chirps and the impact and body falls etc. That would be a bit "Hollywood Action" probably and not really the tone of the film. But you could also be very selective and stay in the mood you have but give enough sounds to keep us in the world. So I would have sounds for the bicycle down, helmet roll, wheel spinning, etc. If you use a close up to focus on a specific element I want to hear that element. I would probably also have some understated bump for the actual hit. And I would probably also cover the car leaving the scene. I would also have covered the chopping etc in the kitchen so you get a real cut back and forth of the two scenes.

A lot of low budget filmmakers use music as kind of a big whitewash to cover missing sounds and bad production etc. And the problem is that as I mentioned it takes the audience right out of the world the story takes place in and puts them in the safe world of a movie theatre (or wherever they are watching the film). That sucks the emotional involvement right out of the film and really hurts moments like the crash because your audience is a voyeur instead of a participant.

Your film has some of those elements but I don't think enough. I suspect that it's because of what was and wasn't in the production tracks. And there in lies the irony. To use a lot of music and not loose the audience you need a lot of good production sound or a bunch of post sound FX work and low budget filmmakers tend to try and use music to compensate for inadequate production and post work.

The explanation is more to make the point because you are actually 80% of the way there and as far as I can tell have good production tracks.

What I would do is go through the film again with the idea of looking at sound like you looked at the visuals. So where you want us to focus our visual attention you should also make us focus our aural attention.

You could also fill out ore of the background sounds, but those are going to compete with the music so if there is music playing I would probably not add much in the way of backgrounds. OR add backgrounds and trim down the music, but that is a real rethinking of the film so? I would probably leave the BG's alone and just concentrate on the "hard FX" (the stuff that we clearly see that we expect to hear, and the stuff you make us visually focus on. That is not a huge amount of work and I think you will be very surprised at how much more impact the film will have.

Then enter this in some festivals because it looks good and it's the right length, AND you have managed to tell just enough story that it fits in a short. That is not a small accomplishment.

Oh and the phone scene (and maybe some others?) could use some color grading and a bit of a bump in brightness. You can't just crank up the brightness though or it will screw with the image so you probably need to do some actual image enhancement in a color correction program or After Effects with say Magic Bullet Looks. It's a minor thing but it would help that scene.

 

[drapeama]

Wow no posts? I don't think folks come to this part of the site much unless redirected (as I was) from another part of the site.

Most probably. I think I've already linked it in the other thread, first post.

Pretty good. Actually a lot better than many films I have looked at for festival submissions. The editing seems good. I'm a sound person and bad editing will jump out at me but I'm sure a real editor would have some tweaks that I just don't see.

Thanks for the kind words! Gives a bit of encouragement here! Looks like I'm not off the track.
I've already asked one of my friend (who works for CBS here in Canada) and he already told me a couple things that I should/could fix. Most of them were minors, but still.

Production quality (or post cleanup) is good, nothing stands out as a problem, no handling noise or big background noise etc. But there is a lack of post work (FX) that hurts the film a bit. When there is a lack of sounds we expect to hear it takes the audience out of the world of the story and puts them back in the theatre watching a film.

I had my mic on a mic stand, in the RØDE pistol grip for all the dialog scene. Mic was a close as possible and just out of the framing.
I've used my Audio-Technica MB4k for the dialog indoor, which gave the best results. It's not a mic that comes recomended often, but used with my JuicedLink CX211 preamp, it gave more than decent results to my ears. I reckon that some FX are missing, mostly because I haven't been able to capture sound on location while shooting (one-man-crew). And I ran out of time to record some foley outside before the Falls. I could have wait, but I would have released it only next summer, which is a bit over-pretentious for a short film. So, I made that compromise and released the short film with some flaws in the audio.

Washing dishes, we want to hear the water clearer, and the washing sounds. And the drawing in the book. We are close on that and can't hear it. Bicycle sounds, we want to hear him riding. Guy walking to car needs footsteps and the trunk close is out of sync.
Again bicycle sounds, cooking sounds and the accident are all lacking coverage.

Most of the sound of the washing dishes were actual on-location sound from the dialog track. I haven't took the time to record another track to mix with that one.
Same from the drawing. I should have recorded a foley session with all these little sounds. Being a one-man-crew is sometime, exhausting.

Now you could do a complete coverage of it all but you could also be selective. [..] The music sets a tone but it is NOT the world of the film, so you need to keep enough of the world present that the audience stays IN the world of the film and the music is just an emotional guide.

I think I wanted to be more selective when Moby's music comes in. The accident and the kid riding on bicycle was intended to be almost without FX. From when he leave the house on his bike, the sound of the bike slowly fades out. From there, I wanted to use the "lack" of sound on his scenes as a sign that he was already "leaving". Maybe it doesn't make more sense, but that how I saw it when I wrote it.

Your film has some of those elements but I don't think enough. I suspect that it's because of what was and wasn't in the production tracks. And there in lies the irony. To use a lot of music and not loose the audience you need a lot of good production sound or a bunch of post sound FX work and low budget filmmakers tend to try and use music to compensate for inadequate production and post work.

I did the sound while seting up the light while doing all the camerawork at the same time, or mostly. A lot of things should have been planned and recorded on location for the production tracks, to save some time in post and with the Foley recording. But it never been done.
I think I've indeed, tried to compensate with the music, which wasn't enough. People really enjoyed the music choice, but as you're an audio guy, it picked you up on the first listening.

The explanation is more to make the point because you are actually 80% of the way there and as far as I can tell have good production tracks.

Thanks. I should have pushed the audio mix a bit more, but when I was mixing it, I've asked a couple question about some hardware for my setup. Many people referenced the calibration and other details. I think I've stopped to put a lot of work in it at that point. I can't really do a proper calibration in the basement, and untill I move (in 5-6 months) I won't have an ideal room setup. So I made that compromise here as well.

That is not a huge amount of work and I think you will be very surprised at how much more impact the film will have. [..] Then enter this in some festivals because it looks good and it's the right length, AND you have managed to tell just enough story that it fits in a short. That is not a small accomplishment.

It's not much, I reckon. I was already there anyway! But I got discouraged by the discussion on the other thread. I've done most of the mix using headphones (which is the worst thing to do). Everything sounds fine, with headphones, but on speakers, it's horrible. Bass management is not done properly, sound paning and other details are bad. I'll eventually re-work that audio track, but for now I just wanted the film to be released, as I already spent 6months working on that project. I wanted to move to another one. So, audio reflects the neglected work.

Oh and the phone scene (and maybe some others?) could use some color grading and a bit of a bump in brightness. You can't just crank up the brightness though or it will screw with the image so you probably need to do some actual image enhancement in a color correction program or After Effects with say Magic Bullet Looks. It's a minor thing but it would help that scene.

The phone scene has been shot with a good lighting, then used some "day-for-night" process to darken it a bit. On my monitor (calibrated using this method) it looked fine. It's dark, but it was intended that way. I did all the color correction in After Effects, to match all the scenes and used the rendered/corrected videos to edit after. It's not common, but that's my workflow and I like it.

 

[Noiz2]

Trying to record FX when in production is one of those things that low budget filmmakers some how get in their heads is a good thing. Like wanting to record the "real" sound, it's usually a mistake.
The biggest reason is that sound on your set is the sound of the world you are shooting your film in not the world your story takes place in. The second biggest is that sets are noisey and you should be trying to get clean dialog and nothing else.

You should plan from the beginning to record sounds you need (or have someone else do it) entirely separately from the filming. IF the location your shooting in has some unique sounds that you might need then you should record those but try to do it when the shooting is over and the crew has packed up and is at the bar.

weather is an issue in some places. I used to be on the west coast and it wasn't generally a big deal (no scorching heat and no snow), but I'm in Detroit now and you definitely have a window of opportunity you need to keep in mind. In future remember that you can record sounds anytime. If your working on a script about XYZ in the summer and it's spring go record some ambiences before you start shooting. I would do some winter ones now incase you need them some time in the future. You can also sometimes find others with FX libraries that they may let you use. I got a stack of musket sounds when I asked on the DUC. Sound editors tend to be fairly free about loaning out their recordings, if you seem like a decent person. This is especially true if you live someplace they don't and have some recordings of your own to trade.

And lastly, it's your film and your vision. It's just my opinion. It's based on a lot of experience but it doesn't mean it's right for your project. I'm telling you what I as an audience would want and what in my experience works and doesn't. I have some theories on that but it's probably not a universal truth. I would give it a try with a bit more sound and see if you like it, if not don't do it.

As I kind of said on the other thread, you want to always mix at a consistent volume. Your mix sits right i there, I never felt I need to turn it up or down so I think you are actually doing a good job with over all levels.

Earphones will make small things stand out much more than speakers will. The stereo image is MUCH more extreme and it is VERY easy to add way too much reverb. IF you take those things in to account and keep your levels consistent you can do OK with headphones. Bass will also probably be diminished with headphones but if they are consumer ones it might actually be boosted. Either way it's probably a good idea to put a low cut in someplace between 20 and 80 Hz to get rid of any crazy subsonic stuff that might have creeped in.

 

[drapeama]

If your working on a script about XYZ in the summer and it's spring go record some ambiences before you start shooting. I would do some winter ones now incase you need them some time in the future.

Yeah! I'm still in the learning curve in the audio department! So, I never thought of doing something in prevision of, something else.
Good idea!

And lastly, it's your film and your vision. It's just my opinion. It's based on a lot of experience but it doesn't mean it's right for your project. [..] I would give it a try with a bit more sound and see if you like it, if not don't do it.

I'll see what I can do, once my setup will be somehow calibrated.

As I kind of said on the other thread, you want to always mix at a consistent volume. Your mix sits right i there, I never felt I need to turn it up or down so I think you are actually doing a good job with over all levels.

Thanks! I've read about that and the -12dB thing, and I tried to respect it as much as possible, but I was probably doing it "blindly", not knowing exactly what I was doing!

Earphones will make small things stand out much more than speakers will. The stereo image is MUCH more extreme and it is VERY easy to add way too much reverb. IF you take those things in to account and keep your levels consistent you can do OK with headphones. Bass will also probably be diminished with headphones but if they are consumer ones it might actually be boosted. Either way it's probably a good idea to put a low cut in someplace between 20 and 80 Hz to get rid of any crazy subsonic stuff that might have creeped in.

Yeah, I've seen that when I played it back on speakers. The bas was horrible and some sound were louder than I thought with headphones.
I know that next time, it'll be on speakers for sure.

 

[Noiz2]

Trying to record FX when in production is one of those things that low budget filmmakers some how get in their heads is a good thing. Like wanting to record the "real" sound, it's usually a mistake.
The biggest reason is that sound on your set is the sound of the world you are shooting your film in not the world your story takes place in. The second biggest is that sets are noisey and you should be trying to get clean dialog and nothing else.

You should plan from the beginning to record sounds you need (or have someone else do it) entirely separately from the filming. IF the location your shooting in has some unique sounds that you might need then you should record those but try to do it when the shooting is over and the crew has packed up and is at the bar.

weather is an issue in some places. I used to be on the west coast and it wasn't generally a big deal (no scorching heat and no snow), but I'm in Detroit now and you definitely have a window of opportunity you need to keep in mind. In future remember that you can record sounds anytime. If your working on a script about XYZ in the summer and it's spring go record some ambiences before you start shooting. I would do some winter ones now incase you need them some time in the future. You can also sometimes find others with FX libraries that they may let you use. I got a stack of musket sounds when I asked on the DUC. Sound editors tend to be fairly free about loaning out their recordings, if you seem like a decent person. This is especially true if you live someplace they don't and have some recordings of your own to trade.

And lastly, it's your film and your vision. It's just my opinion. It's based on a lot of experience but it doesn't mean it's right for your project. I'm telling you what I as an audience would want and what in my experience works and doesn't. I have some theories on that but it's probably not a universal truth. I would give it a try with a bit more sound and see if you like it, if not don't do it.

As I kind of said on the other thread, you want to always mix at a consistent volume. Your mix sits right i there, I never felt I need to turn it up or down so I think you are actually doing a good job with over all levels.

Earphones will make small things stand out much more than speakers will. The stereo image is MUCH more extreme and it is VERY easy to add way too much reverb. IF you take those things in to account and keep your levels consistent you can do OK with headphones. Bass will also probably be diminished with headphones but if they are consumer ones it might actually be boosted. Either way it's probably a good idea to put a low cut in someplace between 20 and 80 Hz to get rid of any crazy subsonic stuff that might have creeped in.