Why a lavalier instead of a boom on a stand?

[Alex H.]

Also, anyone that has ever worked in broadcast TV knows that you
don't bury a lav mic 'under clothes'. The tiny mic part of the lav mic
is in open air, and the cord is what you hide. Behind a tie, under a collar
or similar. Is that what you meant? You don't want the mic itself
under clothes or you get to much rustling. So yes, sometimes you have
to 'invade their space' to dress the cord. Can you see the mic? If you look
closely, they are pretty small these days. I wouldn't say it's a 'look' I'm going
for but it doesn't bother me....others may feel different.

Not true at all. There are many, many techniques for burying lavs that place the capsule completely underneath clothing. The capsule is most certainly not always exposed. While the cable is (at least, should be) always dressed and out of sight, the question is whether the actual capsule is to be seen or not. For news, it's not always a big deal and the mic is often clipped in plain sight. For narrative, the mic is never exposed. For lifestyle/news magazine, it's often producer's preference (or network's oreference) but commonly hidden. For docs, it's director's choice and often dependent on the experience of the doc crew.

 

[Noiz2]

It's pretty easy to make claims without having any idea of what
you are talking about. For example, you somehow 'know' that
a travel pole could fit in my existing light kit with the light stands?
...

In the end, isn't it basically what you are saying is that you would make different compromises
than me? I think that's great, honestly. Because the world would be an awfully boring place
if we were all the same!

I disagree with that characterization. Now exactly how much someone who names themselves "camera dude" is going to worry about sound is probably a good question but basically you are just justifying your choice in bringing a LOT of camera and lighting and not caring about sound. You are not alone but when you start throwing in things like green screens as being the same as proper mixing you really loose it. If your bag is so impossible to pack buy a bigger one or carry fewer lights. You could even have an extra bag of lights in the car for when you really do need ive lights for a sitdown interview.

You are not going to do this because you just don't care about the sound all that much. Many clients don't either on non narrative work. It's always interesting when I get a gig with folks and we manage to do a full post and they are really impressed with how much better and different that their "usual' videos are. And then come back next time with a short turnaround and no budget for sound...

So I'm not saying it's a bad business model, but it is a choice. A stand cable and mic, boom etc would add five to ten pounds to your kit IF you kept everything and just added. Comparing that to setting up a greenscreen, more stands lights lots more time, not to mention the time in post is just silly. It's like saying my cooper mini wont hold it all and getting a larger car is equivalent to getting a 26 foot truck.

It would be a little extra weight and maybe a little extra time. You don't do it because you don't care enough.
It would be different if your stance from the beginning was you just like the sound of a lav better, but that isn't the case you actually like the sound of the boom better. So it's a choice based on what you are interested in and has nothing to do with your bag, or set up time, or ...

I wouldn't care except there is going to be someone new to sound that is going to read your posts and thing there are real issues instead of rationalizations.

 

[Rippie]

I wouldn't care except there is going to be someone new to sound that is going to read your posts and thing there are real issues instead of rationalizations.

Exactly. I don't care about his choices and there is nothing wrong with them if it works for him.
It's the logic behind the decisions that don't quite make sense to me.

 

[Rippie]

Also, anyone that has ever worked in broadcast TV knows that you
don't bury a lav mic 'under clothes'. The tiny mic part of the lav mic
is in open air, and the cord is what you hide. Behind a tie, under a collar
or similar. Is that what you meant? You don't want the mic itself
under clothes or you get to much rustling. So yes, sometimes you have
to 'invade their space' to dress the cord. Can you see the mic? If you look
closely, they are pretty small these days. I wouldn't say it's a 'look' I'm going
for but it doesn't bother me....others may feel different.

There is a lot wrong with your last post I don't even know where to start.
Sorry as a sound mixer of 20 years you do in fact "bury" lav's under clothing all the time.
I'm not going to give you a dozen examples in this post but its absolutely a norm. You can't always put the capsule on the edge of clothing. Period.
The reason I even stated something about you having visible mics is it absolutely affects your visual. Your picture would look better without
a mic in the shot. Do you HAVE to bury the mic? Of course not, but on anything except news I personally think it looks amateur hour.

As far as your natural light argument. It was purely an extreme example to say you could do without all your lights. Surely losing just 1
in place of a boom could work. I'm actually quite shocked you use 5 lights on a sit down interview.
I'm lucky to work with gaffers at the top of their game and it's an absolute rarity to use 5 lights for an interview unless green screen is involved. 4 is even more than usual.
That's my point. You'd rather use 5 lights than use less (to do the same job) than make room for better sound.

That's your choice, but don't pretend that you just "can't" do it because you need all your other gear.
The real answer is you'd rather have an excess of toys for the visual. Period.

 

[alaskacameradude]

I disagree with that characterization. Now exactly how much someone who names themselves "camera dude" is going to worry about sound is probably a good question but basically you are just justifying your choice in bringing a LOT of camera and lighting and not caring about sound. You are not alone but when you start throwing in things like green screens as being the same as proper mixing you really loose it. If your bag is so impossible to pack buy a bigger one or carry fewer lights. You could even have an extra bag of lights in the car for when you really do need ive lights for a sitdown interview.

You are not going to do this because you just don't care about the sound all that much. Many clients don't either on non narrative work. It's always interesting when I get a gig with folks and we manage to do a full post and they are really impressed with how much better and different that their "usual' videos are. And then come back next time with a short turnaround and no budget for sound...

So I'm not saying it's a bad business model, but it is a choice. A stand cable and mic, boom etc would add five to ten pounds to your kit IF you kept everything and just added. Comparing that to setting up a greenscreen, more stands lights lots more time, not to mention the time in post is just silly. It's like saying my cooper mini wont hold it all and getting a larger car is equivalent to getting a 26 foot truck.

It would be a little extra weight and maybe a little extra time. You don't do it because you don't care enough.
It would be different if your stance from the beginning was you just like the sound of a lav better, but that isn't the case you actually like the sound of the boom better. So it's a choice based on what you are interested in and has nothing to do with your bag, or set up time, or ...

I wouldn't care except there is going to be someone new to sound that is going to read your posts and thing there are real issues instead of rationalizations.

i'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Yeah, it's a choice, that's what I said.
Everyone has to make choices. You then say it would add 'a little extra weight
and set up time' but follow that up by asserting that my choice has nothing to do with
weight or set up time? As for 'proper mixing' vs. green screen it was an example.
An example of things I 'could' do that take almost the exact same amount of room
in my kit. Green screen takes one stand (as does the boom) and folds into one small
circle. Set up time is a little longer than a boom but not much more as it's a relatively
small pop out screen.

As as me bringing a 'lot' of camera and lighting, I bring no more than
I can carry in one trip in. I can carry a good bit but I definitely have my limits.
Could I make several trips? Sometimes although on more than half my
jobs I have very limited time for setup and making extra trips would
screw my ability to set up in time. So in come the choices. You'd bring the
bigger audio gear and fewer lights you say. Would it then be fair for me to say
you 'don't care' about the visual quality of the interview? Don't need five
lights? Really? Does it matter at all what kind of lights they are? Does
it matter at all how many people are being lit? Or are you just able to
categorically state that I 'don't need' five lights and if I choose to carry that
many instead of trading a couple of them for bigger audio gear that I
'don't care' about the audio?

These are real world choices a person has to make as a one man band.
As others besides me have posted, that is one of the reasons (extra
amount to carry and set up time) that a lav is chosen instead of a boom.
It's not not just me asserting this, I was actually agreeing with a previous
poster. Maybe, in the interest of education, you could post your kit and
how you set up an interview as a one person band? Chart with lighting
setup and audio set up along with a couple behind the scenes shots and a
screen cap of the way the interview looks? I'd certainly be interested
in seeing how you do things and what is different from how I do them.

 

[alaskacameradude]

There is a lot wrong with your last post I don't even know where to start.
Sorry as a sound mixer of 20 years you do in fact "bury" lav's under clothing all the time.
I'm not going to give you a dozen examples in this post but its absolutely a norm. You can't always put the capsule on the edge of clothing. Period.
The reason I even stated something about you having visible mics is it absolutely affects your visual. Your picture would look better without
a mic in the shot. Do you HAVE to bury the mic? Of course not, but on anything except news I personally think it looks amateur hour.

As far as your natural light argument. It was purely an extreme example to say you could do without all your lights. Surely losing just 1
in place of a boom could work. I'm actually quite shocked you use 5 lights on a sit down interview.
I'm lucky to work with gaffers at the top of their game and it's an absolute rarity to use 5 lights for an interview unless green screen is involved. 4 is even more than usual.
That's my point. You'd rather use 5 lights than use less (to do the same job) than make room for better sound.

That's your choice, but don't pretend that you just "can't" do it because you need all your other gear.
The real answer is you'd rather have an excess of toys for the visual. Period.

I use 5 lights on my interview set ups all the time (lots
of multiple person talking with each other interviews which is
one reason for two cams....one on a WS to give me time to frame
the CU up when they go from one person talking to another.)
And I think that a lot of 'available light' stuff looks 'amateur hour'.
Maybe you do different types of interviews than me, or maybe you
don't care about the lighting as much as I do. Repeatedly making
statements such as "Don't pretend you can't do it because you
need all your other gear.....you'd just rather have an excess of
visual toys...Period" sounds awfully arrogant. You know this
how? You know all about what kind of work I am doing and
know there is no way I actually need what I carry in?
I could use less lighting gear and 'do the same job' but
it's impossible to use less sound gear and 'do the same job?' Um....Ok.

I have no idea what type of work you do. Again maybe you could
educate me by posting a set up of how you do things and I could take notes.

 

[Alex H.]

First of all, to everyone here, we are starting to move past helpful discussion and into pissing match, so let's dial it back a bit for the sake of keeping it informative.

I could use less lighting gear and 'do the same job' but
it's impossible to use less sound gear and 'do the same job?' Um....Ok.

To be honest, that's exactly what is being discussed. Here's where I believe the confusion resides:

Light and sound are fundamentally different in how they are handled and gathered in production. Light is creating output. You can create more, create less, dim it, color-filter it, diffuse it, shape it, flag it, cut it. Now, imagine that you could only use one light. Well, you could pick a versatile light with high output and bounce it with reflectors and bounce cards to create your key, back, and fill. You can do it with one light because there are other tools to help shape it around the room, but multi-point lighting is much more versatile. And if you are working with four heads instead of five, you can create the virtual "fifth head" with other tools. When you use a multi-head light kit, they all work together. There is no selecting the best one out of two, three, or four when you go to edit.

Sound is gathering input, not creating output. Further, you cannot flag it or cut it (aside from hanging sound blankets). If the response pattern is wrong, the sound may be muddy and reverberant. The mic can be moved closer, that will only go so far. You cannot add a second mic on the other side to fill in the dark spots because you'll create phase issues, and you sure as heck don't want to put a reflective surface on the other side for the same reason. You cannot put barn doors on a mic. The job can be done with a single mic for a single talking head, and most often is, so... that mic must be the absolute best tool for the job. You have one chance to get that right. The job can be done with two mics, but the best one of the two will be chosen in post and the other record channel deleted from the timeline.

A compromise between four heads and five in the lighting kit has far less impact than a compromise on the one mic used to record dialog.

 

[Rippie]

Repeatedly making
statements such as "Don't pretend you can't do it because you
need all your other gear.....you'd just rather have an excess of
visual toys...Period" sounds awfully arrogant. You know this
how?

Take it as arrogance if that's how you want to see it. It's not meant to be.
I just don't feel the need to sugar coat things. Obviously everything I mention to you is an opinion as
I've stated repeatedly.
Getting back to your question.. how do I know?
I'll tell you how I know. 20 years of watching countless DP's and gaffers light an interview. That's how.
I've seen the best, I've seen the worst. I've seen countless approaches and creative ideas.
I've seen enough to know where you're playing at if you're mostly 1 man band on these things.
I can say (call it arrogance, I call it experience) more than likely if you're using 5 lights to light a sit down interview with
1 or 2 subjects you're doing it wrong. (wrong is a strong word, just trying to make a point).

Once again, if you like using 5 lights great! I mean that. There isn't a right or wrong (I was kidding above)
I'm just telling you in my opinion you might want to reconsider some of your choices if you truly have a "limit" to
how much gear you're going to carry.
Do you have to listen to my opinion? Of course not. Just like I said in my first post you're most likely not going to change.
That's fine. I want other people to know that if you're a camera guy out there doing 1 man band stuff, you can get
quality sound for not much more work, not much more hassle if you're willing to look outside your comfort zone
of just slapping a lav on everyone every time.


As far as you doing 2 person interviews looking both ways, thats different from what we have been discussing.
Of course that would take 2 mic's which you've never mentioned before in your posts.
Everything I've stated has to do with the discussion of regular style interviews.
If you've been talking about something other than that, perhaps thats where the confusion has come from.

 

[Rippie]

Alex, if my posts sound like a pissing match, sorry about that.
It truly isn't meant as that from my side. Feel free to delete any posts you feel are not helpful. . I just find it much simpler to not dance around issues
or discussion, but get right to the point. I have zero ill will towards cameradude.

 

[Noiz2]

Alex did a better job of pointing out the issue than I did.

To answer one question.

You'd bring the bigger audio gear and fewer lights you say. Would it then be fair for me to say
you 'don't care' about the visual quality of the interview? Don't need five
lights? Really? Does it matter at all what kind of lights they are? Does
it matter at all how many people are being lit? Or are you just able to
categorically state that I 'don't need' five lights and if I choose to carry that
many instead of trading a couple of them for bigger audio gear that I
'don't care' about the audio?

First off I'm a sound guy so yes absolutely I care more about the sound than the visuals, I'll own that. But before I was doing sound full time I was a lighting designer in theatre, among other things. So 20+ years of working in theatre and another? almost twenty in film has given me quite a lot of experience in lighting. From small productions to large, theatre and film and five lights for a sitdown is a LOT. Since we have been talking about ONE lav VS ONE boom, we have not been talking about a bunch of people being interviewed. If we had been talking about a panel or something that would have gone a different direction.

And I didn't say you didn't care, I said you didn't care enough.

But Alex is right this is getting a bit off track. The OP wanted to know why lav over boom. Ironically you have provided one of the reasons it happens, even if it's not one of the reasons it should.

There are lots of valid reasons to go with a lav over booming. A panel discussions is a case where it might be a lot better than trying to boom. A walk and talk might be another, though I have boomed a lot of those. It's sometimes a PITA to be tethered, though a wireless hop would eliminate that.

Anyway five pounds is not a real reason, and neither is "I don't have room in my bag". The bag is what you get to hold the gear you carry. If it's not big enough then you have the wrong size bag or not enough of them.

Personal choice IS a valid reason, and it doesn't have to justify it with rationalizations. You may prefer the sound. Your clients are hiring you (a second time anyway) on the basis of what you gave them so if it's working then go for it.